Taken and Paraphrased from “The Handbook of Applied Linguistics by Alan Davies and Catherine Elder” Page three to five.
Definitions of applied linguistics may take the form of a short statement, such as: “the theoretical and empirical investigation of real-world problems in which language is a central issue” (Brumfit, 1997, p. 93); they may occupy a course leading to a degree or diploma; or they may be instantiated within the covers of a volume or a set of volumes. Of this last there are two kinds: there is the single author book (for example Corder, 1973; Davies, 1999) and there is the collection of edited papers. Collections have the advantage over the single author volume of wide and often specialist coverage of many areas, but they cannot compete with the single-author volume in terms of offering a coherent view of the field and indeed may give the sense of being assembled somewhat at random. In the last three years at least three edited collections have appeared: Grabe (2000), Schmitt (2002), and Kaplan (2002); and now we have this present volume. Schmitt and Celce-Murcia offer the following definition of Applied Linguistics, (which they place in inverted commas): “‘Applied Linguistics’ is using what we know about (a) language, (b) how it is learned, and (c) how it is used, in order to achieve some purpose or solve some problem in the real world” (Schmitt & Celce-Murcia, 2002, p. 1). They point out that: “Traditionally, the primary concerns of Applied Linguistics have been second language acquisition theory, second language pedagogy and the interface between the two, and it is these areas which this volume will cover” (Schmitt, 2002, p. 2). Grabe’s definition is not far away: “the focus of applied linguistics is on trying to resolve language-based problems that people encounter in the real world, whether they be learners, teachers, supervisors, academics, lawyers, service providers, those who need social services, test takers, policy developers, dictionary makers, translators, or a whole range of business clients” (Grabe, 2002, p. 9).
In both cases – and indeed more generally – the “real world” is contrasted with, presumably, the laboratory or, perhaps, the linguist’s intuition. And yet the real world is never accessible to research or teaching, as Labov (1966) has pointed out. And are students being taught a language in a classroom setting experiencing the real world? It has indeed been suggested that language teaching and the methods and materials it employs are no more representative of non-idealized spontaneous language use than are the grammatical examples that the linguist’s intuition calls up. In fact, of course (and again Labov makes this point) once language use is focused on for study and analysis it ceases to exist in the real world. We make this point not because we wish to argue against collecting samples of real language use but because we consider that the distinction between real and non-real is a flaky one. It may be that a helpful way of distinguishing between what linguistics and applied linguistics are concerned with is to distinguish between theory and data. Kaplan proposed that applied linguistics is simply not in the business of developing new theories. Its concern is with new data. Looking forward, Kaplan suggests that applied linguists “are likely to move toward the analysis of new data, rather than continue to argue new theory” (Kaplan, 2002, p. 514). As such, the linguistics that will be of most use to the upcoming applied linguistics will be descriptive linguistics.
Kaplan and Grabe used as the title of an earlier publication: “Applied linguistics as an emerging discipline (Grabe, 2000). How helpful is it to consider applied linguistics as a discipline (rather than say as a subject)? No doubt the labeling is a way of assuming coherence and at the same time of distinguishing between applied linguistics and linguistics. But is it appropriate to refer to applied linguistics, as Kaplan and Grabe do in their title, as an emerging discipline? It surely makes more sense to use the term “subject” rather than “discipline” for the bundle of issues and interests that Kaplan and Grabe survey (always remembering that there were many more that were not included). Nothing wrong with being a subject area, and, as we shall see shortly, that is exactly how applied linguistics started off and where, in our view, it still is; and that is where it should remain. Why must it develop as a discipline? To what end? Greater academic prestige? More access to research funds? Applied linguistics is not like psychology or English literature (Kaplan & Grabe’s two examples that applied linguistics should emulate in becoming a discipline). It is much more like medicine and particularly like general or family medicine. Here the notion of source and target is of interest, a notion that Kaplan and Grabe do not acknowledge, even though they pay homage to the “real-world language-driven problems and concerns” (2000, p. 40) in which, they say, it is generally agreed that applied linguistics is grounded.
By source we mean the content of a training program and by target the products the program aims at, what sort of career most trainees are being prepared for. What degree programs in other fields such as general medicine do is to say: What is our target? The presumed answer there is the family doctor who has sufficient knowledge to act as the first point of reference for sickness. Anything beyond that general knowledge, such as the provision of specialist consultants, requires further and often long-term training. But what all medics share is a common base training that is predicated on what the family doctor needs to know – his/her skills and knowledge. In the same way, we suggest, it is helpful to conceptualize all training for applied linguistics as aiming at the same target. And once that is decided (though of course its content will be controversial), then it becomes much easier to decide what is needed to prepare students aiming at that target. The advantage of selecting language teaching as the common target is that this area remains, by far, the career if not the choice of the largest numberof applied linguists. Of course, those with interests other than language teaching or who have a specialized interest in a research area of language teaching will require further research training, normally at PhD level.
If defining applied linguistics is problematic, is a definition of linguistics any easier to make? Does it encompass, as some would have it, anything and everything to do with language? Of course, putting it quite so baldly makes nonsense of the claim. If linguistics embraces all language behaviors then literature is part of linguistics. Linguistics may take account of the language of literary texts, just as it may analyze texts in different domains. But because it may be appropriate for linguistics to study scientific texts does not mean that science is part of linguistics. Hubris awaits! Linguistics cannot therefore sensibly be the umbrella for all language activity. What then is the area of its proper study? It is no doubt for this reason that Kaplan and Grabe comment on the problem: “the term ‘applied linguistics’ raises fundamental difficulties, if for no other reason than that it is difficult to decide on what counts as ‘linguistics’. Given these difficulties within linguistics proper, it is perhaps unfair to expect clean solutions and clear delimitations for defining applied linguistics’ ” (Kaplan & Grabe, 2000, pp. 5–6).
Download the word type here: DEFINITION OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS
RYAN RAHMAN HAKIM 