Applied Linguistics: History and Definition
Definitions:
Applied linguistics is not easy to define because people would think of many things when it comes to applied
linguistics. In fact, those who practice applied linguistics do not agree upon a certain definition. Therefore, there is
a gap that needs to be filled in terms of defining applied linguistics. The definition problem is due to the lack of
agreement on what is that to be applied?" A mediation between theory and practice "as Kaplan and Widdowson, " a
synthesis from a variety of disciplines including linguistics" as Hudson said, "presupposition of linguistics because
a person cannot apply what he does not know" as Corder implied.
In addition, an extreme area of applied linguistics that is called critical applied linguistics highlights the following
concerns and issues like identity, ethics, disparity, desire and the reproduction of otherness that have not been up to
now considered to be connected to applied linguistics. What have been mentioned is an attempt to use applied
linguistics concerns and activities to explain and analyze what applied linguistics methods and purposes are. This is
called the ostensive definition approach.
These ostensive views have a problem because they really do not help in creating syllabuses in applied linguistics
and they do not help in determining what things that are needed to be included in the profession. Those who argue
for a dictionary definition believed that applied linguistics has a core do not accept ostensive definitions. For
example, Widdowson claims that applied linguistics has got a core and he rejects the claim that says that applied
linguistics is a mixture of many disciplines.
Widdowson and Cook believed that "the task of applied linguistics is to mediate between linguistics and language
use". Another definition of applied linguistics by Guy Cook is "the academic discipline concerned with the relation
of knowledge about language to decision making in that real world". However, the scope of applied linguistics is
still not clear. He tried to create boarder lines to the areas of concern in applied linguistics as consisting of
language and education, language, work and law and language, information and effect. The most important thing is
that applied linguistics must be protected from the claim that says that language is everywhere, then applied
linguistics is the science of everything.
Source and Target:
An important question that must be asked that is what the sources of applied linguistics are. Of course, it is obvious
that once applied linguistics is mentioned, the first thing that comes to a person's mind is simply linguistics. This
because applied linguistics is associated with linguistics. However, linguistics is not the only source that applied
linguistics takes from. Although, linguistics plays an important role in applied linguistics, applied linguistics has
other sources such as psychology, sociology, education, measurement theory and so on. Another important
question is what the target of applied linguistics is. It is clear that the main target of applied linguistics has to do
with language teaching. In addition, language teaching includes speech therapy, translation and language planning.
By accepting the following working definition that is, "applied linguistics is the theoretical and empirical
investigation of real – world problems in which language is the central issue". These real – world problems include
the following failure and success, ability and disability, ethical and cultural, gender issues, technology and lack of
resources, difficulty and simplicity and child and adult.
Emergence of the term Applied Linguistics:
1
In 1948, there was a journal, which was founded in Michigan University and called Language Learning. This
journal was the first journal that carried the term-applied linguistics. It was mentioned in an article, which was
called Language learning in 1967. However, the term-applied linguistics meant the application of linguistics. One
of the editors has emphasized the wide range of theories and research methods that are used to investigate language
studies in 1993. However, doing this cost a price which is abandoning the term applied linguistics. In here, the
editor wanted to give his own interpretation of applied linguistics because he thought that the reader of the journal
would understand a journal of research in language studies as a functional interpretation of applied linguistics.
Restriction of the Scope:
During the 1960s and 1970, it was taken for granted that applied linguistics was about language teaching. This was
important because there was a need for language teaching especially English after the Second World War. This
showed that a number of teachers, trainers and supervisors lacked language knowledge. It is accepted that applied
linguistics is trying to solve language problems that people encounter in the real world. Then, the scope of applied
linguistics should not be restricted to language teaching only. In fact, the scope should be broadening to cover
language acquisition either the mother tongue or a target language, psych/neuro linguistics, sociolinguistics and so
on.
Solution of terminology problem:
Corder suggested the idea that applied linguistics in only restricted to language teaching. This idea was open to
criticism because applied linguistics is opened to other sources like education, psychology, sociology and so on.
Spolsky argued that applied linguistics is educational linguistics. Other scientists believed that applied linguistics
cover an area wider than language teaching. Each educational institution in America, Europe and Australia gives a
course in linguistics analysis in terms of applied linguistics curriculum. These courses are about sociolinguistics,
psycholinguistics or second language acquisition.
Conclusion:
The problem about applied linguistics is that it is not a common one among applied disciplines. Applied linguistics
has emerged in the 1950s and its main target is language teaching. Applied linguistics has no limits because it
assesses language proficiency issues, what is the appropriate age of starting teaching and learning a second
language, memory loss and so on. The solution of such problems are local and for the present time. Therefore,
applied linguistics is a need because it is applied on different societies that face the mentioned problems.
It is clear that English played an important role in developing applied linguistics. The contribution of the English
language to the development of applied linguistics is due to the domination of the English language in terms of
politics and economics. All applied fields disciplines develop because of the need to provide training in newly
appearing technical and professional occupation. This implies that the relationship between theoretical linguistics
and applied linguistics should put applied linguistics in the first position and theoretical linguistics in the second
position. By this sequence, theoretical linguistics will respond to the questions raised by applied linguistics. For
example, if a problem is faced in the area of error analysis, the reference will be second language acquisition.
- References:
1."History and Definition" of Applied Linguistics, (ch.1) by Alan Davies (2007), An Introduction to Applied
Linguistics, Edinburg University Press.
2
2."Applied Linguistics: A Twenty – First – Century Discipline" (ch.2) by William Grabe cited in The Oxford
Handbook of Applied Linguistics, edited by Robert B. Kaplan, (2010) 2nd edition, Oxford University Press.
3
Developing the History of Applied Linguistics':
Introductory Remarks
Richard Smith made the following introductory remarks as organizer and chair of a panel discussion on
'Developing the History of Applied Linguistics' at the Annual Symposium of the Henry Sweet Society for the
History of Linguistic Ideas, University of Edinburgh, 21 September 2000:
Hello, and welcome to this panel discussion on 'Developing the history of applied linguistics'. My name is Richard
Smith. I teach at the University of Warwick and I'll be chairing the discussion. Now let me briefly introduce the
other participants. On my right is Tony Howatt of the University of Edinburgh, well-known for his A History of
English Language Teaching. Tony and I have been collaborating in editing a set of reissues for Routledge, called
Foundations of Foreign Language Teaching: 19th Century Innovators, which will be coming out later this year.
Next to Tony is Bev Collins of the University of Leiden, whose biography of Daniel Jones - entitled The Real
Professor Higgins - appeared last year and is available at a 50% discount, so I'm told, to Henry Sweet Society
members. On my immediate right is Terry Gordon of the University of Dalhousie in 'the other Scotland', as he puts
it, Nova Scotia in Canada, who is well-known for his work on C.K. Ogden, including the recent editing of a 5volume set of Ogden's works on linguistics, including a critical edition of The Meaning of Meaning. On my left,
Tony Cowie, of the University of Leeds, whose book English Dictionaries for Foreign Learners: A History
appeared last year and has been recently shortlisted for a BAAL prize. Last but not least, on my far left, Louis
Kelly of Darwin College, Cambridge, who is well-known to you all. Among his significant contributions are the
book 25 Centuries of Language Teaching and his True Interpreter: A History of Translation Theory and Practice
in the West.
I'm going to start our discussion today by just making a few preliminary remarks about our topic, 'Developing the
history of applied linguistics'. I think the title can be taken in two basic senses: Firstly, in the less obvious sense
perhaps, to what extent is it reasonable to talk of a history of applied linguistics which goes back beyond about
1948, when the term applied linguistics first came into common currency -- we'll be considering this aspect in the
first, longer part of our discussion -- and secondly, and perhaps more obviously, how (if this is considered
necessary) can the status and methodology of History of Applied Linguistics be enhanced, which we'll turn to in
the second, shorter part, when I hope there'll be time for you, the audience, to also have your say. Before we begin,
though, it's perhaps important to make quite clear that the phrase 'History of Applied Linguistics' itself doesn't have
any common currency -- to a degree, it's been coined for the purposes of the present discussion, with a view to
seeing to what extent it might be useful. History of Applied Linguistics, then, is nowhere near being a recognized
area of study, either as a sub-area within History of Language Sciences / History of Linguistics / History of
Linguistic Ideas or what have you, or within Applied Linguistics itself. However, there have been a few recent
signs of interest in establishing historical perspectives within applied linguistics itself, partly connected with
significant anniversaries, for example the 50th anniversary in 1998 of the generally accepted foundation point of
applied linguistics, the appearance of the journal Language Learning -- A Quarterly Journal of Applied Linguistics,
established at the Uniuversity of Michigan in 1948. I should also mention a symposium organized in Edinburgh in
1998 to celebrate 40 years of Applied Linguistics here -- the School of Applied Linguistics, as it was known then,
was the first department of applied linguistics in Britain, established in 1957. In the context of these anniversaries,
the interest that has arisen in history has mostly been focused on internal developments over the last 40-50 years. In
1998, though, an article appeared in the 50th anniversary issue of Language Learning by Ian Catford. In this
article, Catford noted that there'd been uses of the term 'applied linguistics' prior to 1948, by Baudouin de
Courtenay (in Russian) and an associate of C.K. Ogden (in English). In this rather literal manner, Catford identified
de Courtenay and Ogden as significant precursors of applied linguistics. This brings me back to the first sense in
which we might wish to 'develop' the history of applied linguistics, namely to investigate ways we can extend its
4
scope back further than the 'literal' establishment of applied linguistics in 1948 -- are de Courtenay and Ogden the
only (or even the most appropriate) precursors we can name? Although there are obvious dangers of anachronism,
there might be value in taking a less literal approach than Catford, and the panel members will be attempting to do
so in a minute.
Obviously, if we're to try to be non-literal, though, we need a working definition of applied linguistics to take us
back to the times when this term wasn't used. The problem is that different conceptualizations of applied linguistics
have evolved over the last 50 years, and the meaning of applied linguistics has been under almost constant dispute.
There are at least three different conceptions which have evolved in succession in the post-war period, which all
continue to have some contemporary currency, and which might therefore inform our discussion of applied
linguistics 'avant la lettre'. Firstly, the original linguistics-driven conception whereby linguistic theories or
descriptions are applied to an area of practical endeavour such as language teaching / speech therapy / translation
etc. in a relatively top-down, theory-driven manner -- this being an activity originally of linguists, who in this new
role became 'applyers' of linguistics. This clearly happened in the World War II Intensive Language and Army
Specialized Training Programs in the USA which underlay the establishment of Applied Linguistics in the
immediate post-war years. Secondly, a less linguistics-driven, more interdisciplinary and problem-oriented
conception can be identified whereby applied linguistics is seen as a kind of 'buffer zone' between practice and
theory, and where the applied linguist is seen as a mediator between practice and a variety of possible source
disciplines, without priority necessarily being given to linguistics (in the case of language teaching, for example,
learning psychology, general education, sociology,anthropology, policy studies, and indeed history might all be
seen to have a role to play alongside linguistics in the problem-solving process). Thirdly, there is what we might
call an autonomous conception, with applied linguistics as an independent discipline or activity, developing
theories, descriptions or other schemata which are potentially more relevant to practical needs than those
emanating from source disciplines -- the applied linguist is no longer a consumer of theories or descriptions in this
conception but a producer of relevant theories on the basis of research (in relation to language teaching, the growth
of Second Language Acquisition as a field of applied linguistic research perhaps best epitomizes this). This last
conception, in particular, probably allows us to view many figures from the past as applied linguists 'avant la lettre'
and I hope you'll point out some figures and phenomena worthy of further research later on. Today though we'll
mostly be focusing on developing the history of applied linguistics back into the relatively recent past, as far back
as the late 19th Century Reform Movement, when linguistics, in particular phonetics, began to be systematically
referred to in relation to practical problems, including spelling reform and language teaching.
So, on to our first discussion question:
To what extent and in what ways does it make sense to talk about various figures from the past as applied linguists
'avant la lettre' or precursors of applied linguistics?
I'll ask each panel member to consider this in turn, for 4 minutes each, with reference to their own historical
interests.
[In turn, A.P.R. Howatt considered Henry Sweet; Bev Collins spoke about Daniel Jones; Richard Smith about H.E.
Palmer; Terry Gordon about C.K. Ogden; A.P. Cowie about A.S. Hornby; and Louis Kelly about some earlier
figures - unfortunately there is no record of these remarks.]
Well, I think we've seen that there is some justification for seeing certain figures from the past as 'applied linguists'
despite the dangers of anachronism. But what might be the value of doing so? Is History of Applied Linguistics a
legitimate and worthwhile field of enquiry which is worth 'developing'? To avoid over-abstraction in this very short
5
time, I've asked each panel member to prepare a two-minute statement on their own motivations for engaging in
what might be callled 'History of Applied Linguistics', in answer to the following question:
On the basis of your experience in the worlds of linguistics, applied linguistics and/or related professional
activities (language teaching, translation, etc.), why (if at all) is HoAL needed?
We each have just two minutes for this, and I'll kick it off:
I'm not sure whether a focus on the HIstory of Applied Linguistics will appear to have value to historians of
linguistics such as are gathered here today, but I am convinced of its value to those involved in the practical
activities most affected by applied linguistics -- in my main area of interest, language teaching. Single theorydriven applications have been argued against (e.g. by Mackey, Widdowson, Stern) but still remain a constant
feature, and tend to bind language teachers to cycles of fashion, makng them dependent on legitimation by
background theory. As Pennycook (drawing inspiration from Foucault) has argued, genealogy can show what is
left out of the dominant applied linguistics paradigm which has been established since the Reform Movement (in
particular, an over-emphasis on linguistic and psychological factors at the expense of educational, sociological or
politcal factors in the case of language teaching) and can suggest or lend support to alternative conceptions of the
relationship between theory and practice (for example, those of Claude Marcel in the mid-nineteenth century with
his emphasis on educational factors involved in modern language teaching, or Harold E. Palmer, with his relatively
dynamic, two-way conception of the relationship between theory and practice which I'll talk about in my paper on
Saturday.) Having said that I'm not sure about the value of history of applied linguistics to the history of
lInguistics, I'm sure historians of applied linguistics can gain a lot from the methodological point of view from
historians of linguistics in general. However, if historical research is to become a better respected acrtivity within
applied linguistics itself, there are likely to be new methodological considerations and other sources of inspiration
also, to the extent that applied linguistics is, to some extent at least, autonomous from linguistics. For example, the
need to investigate history of theory-practice links entails a need to imaginatively reconstruct past practices, not
only theories - and we might need to draw inspiration from historians of education and other practical pursuits as
much as from historians of (linguistic) ideas.
[Other participants then read their own statements: unfortunately there is no record of these.]
Now we have about 10 minutes for points from the floor, in particular in relation to the question, 'Why (if at all) is
History of Applied LInguistics (HoAL) needed and how can it be enhanced?'. Some things you might like to
contribute your ideas on are : What might distinguish HoAL: from History of Linguistics (HoL)?. On the model of
HoL, but also in distinction from it, how can the status, methodology etc. of HoAL be further enhanced in the
future? What topics would be worth investigating by future historians of applied linguistcs?
[Contributions from the floor then ensued - there is no record of these.]
Summing-up i'm afraid our time is over, and it only remains for me to say I hope you agree we had a productive
discussion and to ask for your continuing input into the development of the History of Applied LInguistics, which - if it does develop further -- might be said to have been born here, in the last hour, in front of your very eyes!
Finally, I'd like to say thank you to my fellow panel members, to John Joseph for conceiving this baby, and to all of
you for your ideas.
6
Notes: John Joseph, Professor of Applied LInguistics at the University of Edinburgh and main organizer of the
conference, proposed the organization of this panel discussion to Richard Smith, who was studying part-time for
his PhD in the Department of Applied Linguistics at the time. The above is transcribed directly from a wordprocessed text Richard referred to. In a few parts, some reconstruction has been necessary to convert notes into full
sentences.
Follow-up publications by Richard Smith, have included:
(2009) 'Claude Marcel (1793-1876): A neglected applied linguist?' Language and History 52/2: 171-181. Also
available online: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/al/staff/smith_r/claude_marcel.pdf
7