Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:19:16.339Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Partiality and Relevance of Linguistic Descriptions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

H.G. Widdowson
H.G. Widdowson
Affiliation:
University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is a common assumption among language teachers that their subject should somehow be defined by reference to models of linguistic description devised by linguists. This does not mean that they try to transfer such models directly into the pedagogic domain (although such attempts are not unknown): there is usually a recognition that they have to be modified in one way or another to suit a teaching purpose. But the basic theoretical orientation is retained. The same assumption dominates applied linguistics. The very name is a proclamation of dependence. Now I have nothing against linguistics. Some of my best friends etc. But I think one must be wary of its influence. In this paper I want to question the common assumption, axiomatic in its force, that a linguistic model of language must of necessity serve as the underlying frame of reference for language teaching. And I want to suggest that it is the business of applied linguistics as the theoretical branch of language teaching pedagogy to look for a model that will serve this purpose. I think that applied linguistics can only claim to be an autonomous area of enquiry to the extent that it can free itself from the hegemony of linguistics and deny the connotations of its name.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , Spring 1979 , pp. 9 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bailey, C.-J. N. and Shuy, R. W. (eds.) 1973. New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Bailey, N., Madden, C. and Krashen, S. D. 1974. “Is There a ‘Natural Sequence’ in Adult Second Language Learning?”, in Language Learning 24, 2. 235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures, The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. 1975. “Error Analysis, Interlanguage and Second Language Acquisition”, in Language Learning and Linguistics: Abstracts 8, 4.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. and Roulet, E. (eds.) 1977. The Notions of Simplification, Interlanguages and Pidgins and Their Relation to Second Language Pedagogy, Genève: Droz and Neuchâtel: Faculté des Lettres.Google Scholar
Dulay, H. C. and Burt, M. K. 1974. “Natural Sequences in Child Second Language Acquisition”, in Language Learning 24, 1. 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. M. 1974. “Is Second Language Learning Like the First?”, in TESOL Quarterly 8, 2. 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1964. Syntax and the Consumer, Georgetown University Monographs 17, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language, London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., McIntosh, A. and Strevens, P. 1964. The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching, London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. 1968. The State of the Art, The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 1971. Grammar, Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1973. “A Fake NP Squish”, in Bailey and Shuy (eds.).Google Scholar
Thompson, A. S. and Martinet, A. V. 1960. A Practical Grammar for Foreign Students, London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 1973. “Some Thoughts on Natural Syntactic Processes”, in Bailey and Shuy (eds.).Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 1977. “Natural Semantax: Its Role in the Study of Second Language Acquisition”, in Corder and Roulet (eds.).Google Scholar
Tyler, S. A. (ed.) 1969. Cognitive Anthropology, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar