Why Everyone Should Study Linguistics

<b>Forum for the discussion of Applied Linguistics </b>

Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2

womblingfree
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:34 pm

Post by womblingfree » Sun Mar 23, 2008 12:40 pm

woodcutter wrote:But, yes, exactly. Applied linguistics in practice has raided supposedly purely intellectual theories and brought them into the classroom in a dubious way. The application of theory in teaching has been a mess, and the "left-wing" or "progressive" bias, for want of better terms, has been the most constant thing.
This all sounds very reactionary. The idea that all branches of Applied Linguistics do not subscribe to the same academic standards as every other discipline is ridiculous.

I'm not sure how you have reached the conclusion that 'progressive' methods are being applied inappropriately. What methods are you talking about? Where are they being applied inappropriately? Shall we all stick with audiolingual parrot learning?

Would you prefer no advancement in teaching practise or the understanding of language or apply Linguistics inappropriately rather than have a multitude of disciplines researching the different aspects of spoken and learned language and communication?

Is the speech therapist, informed by Psycholinguistics and handling a car crash victim guilty of 'left-wing' bias? Making such unsubstantiated claims seems to lean on the side of 'right-wing' bias wouldn't you say?

Branches of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics are not embroiled in some kind of ideological struggle, they are different disciplines for different purposes.

lolwhites
Posts: 1321
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Post by lolwhites » Sun Mar 23, 2008 3:46 pm

I certainly think it's the case that new ideas can be acceptaed far too uncritically by practitioners and policymakers: NLP, Multiple Intelligences and Learning Styles immediately spring to mind. But I don't see that as having being a problem with Applied Linguistics, but rather a failure by teachers to understand how academic research should be applied to the classroom.

Part of the reason, I suspect, is that many ELF teachers have an academic background in humanities, where one gains marks for making a good case for, say, an interpretation of a book rather than actually proving or disproving anything. They then read an article or go a workshop presented by some guru like Rinvolucri who dazzles them with some "research" and they just don't realise how sloppy and anecdotal some of this so-called "research" actually is.

woodcutter
Posts: 1303
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
Location: London

Post by woodcutter » Mon Mar 24, 2008 12:39 am

I don't want to hijack the thread with too many of my dubious "reactionary" opinions - they are there to be searched out....

Applied linguistics is really just the part of linguistics which seems to apply to language teaching, and should be called "linguistics for language teaching". Otherwise teachers studying it would have to spend a lot of time on things like forensic linguitics, and that would be pointless, and they don't do that, for the most part. (And you won't find an "applied linguistics" part of a law forum).

Stephen Jones
Posts: 1421
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm

Post by Stephen Jones » Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:27 am

---"I have never met anyone qualified in applied biology. Dentists study dentistry, and teachers should ideally study teaching. "-----

Which is what most teachers do. The subject is called education.

----"Applied linguistics is really just the part of linguistics which seems to apply to language teaching, and should be called "linguistics for language teaching"------

Applied linguistics is much wider; that many courses are in effect only looking at its application to language teaching is another matter.

-----"And you won't find an "applied linguistics" part of a law forum"-------

Actually in the UK the analysis was applied by lawyers not linguists. The result was that it became obvious police transcripts of interviews were not what they claimed to be, and the result has been video taping. In the US the tendency of the police to try with sting operations has meant that analysis of hidden tapes is much more important. I only know of Roger Shuy's work on the matter as far as the States goes (his 'Inventing Language Crimes' is an excellent introduction to the theme).

The main reason for the spawning of degrees in Applied Linguistics is the inflation of qualifications. Not only do employers demand a Masters but they also require it be 'relevant' (the fact that nobody who employs a computer programmer or a physicist looks at the relevance of the Masters passes them by). As what drives demand for the degrees is not a love for the field, but a wish to get more money, there are rather too many involved who lack the necessary intellectual discipline. And then there is the bane of the Humanities, 'research', which generally translates to providing a useless tidbit of information that ticks all the checkboxes.

woodcutter
Posts: 1303
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
Location: London

Post by woodcutter » Mon Mar 24, 2008 4:18 am

I'm not sure about the money - people have always wanted that. In modern society though, there is a trend for any job to need higher and higher qualifications, even if they are not really necessary. The MA is the new BA, and if you don't have one, your options are rapidly diminishing. So we all have to pour more and more of our cash into the ravenous academic machine.

The new PhD, by the way, is PhD plus intellectual-looking publications. So that creates a mountain of unreadable bilge.

trubadour
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:30 am

Post by trubadour » Mon Mar 24, 2008 6:15 pm

fluffyhamster wrote:Maybe I should have called this thread 'Why would anyone study linguistics?!' instead. :twisted: :lol: :D 8)
I have to agree with you there.

trubadour
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:30 am

Re: Why Everyone Should Study Linguistics

Post by trubadour » Mon Mar 24, 2008 6:26 pm

fluffyhamster wrote:unstated linguistic premises
this is funny, because 'unstated linguistic premises,' - those which supposedly and conclusively determine the nature of language itself, are precisely what linguists can not find! Not that any equivalent lack of understanding ever stopped a budding economist in any comparable endeavor..

One day, we will all gather around and have a good laugh at these 'scientists' .. :roll:

fluffyhamster
Posts: 3031
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again

Post by fluffyhamster » Mon Mar 24, 2008 6:59 pm

Actually, Sowards (the author of the article that kicks off this thread) wrote that, but never mind! 8)

trubadour
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:30 am

Post by trubadour » Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:03 pm

Really? I promise to read it today, then!

Post Reply