Termiz state university foreign philology faculty the department of methodolgy of teaching english language

CONCLUSION
Palmer‘s emphases on the value of a scientific basis for language teaching and beyond this even on the need for the establishment of an independent new discipline which would link language teaching theory, research, and practice, mark him out as a highly original thinker and seem to fully justify Stern‘s description of him as the father of, at least, British applied linguistics. Secondly, Palmer‘s fatherhood of applied linguistics, when interpreted as an actual seminal influence from his view of the theory-practice relationship to the conceptions of post World War II applied linguists, has nowhere been clearly traced; indeed, in the present article, I have emphasized aspects of Palmer‘s approach, in particular, his relatively undogmatic, eclectic and experimental orientation to the development of methodology and materials, which were not in evidence within the relatively top-down applied linguistics of the immediate post war era.
As you have been aware , there are dangers of anachronism when-in the absence of properly historiographical research the ideas of a precursor of applied linguistics like Palmer are coopted too readily to present day conceptions, with similarities and supposed connections being over-emphasized at the expense of difference. In this article, by resituating Palmer‘s ideas and practical initiatives in their own context and by charting their development with reference to neglected writings and other sources,he said that he had highlighted their originality and specificity indeed, their value as an alternative to more recent conceptions, not simply the way they can be seen to predate applied linguistics as established in the post war era. What can be done to enhance a sense of history in the ELT profession, with a view to reconnecting it with the tradition of problem-oriented, principled research and practice established originally by Palmer – and how can more of a space be opened up for practice-focused research which puts teachers’ concerns at centre-stage? The two things, it seems to me, go together – what seems to be needed is a greater focus on recovering the past, and, partly through this process, on re-establishing ELT as a principled field of activity with its own priorities, that is, with an agenda set not by commercial, academic or political agencies but by teachers and teacher educators aware of their own and their students’ contextual needs. He shall end by describing some recent developments he has been involved in which have seemed to me positive in furthering this kind of ideal.
Firstly, when he returned to the UK in 2000 after thirteen years’ teaching in Japan, he signed up to the attempt to establish an independent British Institute of English Language Teaching. He would emphasise that any profession needs to be at least partly built on an awareness of what has been attempted in the past, even as new knowledge or technology is brought into play. A persistent tendency to deny or demonise the past within British ELT – a tendency which may now slowly be waning -- has gone hand in hand with constant commercially or academically inspired shifts in emphasis which have positioned teachers as victims of fashion. These shifts have counteracted an independent tradition of problem-oriented research and principled practice instigated by Palmer which has been kept alive for all this time – for all of us to learn from -- by the members of IRLT, and which may just now be starting to gain the wider recognition it has always deserved.