An Introduction to Applied Linguistics

partial and temporary understandings.
In the 1980s one of the key research issues in language assessment was that of the
so-called unitary competence hypothesis (UCH), or general language factor. This
hypothesis, advocated by among others John Oller (1983), stated that underlying all
language abilities was one primary factor, the general language factor. There was, of
course, a deliberate connection with the ‘g’ of intelligence tests. As it turned out this
hypothesis was eventually agreed to be too powerful, as Oller himself recognised.
Language ability was not unitary but binary or multifactorial. But if language was
not unitary, did that mean that there were separate abilities (and separate knowledges)
for different areas of language, known in various contexts as styles, registers, genres,
specific purposes, varieties, or rhetorics? The question of the separation of language
varieties, itself a special case of the larger language question of the discrete nature of
dialects and languages, is basic both to much practical language activity and to our
theoretical understanding of what makes up language use.
Language teaching and language assessment in recent years have concentrated
much of their efforts on the teaching and assessment of languages for specific
purposes (academic, professional, occupational, medical, legal, economic and so on).
Such work on English, known as English for Specific Purposes (ESP) took a directly
counter-position to that of the unitary competence hypothesis since it seemed
impossible that both could be upheld. With the abandonment of the unitary com -
petence hypothesis then, it seemed that the ESP difference proposal must prevail.
After all, are they not mirror-images of one another?
From an applied linguistics perspective this is not necessarily the case. It would
indeed be possible for both to fail: no UCH and no ESP. If a multiplicity of language
factors makes more sense of the evidence than does a unitary hypothesis, then it
might also be the case that the multiplicity does not refer to specific purposes, all
of which could be informed by one overriding purpose, but to (for example) more
internal personal factors such as gender, age and motivation and less external social
factors, such as professional academic and occupational purposes.
Research on the stability of specific purpose was initiated by Alderson and
Urquhart (1985). Three studies were carried out, all studies used English proficiency
tests but only in the third was the test the major investigation instrument:
Study 3 was conducted using parts of the British Council’s ELTS [English
Language Testing Service] test, which contains specialised study skills modules
aimed at different content area groups, e.g. ‘Medicine’, ‘Life Sciences’. A student
sitting ELTS chooses whichever of these modules is appropriate to his course of
studies … Three ELTS modules were used … namely Social Studies, Technology
and General Academic.
(ibid: 196)
30
An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
02 pages 001-202:Layout 1 31/5/07 09:30 Page 30

---

Quite deliberately the design of the study was a test rather than an experiment.
There were two reasons for this. The first was that the tests were being used in a
functionally appropriate way and would be viewed by the candidates as tests rather
than as experiments. Artificiality was therefore somewhat controlled. The second
reason was that these ELTS tests are ‘social facts’. They are (or were in the mid-1980s)
used as part means of determining adequacy in English proficiency levels for overseas
students seeking admission to UK universities. Whether or not they are in them selves
adequate statements about distinct registers of English, they were used as if they
were. What the researchers did was straightforward, as so often good research is.
They administered the tests of different ESPs to different groups of candidates with
different kinds of ‘background knowledge’ who would normally have taken one of
the modules.
Drawing together their results from all three studies the researchers concluded
that ‘academic background can play an important role in test performance. However
the effect has not been shown to be consistent … the studies have also shown the
need to take account of other factors such as linguistic consistency’ (ibid: 202).
But the most interesting conclusion they reach is the distinction they make
between direct and overview questions with relation to accessing the content area
under test. They report:
when these students were familiar with the content area, they were able to answer
direct and overview questions with equal ease; when this familiarity with the
content area was lacking they could still answer direct questions, but their ability
to answer overview questions was greatly reduced.
(ibid: 202)
Although they do not say so the implication of this finding is that background
knowledge matters: direct questions do not in themselves probe sufficiently into
background knowledge whereas overview questions do. That is why in some of the
comparisons they make there was no distinction on test results between groups who
had background knowledge and those who did not, because what was at stake was a
preponderance of direct questions.
This finding, properly muted though it is by the researchers, aware of the in -
adequacy of the tests themselves as valid representations of their content areas, does
in fact match the earlier research finding we referred to, that is that the unitary
competence hypothesis could not be supported. Similarly here what was indicated
by this research was that there are indeed real differences between language varieties.
The researchers carefully point to the need to distinguish between linguistic pro -
ficiency (which is the subject of their study) and linguistic competence. On the basis
of their study (and perhaps too in the unitary competence research) what is estab -
lished is that there are different proficiencies not that there are different competences.
As Alderson and Urquhart say: ‘the part played … by linguistic competence …
remains unknown’ (1985).
Doing being applied linguists 31
02 pages 001-202:Layout 1 31/5/07 09:30 Page 31

---