It is a common assumption among language teachers that their subject should somehow be defined by reference to models of linguistic description devised by linguists. This does not mean that they try to transfer such models directly into the pedagogic domain (although such attempts are not unknown): there is usually a recognition that they have to be modified in one way or another to suit a teaching purpose. But the basic theoretical orientation is retained. The same assumption dominates applied linguistics. The very name is a proclamation of dependence. Now I have nothing against linguistics. Some of my best friends etc. But I think one must be wary of its influence. In this paper I want to question the common assumption, axiomatic in its force, that a linguistic model of language must of necessity serve as the underlying frame of reference for language teaching. And I want to suggest that it is the business of applied linguistics as the theoretical branch of language teaching pedagogy to look for a model that will serve this purpose. I think that applied linguistics can only claim to be an autonomous area of enquiry to the extent that it can free itself from the hegemony of linguistics and deny the connotations of its name.

1. The discrepancy between the goals and reality of applied linguistics as an integrative discipline can be recognized most clearly in the field of intonation, prosody, and para- and extra-linguistic phenomena, since the area covered by these phenomena intrudes into many disciplines (e.g., medicine, psychology, physics, musicology, phonetics, linguistics and pedagogy). It is generally agreed that these phenomena have to be regarded in their manifold interrelations. On the other hand there seems to be very little agreement among authors in their attempts to delimit and define these phenomena. The result is simply complete terminological confusion.

Applied linguistics is very much a problem-oriented discipline and therefore necessarily an integrative discipline. I know that it is difficult to define what a ‘problem’ is; there are nevertheless important differences between problem-oriented disciplines and theory-based disciplines, like psychology and linguistics, to take a couple of relevant examples. Activities, including research, carried out in the name of applied linguistics should throw light on the processes and conditions and phenomena of language acquisition, language learning or language use, with the aim of contributing to the solution of the difficulties and practical problems that arise. And the problems that people face in connection with language learning or language use are messy, that is to say, like all real life situations they are not analysable in term of only one basic discipline. The chief requirement on research within such basic disciplines is that it should throw light on theoretical models and issues, and to do that the researcher abstracts from the experential world only those special aspects which are interesting to him. People who work in applied disciplines have to deal with complex real life situations as they are, as they are seen to be by the participants in those situations, and have to draw on whatever background disciplines that are relevant and available. (That nearly always means that more than one researcher has to be involved.)

Otto Jespersen was one of the first linguists to perceive a common basis underlying all types of language acquisition and learning. Comparing pidgins, broken or approximative version of a target language, and child language, he commented: “…. in all these seemingly different cases the same mental factor is at work, namely, imperfect mastery of a language, which in its initial stage, in the child with its first language and in a grownup with a second language learnt by imperfect method, leads to a superficial knowledge of the most indispensable words, with a total disregard for grammar”. (1921, 233–4)

It is perhaps natural that in the early years of emergence of a new field of study and research its practitioners should from time to time ask themselves what is the nature of the activity they are engaged in. The need to do so may stem from a number of different causes: philosophical, sociological and psychological. The practitioners may feel the need to establish a personal identity, that is, some accepted place for themselves in the social structure of the academic world, to achieve respect and recognition as workers in the field of scholarship, a role in the institution of higher studies. They may feel that the discipline they profess is not properly recognised within the scholarly domain, its place not clearly determined in the structure of science or scholarship, its value to society not appreciated; and that consequently it does not attract research funds in its own name, permit the establishment of courses and programmes which lead to academic degrees or qualifications bearing its name, or of learned societies devoted to discussing its problems and disseminating its notions. All of these factors I believe play a part in the motivations for the constantly renewed discussion of WHAT IS APPLIED LINGUISTICS? None of them is in any way reprehensible or unworthy. The intensity or frequency with which these discussions occur is a response to the prevailing orthodox views about the discipline itself and its relation to neighbouring disciplines found in the society where the discussions take place, and to the degree to which its practitioners (i.e. people who call themselves applied linguists) feel oppressed, unrecognised or undervalued by the members of the institution in which they work and with whom they interact. This is a whole field of investigation open to the sociologist of science to describe and explain.

It has become increasingly evident in recent years that what is by convention termed ‘applied linguistics’, in that it has to do with foreign language learning and instruction, should be as much applied PSYCHOLOGY as applied linguistics to say nothing of other possible types of application. Still, it is by no means unfortunate that linguistics has established itself as the primary discipline since it is, after all, LANGUAGE that is being taught and learned. It is admittedly symptomatic of this, dare one say, historical bias in applied linguistics that a good theory of language applied with a minimal knowledge of psychological theory (plus, one hopes a large amount of common sense) is probably more generally regarded as acceptable than a way of working based on a sound knowledge of psychology and only a brief acquaintance with linguistics. However it would be extremely unwise to presume that by applying just linguistics to problems of second language instruction or learning one had all that one needed as far as sources (content and techniques) are concerned. This would be to ignore all past and present theorising and experimentation within the field of instructional and learning psychology. The bias needs to be corrected.

La notion de situation a eu en linguistique appliquée à la didactique des langues un succès singulier, qui ne tenait sans doute ni à une définition précise et opérante (encore que, dans ce domaine comme dans certains autres, la circulation des concepts s'accommode facilement de leur flou relatif) ni à une richesse d'applications pédagogiques qui eût suffi à la justifier empiriquement (à bien des égards, l'enseignement des langues vivantes a préconisé des choix méthodologiques d'inspiration fort peu ‘situationnelle’).

The last few years have seen a tremendous increase in studies concerning psycholinguistics. The increase is clearly due to many factors. The chief impetus was probably the revolution in linguistic thinking effected by generative grammar (Levelt 1974, I, Preface). Another was a change in the climate of opinion within psychology, away from behaviorism towards a more mentalistic outlook. A third factor are developments within computer science that have led to the establishment of a new field of research called artificial intelligence.

(Les lignes qui suivent représentent une synthèse partielle subjective de la séance de clôture du colloque. Ont participé à cette séance, entièrement consacrée à une discussion ‘à bâtons rompus’ animée par l'auteur: S.P. Corder – D. Coste – A. Ellegard – C. Gutknecht – E. Ingram – R. Richterich – E. Roulet – M. Sharwood-Smith – A. Valdman – H.G. Widdowson).