An Introduction to Applied Linguistics

Questions
1. The writer contends that ‘there is virtually no human activity in which the
applied linguist cannot play a role’. How far do you agree? How does the writer
reconcile this statement with his later comment that ‘applied linguists have become
identified with language teaching’?
2. The writer advocates the development of a theory of applied linguistics. To what
extent do you think a theory of applied linguistics is (a) desirable and (b) possible?
3. ‘The speculations raised in this paper as examples of possible spheres of activity
for applied linguistics may be lunatic speculations.’ Are they lunatic speculations?
Make a case for or against regarding them as lunatic speculations.
EXERCISE 3 (ON CHAPTER 3)
Here are four excerpts (Glossolalia, Welsh, Spoken American English and Manx).
The origin of each text is given below. In each case try to determine whether the
motivation for the work described can be regarded as the application of linguistics or
as applied linguistics.
Glossolalia: extract from H. N. Malony and A. A. Lovekin (1985), 
Glossolalia:
Exercises 173
02 pages 001-202:Layout 1 31/5/07 09:31 Page 173

---

Behavioral Science Perspectives on Speaking in Tongues
, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, p. 33.
Welsh: extract from M. Ball (1993), 
The Celtic Languages
, London: Routledge, pp.
295–6.
Spoken American English: extract from K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg (1991), 
English
Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik
, London and New York:
Longman, p. 65.
Manx: extract from M. Ball (1993), 
The Celtic Languages
, London and New York:
Routledge, pp. 659–70.
(a) Glossolalia
For example, in analyzing the glossolalic speech of one of Wolfram’s (1966) subjects,
Samarin reaches the following conclusion:
Thus even a cursory examination of the sample text reveals that 
siyanayasi 
occurs
only at the end of a macrosegment [a sentence] and is very often preceded by 
kita
… In other words, glossic syllables are not simply spewed out in a haphazard sort
of way …
(1968, p. 60)
Among the answers Samarin (1972) received when he asked, ‘Why do you think
glossolalia is a language?’ were the following: ‘It sounds too much like a language not
to be.’ … ‘I don’t feel the type to just rattle on making sounds.’ … ‘because I seem
to learn it’ (
passim
pp. 105–107).
More thoughtful answers included references to the same words appearing over
and over, short words (like conjunctions or prepositions) connecting phrases, differ -
ent endings and prefixes being used, the rise and fall of voice tone, pauses for breath,
rhythm cadence, and the seeming grouping of phrases into groups (Samarin, 1972c,
pp. 106–107).
However, the word structure of a given utterance is not all that apparent nor is the
dissecting of the material into phrases and sentences an easy task. For example, a
prayer by Rev. d’Esprit (Samarin’s prime subject studied over several days) began like
this: ‘kupoy shandre filé sundrukuma …’ Yet, Samarin (1972c) concluded:
[Rev. d’Esprit] was undoubtedly influenced by the rhythm of the utterance,
making each ‘word’ come out with a final accented syllable. But there was no
good reason for not beginning as follows: ‘Ku poyshandré fi lésundru.’ Other
linguistically trained persons have looked at this text, and none of them arrives at
exactly the same results that are presented here.
(p. 81)