An Introduction to Applied Linguistics

5 THEORISING PRACTISE
The need for a world-wide expansion in English at the end of the Second World War
and the resources found for that expansion permitted the rise of an independent
applied linguistics. It was probably fortunate that the ‘primary object’ of teacher
education in English as a Foreign Language (see Chapter 6) was dominant for much
of that time since it made for the coherent development in applied linguistics as
a theorising discipline. Over the forty or so years of its existence applied linguistics
has grown and spread. The question I address is whether that growth must lead to
fragmentation and shatter all coherence in the discipline.
There are three possible directions for fragmentation: theory, ideology and prac -
tice. The first is towards a powerful theory, as we see in current second-language
acquisition (SLA) research, attracted at present by the explanatory power of Univer -
sal Grammar. That is the micro view but there is a macro view also, which would
draw all applied linguistics towards linguistics, the view that applied linguistics is
‘really’ the application of linguistics.
The second fragmentation is that applied linguistics is taken over by the ideology
of one or other political variety, the CDA practised by Fairclough, or the more
radical, if also more nebulous CAL promoted by Pennycook. There are other
ideological possibilities which point away from a political or postmodern outcome:
Applied linguistics: no ‘bookish theoric’ 147
02 pages 001-202:Layout 1 31/5/07 09:31 Page 147

---

one such alternative would be the linguistics of Harris’s language-in-use project.
Finally, there is the practice emphasis which would shift applied linguistics to a
future largely within teacher education. Such an outcome has precedents, not only
in its attention to the primary object of language-teacher education discussed in
Chapter 6 but also in the concerns of those applied linguists whose careers have been
spent working in applied linguistics within Faculties of Education.
In addition, there is a fourth scenario, the ‘open field of interest in language’ put
forward by Rampton and discussed above. Such a proposal could, as we saw, lead to
a situation in which language problems would be approached by a diverse group who
would lack the common experience, under standing and shared language of applied
linguistics. They would be unable to frame the relevant questions and propose ways
forward. Rampton’s solution of an open field does not seem attractive. Is there an
alternative?
I think there is. Rampton’s analysis of the present state of applied linguistics may
make sense but his solution does not. Perfect coherence in applied linguistics is no
more to be expected, or, indeed, desired, than in any other academic area. The three
sources of fragmentation we have mentioned, the pull towards the application of
linguistics, the lure of ideology and the concern for practice, these are all signs of a
flourishing and creative and concerned profession. What applied linguists need to do
is to encourage these developments, rejoicing in them as signs of vitality, while making
sure that the primary emphasis on constant re-engagement with the experience of
language in use continues. This requires asking the right questions about institutional
language prob lems and then generalising to other contexts where similar problems can
be shown after analysis to exist. Such an approach, which theorises practice, will be
explanatory and at the same time provide a set of options for action.