"Three months after his father’s death, Dave was now ru

[metal56]

<As for whether this discussion is petty, well, the noticing that "now" (whatever anyone wants to call it) can co-occur with past tense, IS interesting. Arguing about metagrammatical labels ISN'T. >


I'll stop then. Wouldn't want to be accused of metagrammatical labeling.


BTW, when you said "above the level of the sentence", did you mean "intersentential"".

[metal56]

But my point was that Applied Linguistics is most certain NOT about the sort of grammar discussions that account for most of the posts on this forum. While knowledge of common pedagogic grammars does appear to be a professional badge of some sort in the EFL field (like a secret handshake among lodge brothers), it's not what applying linguistics to the processes of language learning is about.

I have nothing against people developing their basic awareness of how bits of the English langauge can work together for an effect (when employed by actual people out there in the actual world interacting through English). But grammar discussion are some else entirely from discussions of what linguistics ought properly to include and how it might be applied to the teaching of language.

Have you posted any new threads here which could serve as a model for us all? Y'know, kinda would help us realise what Applied Linguistics is really about?

[lolwhites]

Applied Linguistics is most certain [sic] NOT about the sort of grammar discussions that account for most of the posts on this forum

I don't think anyone here every seriously said it was, but if not here, where? There's clearly a need for a forum for teachers to have these sorts of discussions (otherwise they wouldn't take place) and none of the other forums are really appropriate either. There isn't a "Grammar" forum (maybe there should be, but there isn't) and the discussions here are certainly relevant to how we help our students learn if only because if we can't get the system clear in our own minds, how are we ever going to make it clear to anyone else?

Does it really matter that many of the discussions here don't fit exactly with a dictionary definition of Applied Linguistics?

[metal56]

Does it really matter that many of the discussions here don't fit exactly with a dictionary definition of Applied Linguistics?

It seems to matter more to some than others. Fluffy, for example has often demanded to know what many of my posts have to do with Applied Linguistics.

[fluffyhamster]

I think the "linguistics" can best be "applied" when

1) the examples on offer are well contextualized/easily contextualizable

2) the examples are of general and not just marginal interest (i.e. will appeal to the widest possible range of students and teachers)

3) the descriptive framework used and conclusions drawn aren't always couched in the terms of only one theorist, or of that theorist "versus" any others all the time (I'm not just talking about the "evils" of Lord Lovrmoted, but e.g. some Chomsky or Halliday fanatic bursting in and dropping loads of terms for us all to go study up on before we can potentially learn anything from the "conversation" let alone join in ourselves)

4) some actual applications, activities etc are suggested or invited beyond the discussion (however "interesting" that discussion may have been for those who cared to read it)

[metal56]

I think the "linguistics" can best be "applied" when

1) the examples on offer are well contextualized/easily contextualizable

2) the examples are of general and not just marginal interest (i.e. will appeal to the widest possible range of students and teachers)

, but e.g. some Chomsky or Halliday fanatic bursting in and dropping loads of terms for us all to go study up on before we can potentially learn anything from the "conversation" let alone join in ourselves)

4) some actual applications, activities etc are suggested or invited beyond the discussion (however "interesting" that discussion may have been for those who cared to read it)

<?contextualizable>

Why not, "the examples on offer are well contextualized/easily contextualized"?

<2) the examples are of general and not just marginal interest (i.e. will appeal to the widest possible range of students and teachers)>

Discussing marginal issues may help bring them into the arena of the non-marginal.

<, but e.g. some Chomsky or Halliday fanatic bursting in and dropping loads of terms for us all to go study up on before we can potentially learn anything from the "conversation" let alone join in ourselves)>

Which Hallidayan terms would you have a problem understanding?

These are some of the topics studied on an MA in Applied Linguistics:

"...bilingualism, neurolinguistics and aphasiology"

"...sociology and social psychology of linguistic variation"

"...politeness phenomena, language and disadvantage, multilingualism and ethnicity, language planning, and the social psychology of attitudes to language varieties and to speakers."

Do you think the study of those topics might just require one that one learn and use specific terminology?

[fluffyhamster]

<?contextualizable>

Why not, "the examples on offer are well contextualized/easily contextualized"?

When examples are somewhat strange or marginal, the poster usually has to contextualize them (the examples are thus contextualized for the reader); if the examples are unproblematical or intuitively appealing (ultimately due to their familiarity/frequency), then they will likely be "contextualizable" by the readers themselves, without any assistance (similar to unmarked/acceptable items, compared to those marked with an asterisk, in grammars)...not that any of this particularly matters, it's just how I chose to phrase things.

<2) the examples are of general and not just marginal interest (i.e. will appeal to the widest possible range of students and teachers)>

Discussing marginal issues may help bring them into the arena of the non-marginal.

May help, but equally, may not.

<, but e.g. some Chomsky or Halliday fanatic bursting in and dropping loads of terms for us all to go study up on before we can potentially learn anything from the "conversation" let alone join in ourselves)>

Which Hallidayan terms would you have a problem understanding?

'Hallidayan' may be necessary before 'terms' (or 'terms of Halliday's', 'of Halliday's terms' etc), but interestingly the adjectival form isn't before 'fanatic'; your "correction" here is therefore unwarranted.

Halliday's termimology (or similar) might well be useful, but that's not to say that one absolutely has to use it (see, for example, the recent thread on 'grammatical metaphor'...or is it ergativity? Or...?).

These are some of the topics studied on an MA in Applied Linguistics:

"...bilingualism, neurolinguistics and aphasiology"

"...sociology and social psychology of linguistic variation"

"...politeness phenomena, language and disadvantage, multilingualism and ethnicity, language planning, and the social psychology of attitudes to language varieties and to speakers."

Do you think the study of those topics might just require one that one learn and use specific terminology?

I wasn't objecting to terminology, especially where something is studied in depth (more likely, just touched upon, if such a range of courses were all compulsory rather than more in-depth options). The point I was trying to make is that examples of (used) language are ultimately what the language teacher's stock-in-trade is.

The Malmkjaer encyclopedia's entry on AL (by James Lantolf) is interesting:
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... 4617#14617

[metal56]

["fluffyhamster"]

May help, but equally, may not.

One can but try.

Halliday's termimology (or similar) might well be useful, but that's not to say that one absolutely has to use it (see, for example, the recent thread on 'grammatical metaphor'...or is it ergativity? Or...?).

One doesn't have to even pay attention to it if one does not want to. One can just jump into other threads and have fun. I can't see why each thread here has to be all things to everyone. Why should every thread appeal to or grab the interest of all posters? Why do you expect yourself to be able to join in every thread? It just isn't normal.

The point I was trying to make is that examples of (used) language are ultimately what the language teacher's stock-in-trade is.

That a major part of the job, yes, but it doesn't have to stop there. Discussing less frequent or unusual use can also help us understand our language as a whole.

I see the same problem here as always, Fluff. You seem to come here to get a quick fix for future lessons, but many times language points need a more considered, a deeper, approach.

As I've said before, if a poster doesn't like the content of a thread, he/she should move on to another. Why sit in a certain thread complaining about feeling left out and then go on to insist on a dumbing down of the language being used by those who may be enjoying the discussion in such a thread?

And, for example, the word "ergativity" certainly appears in discussions on many Applied Linguistics MAs, so why should it, be left out here?

[fluffyhamster]

Actually, I'm not interested in activities divorced from any discussion of language and linguistics - I like to see some evidence of thinking, and sound reasons, driving any pedagogy (which is why I rarely use much if any of the supposedly "practical" stuff that's posted online, or even published in books).

Of course, the creative potential of language ("grammar") is such that it is often hard to be sure that the links we tentatively forge between theory and practise are optimal, but that's no excuse to not appear to be trying (unless our aim really is to appeal only to a select coterie of readers).

It's not that anyone is opposed to theory, just that everyone has their limit (in terms of time, education, interests, personality, willingness, patience etc) when it comes to what is possibly jargon (=stuff that could be phrased in layman or student terms, and often ultimately in the form of well-chosen examples).

[metal56]

It's not that anyone is opposed to theory, just that everyone has their limit (in terms of time, education, interests, personality, willingness, patience etc) when it comes to what is possibly jargon

Yes, I agree, but such people should not enforce their own limitations on others. As I've said, again and again, find threads that interest you and that you can give time to. Don't expect others to dumb down or alter all their posts and threads to suit you.

[fluffyhamster]

I don't think keeping potential applications in the forefront of one's mind necessarily results in a "dumbing down", if anything it helps one focus and sort the wheat from the chaff. Anyway, most of the linguisticy stuff that is posted on Dave's thankfully isn't so involved that an attentive reader won't be able to work out the relevance (or not, to them as teachers) of an academic discussion.

[metal56]

I don't think keeping potential applications in the forefront of one's mind necessarily results in a "dumbing down", if anything it helps one focus and sort the wheat from the chaff. Anyway, most of the linguisticy stuff that is posted on Dave's thankfully isn't so involved that an attentive reader won't be able to work out the relevance (or not, to them as teachers) of an academic discussion.

Could you please define the "wheat" and the "chaff" in your reference?

This:

Anyway, most of the linguisticy stuff that is posted on Dave's thankfully isn't so involved that an attentive reader won't be able to work out the relevance (or not, to them as teachers) of an academic discussion.

seems to be a contradiction of this:

but e.g. some Chomsky or Halliday fanatic bursting in and dropping loads of terms for us all to go study up on before we can potentially learn anything from the "conversation" let alone join in ourselves

Am I wrong?

[fluffyhamster]

Look up 'chaff'.

No contradiction there really. I wasn't writing about Chomskyists or Hallidayanistas like they literally burst in every five minutes (note the 'e.g.') - not that there hasn't been a few, mind you - and upon reflection, I thought, hey, half of what e.g. metal56 posts isn't half as hard as hardcore Chomskyan stuff (not that the former stuff is any more the relevant).

[metal56]

Look up 'chaff'.

I thought, hey, half of what e.g. metal56 posts isn't half as hard as hardcore Chomskyan stuff (not that the former stuff is any more the relevant).

If this the thread topic is too difficult for you to understand, I'll let you pass.

[fluffyhamster]

This thread's original topic seems very straightforward/uncontroversial, and as lol has pointed out, it's been done before. The discussion's admittedly gone off at a slight tangent since then (thanks mainly to abu), but the only person who seems to be having difficulty following anything at the moment is you. But don't worry about it too much: if you keep up with posting the "new" threads enough, you're bound to come up with a winner eventually amongst all the duds, upon which you can again start making those patented multiple replies to yourself in between the odd comment here and there from users such as 'tumbleweed' or 'WTF'.