An Introduction to Applied Linguistics

4.5 The crucial difference?
Is it then the case that the linguist moves from theory to description and then to
application? Not of course in all cases, for individual linguists themselves take up
different positions in their professional work along the line. The applied linguist,
on the other hand, starts from the problem which requires practice of some kind
and then in order to attack the problem moves back towards theory, taking in
description and clinical methodology (including instrumental methodologies such
as assessment procedures) along the way. Is this the crucial linguist–applied linguist
distinction?
Language and language practices 57
02 pages 001-202:Layout 1 31/5/07 09:31 Page 57

---

4.6 Theoretical arguments
Let us look at two areas of theoretical argument which are important to clinical
linguistics. The first is the linguistic theory on which the analysis of language, to
which Crystal refers above (structural and functional), is based. The linguist involv -
ing him/herself in clinical linguistics is likely to choose a theoretical model that
allows for the kinds of application necessary, in other words it is likely to be a model
that takes account of both structure and function and is less concerned with current
disputes of theoretical concern simply because they prevent the kind of full
descriptive apparatus (they pose too many doubts) that the application will need.
Such a linguist is therefore likely to make use of a more traditional-type grammar or
a functional grammar, which may not be up to date but will serve the purposes of
clinical work. 
The second type of theoretical interest is that of the study of aphasia:
Two main and opposing approaches were evident in the late 1800s and early
1900s and are still evident now. Indeed, they form the basis of ongoing discussion
which continues up to the present day.
(Kerr 1993: 102)
The first was a physically based approach which held that different anatomical
structures were responsible for particular language functions. These could, there -
fore, be selectively impaired by damage to discrete areas of the brain. The thrust
of study was to determine where different language functions were located, in
order to ‘map functions on to anatomical structures and thus be able to predict
localisation of lesion according to surface language symptomatology. Thus Broca
(1865) and Wernicke (1874) mapped expressive and comprehension skills on to
the third frontal convolution of the left hemisphere and the temporal convolution
of the left hemisphere, respectively.
(ibid)
The opposing approach viewed aphasia symptomatology as indicative of a single
underlying disorder of language, manifested in different ways in different patients
… The rationale was the belief that aphasia symptomatology, however diverse,
was an outward sign of one underlying deficit, which could vary in severity and
be further complicated by additional sensory, motor or other impairment.
(ibid: 103)
Current theories of acquired language disorder include both traditional theories,
and many remain strongly localisationalist. However, recently emerging disciplines
such as cognitive neuropsychology and the study of functional communication
attempt to enlarge our understanding of language impairment and its functional
effects and show a move away from traditional theoretical frameworks. They
reflect a rejection of the supremacy of neuroanatomy.
(ibid: 104)
58
An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
02 pages 001-202:Layout 1 31/5/07 09:31 Page 58

---

What is striking here is not that theoretical discussion of aphasia continues to
develop: it would be surprising if it did not; what is striking is how far apart these
two areas of theoretical concern are. The first is clearly central to the linguist’s
professional interest; the second far removed. Indeed it is unlikely that the linguist
will have much interest in aphasia unless he/she has already specialised in clinical
linguistics. In practice it appears that some phoneticians have indeed done so but
remarkably few grammarians. In other words those who do are already committed,
in some sense, to an applied linguistic view of language.
For the applied linguist the situation is both more difficult and easier: more
difficult because he/she may not have the linguistic theory at hand to apply; easier
because for him/her both the linguistic and the aphasic must be understood but
neither has priority over the other. The applied linguist therefore who gets involved
in clinical linguistics is less likely than the linguist to be dominated in his/her
thinking by any linguistic theory: theory then becomes the servant and not the
master.
So if the linguist does make a linear approach to practice from theory, the applied
linguist surveys the field from the position of practice and then takes account of
any theory/description that has a bearing on language. This does not make applied
linguistics non-theoretical but it does mean that it is not mono theoretical.