In “paradoxically the idea that there may be different linguistic descriptions according to purpose does not suit their ...

Theoretical value and pedagogic utility

The first assumption has to do with basic theoretical issues concerning the nature of language and the proper domain of linguistic description. The second has to do with the relationship between linguistics and language teaching and the manner in which such a relationship is mediated by applied linguistic studies. What is suggested in the quotation, and indeed throughout the whole book from which it has been drawn, is that the satisfactory preparation of language teaching materials is dependent upon a prior linguistic analysis. The image one has is of the applied linguist in attendance on the linguist, and waiting for an exhaustive linguistic description which he can then apply to the production of “appropriate” teaching materials. But of course the linguist’s criteria of theoretical adequacy do not have to coincide with the language teacher’s criteria of pragmatic appropriacy, and the applied linguist’s concern must be with the latter rather than the former. It is true that the precision with which the linguist is required to investigate linguistic phenomena may lead him to discoveries beyond the reach of the relatively untrained awareness of the teacher, but it does not follow that such discoveries will always be relevant to a particular teaching situation. What is theoretically valid may have little pedagogic utility and what has pedagogic utility may have little or no theoretical value (see Corder 1973). This is a point which the more proselytizing linguist tends to ignore. Again we may quote from Halliday, McIntosh and Strevens (1964) since, again, this book expresses a very common and very pervasive view of the role of linguistics in language teaching pedagogy:

(the teacher) is teaching something which is the object of study of linguistics, and is described by linguistic methods. It is obviously desirable that the underlying description should be as good as possible, and this means that it should be based on sound linguistic principles.

This is the main contribution that the linguistic sciences can make to the teaching of languages: to provide good descriptions. Any description of a language implies linguistics ... It is a pity then not to apply the linguistics best suited to the purpose. The best suited linguistics is the body of accurate descriptive methods based on recent research into the form and substance of language. There is no conflicts between application and theory: the methods most useful in application are to be found among those that are most valid and powerful in theory.

(Halliday, McIntosh and Strevens 1964: 166-7; my emphasis)

The notion that what is a good description from the linguistic point of view must necessarily be good for language teaching appears to be a matter of faith rather than of reasoned argument. Moreover it leads to a number of practical difficulties. The establishing of “accurate descriptive methods” has proved to be extremely elusive, and there is a good deal of controversy as to what “sound linguistic principles” might be. One has only to refer to Postal (1964) to see how precarious the kind of methods and principles that the above quotation are referring to can prove to be. One can hardly expect language teachers to be pedagogic camp-followers after the style of Paul Roberts (see Roberts 1956, 1962, 1964) and to adjust their approach to teaching in accordance with the shifts of linguistic fashion. In fact, Halliday himself later acknowledges (Halliday 1964) that it may be possible to think of various descriptions of language, subject to different standards of adequacy according to their purpose, rather than of one “correct” or “accurate” one. Although such a view might be criticized on theoretical grounds, as it is for example, in Wales and Marshall (1966), it would appear to be the only valid one for the applied linguist to take. It happens that the line taken by Halliday in Halliday (1964) runs counter to the psycholinguistic orientation to language study which Wales and Marshall adopt: paradoxically the idea that there may be different linguistic descriptions according to purpose does not suit their particular purpose. But there is no reason why their special pleading should be given special status.

But if linguistics cannot provide descriptions which are good for all purposes and which therefore can automatically serve as a basis upon which teaching materials “can at last be devised with confidence and certainty”, what contribution does linguistics offer to language teaching pedagogy? I think the answer to this question is suggested by the distinction that Wilkins makes in a recent book between three ways in which linguistic theory may have an effect on the practice of the language teacher.

Wilkins discusses the relation between linguistics and language teaching under three heads: insights, implications and applications. By implications he means essentially the relationship between psycholinguistic theories of language learning and the way the teacher presents language in the classroom. We are less concerned with this aspect of the relation than with the other two. It is the distinction between insights and application which is of particular interest in the present discussion.

(…).

WIDDOWSON, Henry G. Applied linguistic approach to discourse analysis. Thesis PhD. University of Edinburgh, May 1973.