Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Here it seemed was a clear delimitation of a relevant area of research in applied linguistics with a ready-made descriptive model provided. It soon became
apparent, however, that it was based on two very questionable assumptions. The
first comes to light when one begins to consider what kind of information
emerges from the analysis of a corpus of language in terms of grammatical categories. What emerges in fact is information about the relative frequency of the tokens of different types of linguistic element: the passive, the past tense, the nondefining relative and so on. What we get from such an analysis is a characterization of a corpus of language as an exemplification of the code as represented by a
particular model of grammar. This may serve in some sense as a validation of the
model but it gives little indication as to how the code is being put to actual use in
the performance of different acts of communication. It is not enough, for example, to say that the passive is of common occurrence in scientific texts: we also
want to know how this fact contributes to the particular character of a scientific
statement. In spite of what is said in the above quotation, in other words, the observation, recording and analysis of text with reference to linguistic categories
does not constitute a characterization of language behaviour if by this we mean
the way people use language to communicate. The first questionable assumption
then has to do with the extent to which a grammar can be used to account for
language use and consideration of this question must be the first step in outlining
a satisfactory approach to the analysis of discourse.
The first difficulty in pursuing my original research aim arose then with the
realization that the characterization of language use was not simply a matter of
applying existing models of grammatical description to the analysis of data. To put
it another way, discourse was not simply linguistic data but a form of communication whose character could not be captured by a statistical statement of the relative frequency of its constituent linguistic elements. Lurking behind the assumption that it can be so characterized, as implied in the quotation cited above, is the
old ambiguity in the term language, which both de Saussure and Chomsky have
been at such pains to resolve, and a fundamental confusion about the scope of
grammatical description. This issue is taken up in the next chapter.
1.2. 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 linguists criteria of theoretical adequacy do not have
to coincide with the language teachers criteria of pragmatic appropriacy, and the
applied linguists 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 conflict 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.
But this state of affairs is perhaps not quite as odd as it might at first appear.
Any linguistic description can be thought of as an exploitation of certain insights
about the nature of language, a detailed and explicit working out of theoretical
implications without the constraints imposed by the criteria of practical utility.
Linguistic
C
description
Diagram I
A
Insights
Teaching
materials
B Linguistic
C Teaching
description
materials
Diagram II
ter presents examples of the kind of teaching material which might be developed
from the approach to discourse analysis previously outlined.