Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:29:49.474Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pure and Applied Research in Linguistics: Is the Difference Merely One of Motivation?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

S.P. Corder
S.P. Corder
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is perhaps natural that in the early years of emergence of a new field of study and research its practitioners should from time to time ask themselves what is the nature of the activity they are engaged in. The need to do so may stem from a number of different causes: philosophical, sociological and psychological. The practitioners may feel the need to establish a personal identity, that is, some accepted place for themselves in the social structure of the academic world, to achieve respect and recognition as workers in the field of scholarship, a role in the institution of higher studies. They may feel that the discipline they profess is not properly recognised within the scholarly domain, its place not clearly determined in the structure of science or scholarship, its value to society not appreciated; and that consequently it does not attract research funds in its own name, permit the establishment of courses and programmes which lead to academic degrees or qualifications bearing its name, or of learned societies devoted to discussing its problems and disseminating its notions. All of these factors I believe play a part in the motivations for the constantly renewed discussion of WHAT IS APPLIED LINGUISTICS? None of them is in any way reprehensible or unworthy. The intensity or frequency with which these discussions occur is a response to the prevailing orthodox views about the discipline itself and its relation to neighbouring disciplines found in the society where the discussions take place, and to the degree to which its practitioners (i.e. people who call themselves applied linguists) feel oppressed, unrecognised or undervalued by the members of the institution in which they work and with whom they interact. This is a whole field of investigation open to the sociologist of science to describe and explain.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , Spring 1979 , pp. 77 - 90
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. 1973. Variation and Linguistic Theory, Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. 1975. Dynamics of a Creole System, London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. 1967. “The Significance of Learners' Errors”, in IRAL 5. 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corder, S. P. 1973a. Introducing Applied Linguistics, Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. 1973b. “Linguistic Theory and Applied Linguistics”, in Corder and Roulet (eds.).Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. 1974. “Problems and Solutions in Applied Linguistics”, in Qvistgaard, Schwarz and Spang-Hanssen (eds. ).Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. and Roulet, E. (eds.) 1973. Theoretical Linguistic Models in Applied Linguistics, Brussels: AIMAV and Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
De Camp, D. 1971. “Towards a Generative Analysis of Post-Creole Speech Continuum”, in Hymes (ed.).Google Scholar
Dickerson, L. 1976. “The Learner's Interlanguage as a System of Variable Rules”, in TESOL Quarterly 9, 4. 401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickerson, W. (forthcoming). “Language Variation in Applied Linguistics”, in ITL (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickerson, W. (forthcoming). “The Psycholinguistic Unity of Language Learning and Language Change”, in Language Learning (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, B. 1973. What is Science for?, New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Dulay, H. and Burt, M. K. 1973. “Should We Teach Children Syntax?”, in Language Learning 23, 2. 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. 1977. “Implicational Patterns in Interlanguage Syntax Variation”, in Work in Progress 10, Dept. of Linguistics, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (ed.) 1971. Pidginization and Creolization of Languages, London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1969. The Study of Non-Standard English, Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1969. “Contraction, Deletion and Inherent Variability of the English Copula”, in Language 45. 715–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, R. 1976. English Phonology abd Phonological Theory, London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Politzer, R. L. 1972. Linguistics and Applied Linguistics: Aims and Methods, Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1957. The Poverty of Historicism, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1962. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Qvistgaard, J., Schwarz, H. and Spang-Hanssen, H. (eds.) 1974. AILA, Third Congress, Copenhagen 1972, Proceedings Volume III, Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar
Lord, Rothschild 1971. A Framework for Government Research and Development, London: H.M.S.O. Cmd 4814.Google Scholar
Saporta, S. 1966. “Applied Linguistics and Generative Grammar”, in Valdman (ed.).Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, R. M. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse, London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Valdman, A. (ed.) 1966. Trends in Language Teaching, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Van Els, T., Extra, G., Van Os en, C., Bongaerts, T. 1977. Handboek voor de Toegepaste Taalkunde, Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Wardhaugh, R. and Brown, D. (eds.) 1977. A Survey of Applied Linguistics, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar