An Introduction to Applied Linguistics

partial proficiency in the language of instruction (usually English). The solution
which concentrates on the language is simple: learn more English. But for the applied
linguist there are other considerations, such as whether the demands of the
institution in regard to English are valid demands, whether the student needs to be
proficient in written English in areas other than those of his/her specialism, whether
the apparent problem concerns language use outside the institution rather than
having inadequate English for the course itself. Analyses of this kind are likely both
to indicate what, if anything, is needed and at the same time explain why, in many
cases, students’ English does not appear to improve.
A criticism of simultaneous interpreters is that they range widely from the
speaker’s meaning. As a straightforward language problem, the solution is obvious:
provide better interpreters. But it is worthwhile asking ourselves what is expected of
simultaneous interpreters and then what ‘better interpreters’ would do. Much simul -
taneous work takes place at international conferences interpreting speeches made by
delegates. Such speeches are of two kinds: the first is the set speech where there is
normally a written transcript (already translated) which acts as the authentic account
of what was said. The second is the impromptu speech: here there is normally no
written transcript (although one may be made available later). What matters here is
not that the interpreter takes account of all that is said; surely what matters is that
the main point is transmitted. All good simultaneous interpreters will provide that.
That is what matters: all else in simultaneous interpreting is show and symbol,
making public the value to themselves and to the groups they represent of the
delegates’ own languages. Once again we need to view the ‘language’ problem in the
context of the international meeting, where what is paramount is the amour-propre
of all delegates: simultaneous interpreting offers that display, getting it right is less
important than getting the gist across. The applied linguist is conscious of this
language embedding, and while sympathetic to the need for an accurate rendition, is
also alert to what is practical and to what is needful.
Language problems in the institutionalised settings of school, work (including the
office, the hospital, the factory), conferences, the media and so on, are very rarely
problems only of language. In many cases they involve individuals and groups who
have problems in interacting with one another and in making decisions about policy.
These problems may manifest themselves in language but their origins are only partly
there. Of course this does not mean that in explaining and attempting solutions we
ignore language. It may be that intervening on the language is the quickest way to
bring about change. But no intervention will be successful that does not take account
of the context in which the language problem is embedded.
We discussed in Chapter 3 how in practice we can distinguish between Linguistics
and Applied Linguistics. Linguistics, we might suggest, looks through a telescope
holding the large end to the eye, focusing solely on language to the exclusion of all
96
An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
02 pages 001-202:Layout 1 31/5/07 09:31 Page 96

---

else: language problems are seen as wholly linguistic problems. Applied Linguistics
looks through a telescope with the small end to the eye, and so views language as part
of the whole. The linguistic view is the laboratory view, the applied view is the real
world view.