Applied Linguistics: What do YOU figure it means?
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 8:12 pm
Applied Linguistics: What do YOU figure it means?
Here's my take on it: "Some theorist, philosopher, research says X about language. Language teaching professionals ask themself, yeah and?" Applied Linguistics is where the answers are worked out.
I personally don't see how disussing the minutiae of pedogogic grammars contributes. Here are some linguistic facts/opinions that are (or should be) of interest language educators:
1. Vast quantities of the stuff we call language appears to occur in prefabricated chunks of one sort of another. VAST quantities!
2. Conversational interaction is not describable in terms of the sorts of static mentalist grammars preferred by orthodox linguists.
3. The language as tool metaphor may be wrong.
4. Learning as acquisition of mental rules might be wrong.
5. A neat and tidy idealized grammar may be little more than wishful thinking.
6. Or to pick something from the other side of the road, what role does grammatical competence play in language acquisition?
Any one of the above would be a juicy subject for discussion. But instead all we get is grammar questions.
I personally don't see how disussing the minutiae of pedogogic grammars contributes. Here are some linguistic facts/opinions that are (or should be) of interest language educators:
1. Vast quantities of the stuff we call language appears to occur in prefabricated chunks of one sort of another. VAST quantities!
2. Conversational interaction is not describable in terms of the sorts of static mentalist grammars preferred by orthodox linguists.
3. The language as tool metaphor may be wrong.
4. Learning as acquisition of mental rules might be wrong.
5. A neat and tidy idealized grammar may be little more than wishful thinking.
6. Or to pick something from the other side of the road, what role does grammatical competence play in language acquisition?
Any one of the above would be a juicy subject for discussion. But instead all we get is grammar questions.
I agree with a lot of what you say in terms of what does and doesn't constitute Applied Linguistics but...
Many students (and teachers) want to know about English grammar. Many aren't satisfied with what they read in the books (quite understandably) and come here to post questions. Students want to know about the system, new teachers want to give good explanations to their students. In the absence of a forum specifically to deal with these kinds of questions, they come here. If the discussions help to settle people's doubts and help them to become better teachers then it's worth doing.
I don't know how thoroughly you've checked the threads here, but the sort of questions you raise do come up now and again. OK, not most of the time, but it does happen. If you want to see more, why don't you start a thread yourself? I think you'll find plenty of us here would be happy to discuss the issues you mention.
Now I don't want to alienate you as a relatively recent poster on this forum, but it has to be said that noone here has the right to tell others what thet are allowed to discuss. Just join in the discussions you fancy and leave the boring grammar ones alone - noone will hold it against you.
Many students (and teachers) want to know about English grammar. Many aren't satisfied with what they read in the books (quite understandably) and come here to post questions. Students want to know about the system, new teachers want to give good explanations to their students. In the absence of a forum specifically to deal with these kinds of questions, they come here. If the discussions help to settle people's doubts and help them to become better teachers then it's worth doing.
I don't know how thoroughly you've checked the threads here, but the sort of questions you raise do come up now and again. OK, not most of the time, but it does happen. If you want to see more, why don't you start a thread yourself? I think you'll find plenty of us here would be happy to discuss the issues you mention.
Now I don't want to alienate you as a relatively recent poster on this forum, but it has to be said that noone here has the right to tell others what thet are allowed to discuss. Just join in the discussions you fancy and leave the boring grammar ones alone - noone will hold it against you.
-
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 2:21 pm
- Location: Brazil
Excellent! Stir it up with your thoughts on these matters by asking or giving your account on them and who knows it might take on? And we could even ask Lorikeet to ban for good the ones who dare ask any petty grammatical questions.Any one of the above would be a juicy subject for discussion. But instead all we get is grammar questions.
José
Re: Applied Linguistics: What do YOU figure it means?
How long have you been around here, AF? If you've only seen grammar questions, it can't have been long.abufletcher wrote:
Any one of the above would be a juicy subject for discussion. But instead all we get is grammar questions.
And, I asked if you has begun any threads of a specifically Applied Linguistics bent. If so, please direct me to them and I will try to keep up.
-
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 8:12 pm
I've only been checking in for a couple of weeks. But I assume these couple of weeks are pretty well representative of a larger corpus of posts. Just have a look at the current set of offerings and I think you'll see that it's pretty much grammar questions grammar questions grammar questions.
This seems to happen pretty much every time you get 2-3 EFL teachers together anywhere. And while people may claim it's just part of "learning about English so they can explain to students" I can't help feeling that it also a means of identity-building, e.g. "I can talk grammar therefore I am an EFL professional."
Since I'm new I haven't been starting many threads. I have noticed though that the only posts that seem to get a lot of replies are the grammar threads. The others tend to get a small number of replies and then quickly die.
This seems to happen pretty much every time you get 2-3 EFL teachers together anywhere. And while people may claim it's just part of "learning about English so they can explain to students" I can't help feeling that it also a means of identity-building, e.g. "I can talk grammar therefore I am an EFL professional."
Since I'm new I haven't been starting many threads. I have noticed though that the only posts that seem to get a lot of replies are the grammar threads. The others tend to get a small number of replies and then quickly die.
-
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
Look, this is no more than a table at a café. Dave's Esl Café. What does that tell you? It's not exactly the groves of Academe, is it?
"Applied Linguistics" is far too posh a title for 95% of what passes for meaningful content here. And bear in mind that this is the posh bit. If you want to plumb the depths then try other bits of Dave's.
So this is where we bash on about our pet manias, occasionally show a little erudition though not often, make it seem we know what we're on about, mildly insult each other , rant and only very occasionally trip over by accident some "real" stuff that might at a pinch be called Applied Linguistics.
"Applied Linguistics" is far too posh a title for 95% of what passes for meaningful content here. And bear in mind that this is the posh bit. If you want to plumb the depths then try other bits of Dave's.
So this is where we bash on about our pet manias, occasionally show a little erudition though not often, make it seem we know what we're on about, mildly insult each other , rant and only very occasionally trip over by accident some "real" stuff that might at a pinch be called Applied Linguistics.
-
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 8:12 pm
Wouldn't have it any other way.JuanTwoThree wrote:
So this is where we bash on about our pet manias, occasionally show a little erudition though not often, make it seem we know what we're on about, mildly insult each other , rant and only very occasionally trip over by accident some "real" stuff that might at a pinch be called Applied Linguistics.
I agree. Being an expert in grammar is not being an EFL professional.This seems to happen pretty much every time you get 2-3 EFL teachers together anywhere. And while people may claim it's just part of "learning about English so they can explain to students" I can't help feeling that it also a means of identity-building, e.g. "I can talk grammar therefore I am an EFL professional."
Let's have some good discussions then! Abufletcher, feel free to start a new thread.
Atassi
Sure, there must be plenty of teachers who know grammar but can't teach it, just as there are plenty of IT experts who wouldn't be able to teach IT skills. I'd regard a good level of grammatical knowledge/awareness as pretty much essential to anyone who wants to teach a language though.Being an expert in grammar is not being an EFL professional.
I wonder what you mean by "a good level of grammatical knowledge/awareness," although I assume that "awareness" can mean any educated native speaker (I did say "educated").
Helpful? Definitely. Necessary? Not so sure, but definitely necessary in certain classes.
I personally believe that knowledge of pedagogical issues and issues in SLA are crucial for any teacher to have. Even if I forget a grammar point, it will be in a book waiting for me to look up. The most important grammar to most of our students is the basic grammar of our language, which also happens to be made up of the easiest rules to not forget.
Feel free to take my poll, as I only mean it as a little changeof topics in this forum.
Atassi
Helpful? Definitely. Necessary? Not so sure, but definitely necessary in certain classes.
I personally believe that knowledge of pedagogical issues and issues in SLA are crucial for any teacher to have. Even if I forget a grammar point, it will be in a book waiting for me to look up. The most important grammar to most of our students is the basic grammar of our language, which also happens to be made up of the easiest rules to not forget.
Feel free to take my poll, as I only mean it as a little changeof topics in this forum.
Atassi
-
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Well, I certainly don't mean an encyclopedic knowledge of Thompson and Martinet or Swan - as you quite rightly point out, that's what books are for. A teacher isn't a walking reference book for students who can't be bothered to look anything up. Nevertheless, even an ENS can't always point out what's wrong with a given mistake, even if he or she can often tell a student what they should say instead. I would expect someone who gets paid to teach English to at least be able to give reasons and generalisable principles, something which is not taught in UK schools. I've met ENS's who didn't even know what a noun or verb was - this kind of thing is taught at primary school in most if not all of continental Europe.I wonder what you mean by "a good level of grammatical knowledge/awareness," although I assume that "awareness" can mean any educated native speaker (I did say "educated").
Very true. I agree with that, and it's clear that grammar knowledge is helpful in that way.Nevertheless, even an ENS can't always point out what's wrong with a given mistake, even if he or she can often tell a student what they should say instead.
Fluffy hamster, if one is organizing the syllabus, that knowledge is valuable yes.
Gotta go, I'll post a response later