Hi,

I think we need to move away from the dictionary and textbook definitions of what ought to be what.  They are too normative, often stake ideological territory and are not really embedded in the ways the disciplines work.  Thus, I would strongly disagree with the notion that all applied linguists are always able to comment on general linguistics or that general linguists are always able to comment about applied matters.  Generally they are interested in different things.  

As I understand it, applied linguistics initially grew out of general linguistics and was initially considered as "linguistics applied".  However, over the years, applied linguistics has proved to be a diverse and dynamic field and has expanded dramatically and has developed its own metalanguage(s) and bodies of theory which inform it to the point where linguistics and applied linguistics are largely separate and unrelated disciplines.   It is now not only possible but likely that an applied linguist does not have linguistic training -- and vice versa.   So it is not the case that one is prior to the other (except historically).  

I think the divergence goes quite deep.  It is not just a question of empirical fact of whether applied and general linguists are informed about the other's fields, but it has become an epistemological and ontological issue.  Applied linguists take as their objects of study very different objects to general linguists and they approach them from quite different epistemological perspectives too.  So in a deep sense, the two disciplines *cannot* be interrelated.

I'd like to hedge this by noting that there may well be subdisciplines within AL which retain some notion of "linguistics applied"  but generally, within AL  the discussion has moved on from there.

Very importantly, I am not attaching any value judgements to this assessment.  i.e. I am not claiming that AL "ought" to derive from general linguistics any more than I'm claiming that general linguistics "ought" to be practically relevant to societal problems.  The two disciplines have simply diverged and in a Kuhnian sense, this is a characteristic of mature disciplines.

Applied linguistic is a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary major where we can combine linguistic with other fields such as social science or computing. Therefore, It is not part of linguistic and also linguistic is not part of applied linguistic.  

Applied linguistics as mentioned by Mohammad Arshi Saloot, is a kind of interdisciplinary major which can be mixed with other fields. For example, I obtained my masters in Applied Linguistics where I focused on enhancing EFL learners' English vocabulary recall and retention using Project-based Learning which was a combination of linguistics and TESOL.

Linguistics itself refers to the scientific study of language and the process of learning or acquiring it which can be incorporated with sociology, psychology, neurology and etc.

According to Azadeh, linguistics deals with the scientific study of language whereas applied linguistics deals with the real-life problems. The question is which one comes first, if any?

Mohammad made an interesting point that neither linguistics nor applied linguistics is a part of the other. If so, what is the relationship between them?

Perhaps whether "applied linguistics" is linguistics applied is a question of politics in the academia more than a question of the field landmark.   

I would like to rephrase Woravut's comment in this way: one part of applied linguistics is politics, the question is should we start from linguistics and then apply it to politics OR we should start from politics and then analyze it in linguistics and then do something more than what linguistics offers (which implies linguistics is only one part of applied linguistics and there is more to AL) OR those who study linguistics can and should only pass judgment on language and politics and similar fields are none of their business (which implies applied linguistics at best is simply teaching and testing language!)

I think this is an old question. Historically, it seems "linguistics" precedes "applied linguistics" as a discipline. Linguists, as I understand it, are interested to search for an provide empirical evidence for how languages work as a system in terms of syntax, semantics, morphology and phonology. Some old examples of linguistic research include "contrastive analysis" which aimed at comparing different languages at different levels. A particular example is to compare the sound system of two languages. A recent and perhaps the standing figure as a linguist is Noam Chomsky whose generative linguistics is a breakthrough.

Initially, Applied Linguistics was concerned with teaching and learning languages and so applied linguists started to apply findings from linguistic research to the teaching of languages. An example may be the case of using the results of "contrastive analysis" in the areas of syntax or phonology between two languages to develop instructional materials and then teach them accordingly. This therefore reflected the "linguistics applied" move.

However, in later stages and with the advances in research and expansions in scope of language teaching and learning, applied linguists (those interested in teaching and learning languages) came to the realization that teaching and learning a language goes far beyond just applying some findings from pure linguistic research. As mentioned by others, they found that AL is, in fact, an interdisciplinary enterprise which brings in and relies on principles from psychology, education, sociology and even philosophy. This can be said to be the second phase in the development of AL as an interdisciplinary area.

Recent perspectives on AL is that "language teaching and learning" is only one area in AL. More importantly, AL is a field or discipline which deals with language problems in any profession including medicine, psychiatric, law etc. and addresses issues relate to medical communication, psychiatric consultations, and language in law and legal discourse and communication. 

Dear Professor Riazi, supposing that this is an old question, it does not mean the answer is clear cut, nor does it mean the controversy is over. In my opinion, no question CAN become old in liberal arts. Only the view toward a question MAY become old.

I try to play devil's advocate here, is a linguist qualified to tackle political, social, or even psychological problems just by studying language?

Absolutely! By saying "it's an old question" I meant it has a long history behind.

"Is a linguist qualified to tackle political, social, or even psychological problems just by studying language?"

Let's extrapolate your question to "Is a football player qualified to play basketball, tennis etc.?"

I would say YES if he can.

If you're a linguist and you write a paper on a political etc. issue and send it to a journal in that field and gets reviewed and accepted, then what's wrong with that?

Sorry for the misunderstanding!

In that case, that person would be probably both a linguist and an expert in politics. Are you suggesting that not all linguists are applied linguists?

If so, you are arguing for those who see linguistics as only one part of applied linguistcs.

In general terms I fully agree with Prof. Riazi's description of applied linguistics, as expressed above. Nevertheless, I would like to add the area of language policy as also being traditionally considered also part of applied linguistics.

As for the question of whether linguistics is part of applied linguistics or the way round, it is clear to me that applied linguistics IS PART of linguistics, following Widdowson's perspective in his general introduction to the discipline entitled 'Linguistics' (Oxford University Press 1996), who defines applied linguistics as "an area of enquiry which seeks to establish the relevance of theoretical studies of language to everyday problems in which language is implicated", which, of course, involves all sorts of problems, situations, or areas such as political, medical, media issues, etc. but always from a linguistic perspective (otherwise if would not be linguistics).

Dear Izaskun, don't you think this statement, "[applied linguistics is] an area of enquiry which seeks to establish the relevance of theoretical studies of language to everyday problems in which language is implicated" does not necessarily mean that applied linguistics is a part of linguistics or the other way around? 

Correct me if I'm wrong, it only suggests what linguistics and applied linguistics are concerned with. Now the problem gets muddier, which one comes first? should we start from linguistics and apply it to solve the real world problems? or should we start from real world problems and analyze language as linguists do to solve the problems? 

I think it doesn't really matter what triggers the interest in or the aim to solve the real world problems (if I am to analyse an elephant, it does not really matter if I start to analyse it by its tail of by its trunk, but the kind of analysis I'm carrying out, which will be different depending on whether I am a biologist, a veterinary, a hunter, a zoo manager, and so on), but rather what matters is if those problems are problems from a linguistic perspective and, hence, if linguists can do something about them (unfortunately linguistics cannot help with problems such as how to cure illnesses, for instance). Applied linguistics applies the knowledge achieved in linguistics, the theoretical frameworks developed in linguistics and, in general terms, a 'linguistic perspective' on those problems, And that is why applied linguistics IS PART of linguistics, and not the way round...

Thank you dear Izaskun, up to now, two views  stood out: a) Since an applied linguist must know both linguistics and say politics to pass judgment on political problems related to linguistics, not all linguists are or can be applied linguists while all applied linguists must necessarily know linguistics. Therefore, linguistics is only one part of applied linguistics.

b) Since no matter what the problem is (whether politics or sociology), applied linguists only deal with the parts of the problem which are related to linguistics, linguistics comes first and applied linguistics is only one branch of linguistics.  

"not all linguists are or can be applied linguists while all applied linguists must necessarily know linguistics. Therefore, linguistics is only one part of applied linguistics". I'm afraid that in this syllogism the conclusion is that applied linguistics is part of linguistics and not the way round: The premises as you have expressed them imply (1) that some linguists are applied linguists, and (2) that all applied linguists are linguists; the consequence of this is that the group of applied linguists is part of the group of linguists or, in other terms, that applied linguistics is within linguistics.

I beg to differ, please answer these two questions and the problem is settled.

Can an applied linguist pass judgment on linguistic matters?

Can a linguist pass judgment on politics with out being expert in it?

According to the second definition of the term 'applied linguistics' in Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, applied linguistics is a broad concept that includes blah blah blah AND LINGUISTICS

AND LINGUISTICS means linguistics is only one part of the many aspects of applied linguistics.

In still another view, linguistics is like mathematics and applied linguistics is like physics, none necessarily is a part of the other!

Back to the syllogism

a) only some of the linguists are applied linguists

b) all the applied linguists are also linguists

==] Applied linguistics necessarily includes linguistics while it is not restricted to linguistics

I'm sorry but in the British tradition of linguistics I've been brought up, a linguist is never a judge of anything, what a linguist tries to do is to analyse, describe, observe, build up theories, but never judge, so I think that we are just talking about diferent conceptions of the discipline...

Hi,

I think we need to move away from the dictionary and textbook definitions of what ought to be what.  They are too normative, often stake ideological territory and are not really embedded in the ways the disciplines work.  Thus, I would strongly disagree with the notion that all applied linguists are always able to comment on general linguistics or that general linguists are always able to comment about applied matters.  Generally they are interested in different things.  

As I understand it, applied linguistics initially grew out of general linguistics and was initially considered as "linguistics applied".  However, over the years, applied linguistics has proved to be a diverse and dynamic field and has expanded dramatically and has developed its own metalanguage(s) and bodies of theory which inform it to the point where linguistics and applied linguistics are largely separate and unrelated disciplines.   It is now not only possible but likely that an applied linguist does not have linguistic training -- and vice versa.   So it is not the case that one is prior to the other (except historically).  

I think the divergence goes quite deep.  It is not just a question of empirical fact of whether applied and general linguists are informed about the other's fields, but it has become an epistemological and ontological issue.  Applied linguists take as their objects of study very different objects to general linguists and they approach them from quite different epistemological perspectives too.  So in a deep sense, the two disciplines *cannot* be interrelated.

I'd like to hedge this by noting that there may well be subdisciplines within AL which retain some notion of "linguistics applied"  but generally, within AL  the discussion has moved on from there.

Very importantly, I am not attaching any value judgements to this assessment.  i.e. I am not claiming that AL "ought" to derive from general linguistics any more than I'm claiming that general linguistics "ought" to be practically relevant to societal problems.  The two disciplines have simply diverged and in a Kuhnian sense, this is a characteristic of mature disciplines.

I tried to play devil's advocate throughout this discussion. However, I don't deny the fact that I firmly believe most of the recent issues of TESOL revolve around the recent view of applied linguistics. I totally agree with dear Mark when he said Linguistics and applied linguistics are now two independent disciplines (though, to me, they are not unrelated). 

Except for dear Izaskun, who does have her reasons, all in all we came to the conclusion that (((applied linguistics HAS BECOME and IS more than linguistics applied))). 

NOW, what are some of the areas that make applied linguistics what it is today?

Alan Davies is the man to check out on this topic.

Dear Mobin,

It is generally agreed today that translation is a multidisciplinary field integrating science with  art and craft. Interestingly, translation is one of core domains in applied linguistics. However, many experts in translation do not accept subordination and tend to believe in  the fact that  a translator is free to use any language related discipline, be it linguistics or otherwise. Therefore, translators prefer to use the phrase, "linguistics applied" rather than "applied linguistics".

Best regards,

R. Biria

Dear Reza,

In South Africa (and perhaps in other places too), applied linguistics has differentiated into two areas: (a) applied linguistics and (b) language practice.  Translation, interpretting, editing etc. seem to self-identify more with the language practice side of things.  

While I agree that translating often draws on "any language related discipline" including literary and cultural studies, I do not agree that this necessarily is an instance of "linguistics applied".  

By the term "linguistics applied" I mean the idea of what you call "subordination":  using the tools and theories of general linguistics and then applying them to another domain.  However, in the case of translation, there is (in my view) very little application of the insights of general linguistics.   

I think a vivid example of applied linguistics, where "linguistics applied" fails to account for, is discourse analysis when it is concerned with politics. That's when linguistics is only one of the disciplines which applied linguistics draws upon. 

Ten theses on “Is applied linguistics linguistics applied?”

1. The reason that there are so many opinions on this is related to the fact that there have been at least seven main traditions of applied linguistics (https://albertweideman.wordpress.com/foundations-of-applied-linguistics/), each of them giving its own, and sometimes more than one, definition of applied linguistics. The implication of this is that one cannot define applied linguistics without reference to its history, or to the seven or so different paradigms operative in that short history.

 2. A further reason for the contestation around the definition of applied linguistics is philosophical: modernist and postmodernist approaches will of necessity define it differently (see my 2013 article in the open access journal Literator, Towards accountability: a point of orientation for post-modern applied linguistics in the third millennium. Literator 24(1): 1-20, as well as another open access article of 2003: Towards a responsible agenda for applied linguistics: confessions of a philosopher. Per Linguam 23(2): 29-53. DOI: http://perlinguam.journals.ac.za/pub/article/view/54).

3. The maturation of applied linguistics, and its separation as a discipline from linguistics, goes back to the multi-disciplinary interpretation of applied linguistics in the mid-1980s.

4. Multi-disciplinary conceptions of a discipline contradict any subsequent attempt to make applied linguistics part of a single discipline, linguistics. Its name, however, continues to suggest a continuity with linguistics. That continuity is not borne out by its subsequent history, that puts paid to the notion that applied linguistics is merely linguistics applied (see Weideman, A. 2014. Positivism and postpositivism in applied linguistics. In C.A. Chapelle, ed. The encyclopedia of applied linguistics Vol. 7, pp. 4479-4485. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0920).

5. A multi-disciplinary conception of the field has its own problem: what is the focus of the multi-disciplinary endeavor? What are the goals and intentions of working in a multi-disciplinary fashion?

6. Both the international association of applied linguistics (AILA) and inter- or multi-disciplinary conceptions of the field remain vague about what constitutes applied linguistics, or multi-disciplinarity. The vagueness is in great part due to a continuing bias within these conceptions towards the essentially modernist idea that applied linguistics is part of linguistics.

7. Taking over paradigms from anthropology, cultural studies, sociology and other disciplines does not make applied linguistics a multi-disciplinary endeavour. That is rather a transdisciplinary issue: the paradigm makes its influence felt across disciplines.

8. The good news is that there is in both modernist and postmodernist views of applied linguistics a congruence: that applied linguistics is a discipline of design (see the Springer book [2016] on Responsible design in applied linguistics: Theory and practice: http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319417295#aboutBook).

 9. We do justice to the history of applied linguistics if we acknowledge that the focus of (also multi-disciplinary) endeavour is to be found in the design of solutions to usually large-scale or at least pervasive language problems. The way that applied linguistics presents its solution to such problems is usually in the form of an intervention: a language curriculum or course, a language test or assessment (and its construct), or a language policy and plan. Examining these three prime applied linguistic artefacts, and their design, will tell us much about the nature of applied linguistics.

10. Their historical development shows that linguistics and applied linguistics are separate disciplines. They can best be defined not with reference to concrete objects (e.g. ‘language’), but by observing that their analytical and theoretical foci are different modalities. The lingual modality (making meaning by means of signs) of our experience circumscribes linguistics, while the technical modality (of design) defines applied linguistics.

https://albertweideman.wordpress.com/foundations-of-applied-linguistics/