Applied Linguistics 26/4: 568581

doi:10.1093/applin/ami032

Oxford University Press 2005

DISCUSSION ARTICLE

Applied Linguistics: A Pragmatic

Discipline, a Generic Discipline?
MARTIN BYGATE
Lancaster University

PREAMBLE
It is some 25 years since the first issue of Applied Linguistics, and so it is
perhaps timely that this issue brings together a wide-ranging set of papers,
each from a quite distinct area of applied linguistics. I am grateful for the
opportunity to respond to them, which I do by attempting to reflect on
what the papers say to us about the nature and internal cohesion of applied
linguistics today.
As has often been pointed out (e.g. Davies 1999) up to the mid-1980s
applied linguistics was most closely associated with its educational branch,
and particularly with the researched pedagogy of language teaching. Initially
more focused on developing principles and practices on the basis of informed
linguistic description, in the 1970s it gradually came to include the study of
second language acquisition (SLA) as a sub-activity designed to inform
the development of a researched pedagogy. Yet by the early 1980s SLA fairly
quickly declared itself a distinct area from language pedagogy research,
with the principal aim of researching all aspects of second language
acquisition as an academic discipline in its own right. For many, however,
SLA is still seen as synonymous with an approach to language teaching, and
for some both are still thought of as the main matter of applied linguistics.
Nonetheless all three have in fact become distinct: SLA dealing with the
acquisition of second and subsequent languages outside as well as inside
classrooms, and with improving understanding of how learning proceeds,
rather than with how pedagogies can work; the researched study of language
pedagogy including first as well as second or other languages, and not
exclusively concerned with studies of language learning; while the borders of
applied linguistics have expanded well beyond those of language teaching
or learning, to include for instance forensic linguistics, speech, and language
therapy, sign languages, the study of the language of public debates, and
work with health professionals on their interactions with clients. This
expansion is reflected in the themes of applied linguistic conferences, in
the titles of books submitted for applied linguistic book prizes, and in the

MARTIN BYGATE

569

pages of journals such as this one, leading us to need an account of applied

linguistics which is sufficiently broad and generic to accommodate the
principled study of language issues in any kind of real-world problem.
Such developments can be expected to contribute to changing the frames
and practices of the discipline itself. A discipline motivated to inform the
sub-area of educational applied linguistics is clearly concerned at some point
with the principled production of teaching materials, language tests,
and procedures for their implementation. It hence typically focuses on
the problems of design, implementation, and evaluation of progress. The
academic parameters and methods it cultivates for its sub-area can be
expected to reflect these priorities. Other sub-areas, however, such as translation and interpreting or forensic linguistics, will inevitably use different
parameters and methods, and if we were to consider the practices of subareas other than our own, we might find interesting ways of enriching our
own disciplinary practices. For example, we might reflect on the ways in
which forensic linguistics can use language corpora and the ways in which
corpora are brought to bear on individual samples of language evidence; or
the ways in which speech and language therapy may use a whole-person
approach or employ tasks to engage clients with particular features of
different levels of language (pragmatic, grammatical, lexical, or phonological); or the ways in which the problematic issues in the language use of
health professionals and their clients can be analysed jointly with interested
parties, and suggestions made for the ways these might be addressed. From
doing this we might draw lessons for the range of scholarly parameters
and methods we could use in any one sub-area, perhaps leading to the
enrichment of each sub-area as well as an increasing sense of the central
discipline itself. This is an ambitious agenda, and this response can only
reflect a few of the things that the four papers of this issue contribute to this
debate.

REAL-WORLD PROBLEMS: DESCRIPTION AND BEYOND

Brumfits (1995: 27) definition of applied linguistics as the theoretical and
empirical investigation of real-world problems in which language is a central
issue provides a useful starting place (but see Brumfit 2001: ch. 14 for an
extended discussion, and pp. 1837 for a restatement, of this definition).
Not only because he is quoted by two of the four authors, but because his
definition explicitly stakes a claim to an area of academic territory which
other areas of linguistics have not normally seen as central. In defining
applied linguistics as concerned with the study of real-world problems in
which language plays a central role, Brumfit ensures that the motivation
for the discipline extends beyond an interest in language use, into the
scholarly study of the ways in which language use is implicated in real-world
problemsthat is to problems of a non-scholarly nature. This definition
could of course be interpreted as being satisfied by the development of

570

DISCUSSION

descriptive accounts of these phenomena. However, as Kramsch points out,

Brumfit also makes clear that the nature of a given real-world problem and
its relationship to language cannot be simply assumed by the applied linguist:
it needs to be recognized and informed by those experiencing it (a point
also made by others such as Cameron et al. 1992; Roberts et al. 1992). This
position leads to the need for empirical engagement with informants,
and this in turn draws applied linguists into clarifying or reformulating
their accounts of the problem. An important aspect of the academys
concern, then, is to address the range of theoretical problems which arise:
theoretical accountswhether descriptive or explanatoryare not straightforward, and require the development of adequate frameworks and methods,
in interaction with empirical data, including the views of lay informants.
Yet, as Cameron et al. 1992 and Crystal 2003 have argued, unless
applied linguistics brings its theoretical and empirical findings back into
the real-world context, we will never know whether our work does more
than generate responses which make sense to the academy, an intellectual
exercise of no relevance to the real world. Thanks for the problem, we might
say to our lay colleagues, but we wont trouble you with a real-world
response. It is of course true that the most daunting part of the discipline is
often the articulation of a real-world response. As Myers says, and Eades
implies, it is appropriate to explore with cautionindeed there is more than
one reason for caution, and I will return to this below. It could be argued
however (cf Bygate 2004) that, unless we also commit to responding to those
within the problem situation, there is a danger of applied linguistics mutating
back into a purely descriptive discipline. For one is tempted to wonder what
is so special about studying language within real-world problems if the only
purpose is to use it as a stimulus for academic reflection: would this really be
an applied discipline?
To take an illustration, Krashens monitor model (e.g. 1981) was often
rightly criticized as lacking an adequate empirical basis (it was also criticized
for other things which will not concern us here). But the lack of an adequate
empirical basis is two-faced: not only was it impossible to distinguish
between Krashens postulated concepts of learned and acquired language
in testing the theory; by the same token it was also impossible to distinguish
between learnt and acquired language in applying the theory in the
classroom. And the lack of rigorous applicability seemed crucial: in such
circumstances, what good is the theory? In the case of Krashens distinction,
the lack of adequate research evidenceprobably coupled with his ability
to make an interesting story convincingwidely led to teachers accepting
his injunction to concentrate on providing comprehensible input and to let
learners development take care of itself. Handy parts of the theory were
applied, but the fact that its various elements lacked operational status meant
that in practice it was reduced to a series of rules of thumb.
The issue of applicability arises for any other aspect of educational applied
linguistic theorywhether strategy research, the use of pedagogical tasks,

MARTIN BYGATE

571

socio-cultural theory, the role of play, the contribution of conversation

analysis, or the outlining of proficiency levels. To take another example,
Cook (2000) argues that much language is learnt through play. The
interesting applied linguistic issue that then arises is how the concept can
be used systematically in pedagogy, and how its impact on learning can be
evaluated by a teacher. In other words, what is needed is not simply to
develop and cross-examine the theories, but to explore their applicability
within real-world contexts.
Educational applied linguists widely recognize this as an important
challenge. But this is also true for other areas of the field. For instance it is
not sufficient to identify language as a source of problems in doctorpatient
interactionswe need to know what can then be done to help doctor and
patient achieve their ends. As Sarangi and Candlin remark [a]lthough
applied and practical should not be conflated . . . , practical relevance can
be taken as a defining feature of all applied research (2003: 272).
There seems to be a case then for the discipline (as distinct from any
particular study undertaken within the discipline) to go beyond the
theoretical and descriptive study of the role of language in real-world
problems, into the planning, design, and evaluation of potential responses.
In this sense, we might redefine the discipline as the pragmatically
motivated study of language, where the term pragmatic refers to the
intention to address and not merely describe the real-world problems.

ORIENTATIONS OF THE PAPERS

The papers of Cameron, Eades, Myers, and Kramsch make clear this concern,
although each to a different extent. For Cameron an applied linguistic
account of language and gender interacts with changing real-world views
of genderbut it also aims to understand gender in a globalized world, and
[challenge] its most unjust and oppressive effects. This raises the issue of
how best to interact with society in order to achieve these aims: in what
ways can gender-related language issues be addressed to reduce injustice?
A fundamental problem this poses applied linguists is that of communicating
with non-specialists, a variant on what Pennycook (1994) called the
incommensurability of discourses. For Cameron the problem is especially
that applied linguistic facts are complex, resulting in complicated stories
[needing] to be told in ways wider audiences will find compelling. This
resonates with other issues such as how to interact with employers and
employees around research on language and discrimination in the workplace
(e.g. Roberts et al. 1992), or how to communicate with members of the
medical profession when collaborating with them in researching and
developing language tests for doctors (Roberts and Sarangi 2003). Cameron,
however, is concerned with the challenges of communicating with much
broader groups, lay as well as specialist.

572

DISCUSSION

For Myers, there are also pragmatic motivations in studying the

relationships between language and the canvassing of public opinion.
As an applied linguist, Myers identifies the ways in which opinions can be
negotiated, becoming altered in numerous ways through the interactions
between the pollers and those being polled. This helps to cast a light on the
polling procedures, which can then inform the development of professional
technologies. But just as importantly, it can help to inform lay members
of any society that has democratic pretensions. Yet Myers is diffident about
the contribution work such as his can make to professional opinion polling.
On the one hand, there is plenty of non-linguistically based expertise in
the field; and on the other, the humbling reality is that academic applied
linguists lack the material conditionsparticularly the funding and time
to contribute to opinion polling within the timescales that the real-world
demands. Hence the pragmatic contribution of applied linguists to opinion
polling, similar in some ways to Camerons account of language and gender,
seems to be more educational or broadly political than professional. For
both it appears that the applied linguist is principally a source of insight and
information in a complex world. The pragmatic outcomes from applied
linguistic activity seem not to be a major concern.
In contrast the pragmatic orientations of Eades and Kramsch point to
more precise spaces for action and to more explicit purposes. In considering
the development of linguistically informed guidelines for the interviewing of
potential refugees, Eades focuses on the need to ensure adequate linguistic
expertise and appropriate real time elicitation and analysis procedures for
assessing the extent to which a sample of speech indicates the national
background of an individual. This shares with other areas of forensic
linguistics the concern to systematically relate the predictability of language
patterns (including the complexities of dialect variation) to real-world
judicial cases, and to ensure careful scrutiny of that relationship. Where it
seems to differ is that other types of forensic analysis tend to concentrate
on issues of identity of authorship and authenticity of discourse; in contrast
the attempt discussed by Eades to establish a persons origins through
samples of their language seems more hazardous, and it would be good to
see examples of where it has worked. In contrast with the papers by Myers
and Cameron, however, Eades account goes well beyond the theoretical
issues of description and into the pragmatic task of setting up legally
adequate procedures for handling specific cases of data elicitation and
analysis. This seems to bring with it the implicit need to study and evaluate
their implementation.
Working within the field of language education, Kramsch too occupies
a pragmatically focused zone of scholarly activity. The hub of her argument
is that the relationship between applied linguists and the real world is
itself open to different interpretations within a given field, driven by different
real-world contexts, needs, and agents, but complicated by the development
within the academy of different and competing sets of principles, practices,

MARTIN BYGATE

573

and ideologies. In language education, relevant influential agents are not

only language teaching institutions, but the various power holdersnotably
the funding bodies, and also ministries and other education authorities,
examining bodies, and publishersalong with their particular resources to
influence both real-world demands, and the capacities of applied linguists to
respond to them. Following an argument also articulated by Mitchell (2000),
this in turn creates the need for applied linguists to engage with these
various authorities over the perceptions and conceptualizations of the realworld problems and their diverse relations to language.
All the four papers, then, situate themselves outside the space of a purely
descriptive discipline. Those by Eades and Kramsch outline the more specific
kinds of pragmatic involvement for applied linguists. Although neither
discusses the need for their research to extend into the evaluation of
the real-world outcomes of their interventions, both indicate the need to
campaign to assert their authority within their respective territories, to
negotiate the terms of engagement, to engage with the practices of nonapplied linguists, and to adopt a reflexive stance in relation to applied
linguistic activities. On the other hand, Camerons and Myers respective
engagements with sister disciplines put more emphasis on an interdisciplinary than on a pragmatic applied linguistics, and with their pragmatic
focus being less specific. If asked what for, then Myers, one suspects, might
perhaps say because the linguistic perspective reflects an aspect of the reality
which the social psychologists cannot be expected to detect as reliably.
So the papers seem to differ in terms of specificity of their pragmatic
orientation, which may relate to the extent to which they orientate towards
follow-up impact focused research.

INTERIM SUMMARY: TOWARDS A GENERIC DISCIPLINE?

So what do these papers suggest about the generic nature of applied
linguistics? Taken together, the papers suggest four levels of applied linguistic
research, each motivated by a distinct purpose. First, the essentially
theoretical purpose of questioning and improving our understanding of
phenomenaof the significant roles language can play within real-world
problems. All authors acknowledge that this requires constructive collaboration with colleagues from outside our fieldwith lawyers, immigration
officials, police, plaintiffs and witnesses; with teachers, testers, learners,
parents, and other interested parties; with pollsters, with those polled, with
thosespecial interest groups or the publicwho use information from the
polls; with women and men who suffer or inflict gender-based injustices
through the exploitation of language. All would probably also acknowledge
Camerons point that, although working within a broad discipline and a
global context, we need to pay close attention to the similarities and
differences among the women [or more generally participants] crucially
including what may be very marked differences in how much power, control

574

DISCUSSION

or choice they have: the quality of any generalization depends on the

quality of the analysis of individual casesa point which applies in roughly
equal measure to the difficulties outlined by Myers in interpreting different
peoples responses to questionnaire items, by Eades in interpreting different
types of questions asked of refugees, and the different responses they might
give, and by Kramsch in assessing the needs and learning processes of
particular learners.
Where the papers are less explicit here is over the issue of the
generalizability of findings: none discuss the work in their sub-area as
depending to any extent on the accumulation of findings from earlier
studies. The notion of the discipline working to increase its data sets and
building on results derived from a range of different contexts, using them as
stepping stones to a more powerful or discriminating set of theoretical
principles or practice is not alluded to. This is perhaps not surprising
given the current widespread importance accorded to research focusing on
the particularity of participants, their contexts and experiences, and on the
ambiguity of data generated. Yet the authority needed for applied linguistics
in our interactions with outsiders seems to depend in part on our knowledge
accumulated through work with different participants, in varied contexts
over time. For instance, applied linguists responses to language problems
encountered in multi-cultural post-colonial contexts may have something
to say to the study and responses to analogous problems experienced in
other contexts, whether post-colonial or not. Studies in first, second, third,
or foreign language learning or education surely have something to say to
each other. Research into the learning of language for commercial purposes
will inform studies of language learning and/or education for artistic
purposes, and vice versa.
A second purpose which is implied by all is Camerons target of telling a
story in accessible form to non-applied linguistic audiences. This too implies
differentiation between the potential interests and motivations of various
audiences. Added to this is the purpose identified by Kramsch and to a lesser
extent Eades of building and critiquing a theory of practicenot purely
the practice of applied linguists, but that of informed non-applied linguists.
The final main purpose emerging from the papers, as articulated for instance
by Myers, is to contribute to the evolution of assumptions, policies, practices
and institutions in ways which can feed forward into society. It is this final
purpose which has the clearest pragmatic orientation. All four purposes
imply interaction with relevant individuals and groups from outside the
academy, and a reflexive evaluative stance towards our own discipline, to
which lay informants have a key contribution to make.
Having considered aspects shared by the papers, what differences of
perspective on applied linguistics do they offer? The key distinguishing
features appear to be the specificity of the pragmatic objectives that each is
prepared to commit to; the manner and extent to which each engages
with its non-applied linguistic community of reference (whether citizens at

MARTIN BYGATE

575

large or particular public or professional interest groups) in carrying out its

studies; the extent to which it highlights the development of a body of expert
theory and method; and the extent to which each identifies a space in which
they feel willing and justified in asserting their authority in relation to the
various interest groups. The authors also differ in respect of the balance of
agency between that of applied linguists and of other parties in the various
enterprisesa matter which could lead to reflection across the field.
Hence maybe from cross-comparing work in this way we are able to
identify principles and practices that might be pooled or borrowed. Issues
such as agency and authority, specificity of pragmatic objectives, engagement
with the communities of reference, clarification of methodologies as bases
for claims to expertise, and reflexivity with regard to impacts and outcomes
are matters which might constitute a generic applied linguistics, and which
it might be worth gathering along with others into a generic statement of
the field.

APPLIED LINGUISTICS AND ITS IDEOLOGICAL CONTEXTS

There is one further issue which needs mention, namely that of the
relationship between applied linguistic research, and the larger cultural
context within which we operate, and in particular its integrity of
interpretation. While this issue is raised in each of the papers, in some
ways Kramschs raises the problem in the most radical way. Responding to
Scollons call to have an open discussion on the socio-political consequences
of applied linguistics, her stance appears to have potentially far reaching
implications for all areas of the field, and with this broad perspective
in mind, this last section will identify and discuss two issues which arise
from her paper. These concern, first of all, her interpretation of the origins
of applied linguistics in general, and the motivation of communicative
language teaching (CLT), in the light of what she refers to as the broader
econocultural context of the time, and secondly the proposed ways forward.
I will first summarize the relevant parts of her argument.
Kramschs overall argument is that applied linguistics and its early
institutionsand communicative language teaching as a particular strand
of research within itemerged in order to [foster] an understanding of the
way people learned and taught foreign languages, in particular English,
to solve the real-world problems encountered in the course of commercial
transactions. Concepts developed within applied linguistics and CLT,
such as negotiation of meaning undertaken through the use of
communication strategies reflected the ideology of a growing world trade,
aiming to de-institutionalize language learning and bring it down to the
level of streets and supermarkets. In this account, applied linguistics and
CLT simply served to satisfy the capitalistic demands and/or ideologies of the
wider socio-cultural context within which they worked. Some of those
researching language teaching within a communicative perspective, may of

576

DISCUSSION

course claim that they are targeting a theoretically interesting real-world

problem, and doing so from an ethically enlightened perspective, but
whatever they might say, they cannot help serving the wider econocultural
forces. In a sense, he who pays the piper calls the tune, but in this view, the
payment influences the thinking of the piper, it determines the interpretation of the tune, and, not surprisingly, he who pays the piper is then free to
redefine and reuse the tune in ways the piper may not have intended and
can do nothing to prevent: [N]otions like autonomy, communication,
negotiation, strategy are appropriated and resignified.
According to Kramschs account, intellectual climates change, enabling
the emergence of a more socio-culturally sensitive approach to applied
linguistics. This leads to alternative conceptualizations of the scope of second/
foreign language pedagogy (for instance, should it include issues such as
empathy, understanding of self and other, and tolerance of difference or
extend to include intercultural learning, bringing into the curriculum
matters such as reflection, critical awareness, acceptance of paradox and
contradiction, open discussion of power relations and identity conflicts, and
willingness to cross over into other disciplines). The different external
influencesthose of the needs of linguistic and minority language rights,
and those of the business and other corporate bodies of the nation statecan
also be seen as creating a radical tension within the discipline: should
the discipline allow the most significant financial and academic resources to
be directed at the demands of business and the corporate nation state,
or should it fight to protect its autonomy? At a more disciplinary level,
the choice taken would determine the contexts, units, and categories of
analysis used by educational applied linguists (such as making music,
painting a mural, or building a shelter vs. the kinds of tasks defined by
corporate businesses and professions for which issues of culture, history, and
identity are not of prime relevance).
Kramsch concludes that it might turn out that the real-world problem
does not lie in the completion of tasks we assumed everyone agreed upon,
but in the very definition of what counts as a worthwhile task to complete.
Her conclusion is that these are socio-political questions that cannot be
answered by researchers alone . . . [but] . . . in an open forum of political
ideologies and interests. By debating openly how we define the nature of
the real world and the nature of the problems before starting to seek
solutions, applied linguists are better placed to maintain [their] professional
and ethical integrity.
The first aspect of this argument concerns the theoretical autonomy of
applied linguistics within the broader econocultural context in which
we work, an argument as I say that seems to have potentially radical
implications for all aspects of the field of applied linguistics. The problem with
this account is that the broader econocultural context of the past 30 years
appears to lead to a reinterpretation not only of the effects, but of the substance
of applied linguistics during this period. In arguing that applied linguistics

MARTIN BYGATE

577

was set up from the outset, and CLT subsequently emerged, specifically to
serve the need to develop the teaching and learning of language for commercial
purposes, Kramsch is stating that, from the beginning of the discipline,
institutions and publications such as ELT Journal, and the Edinburgh Course in
Applied Linguistics (Allen et al. 197377) concentrated heavily on commercial
needs and interests. The argument implies that the same is true of all
other significant publications which were explicitly situated within a CLT
framework, such as the work of Allwright (e.g. 1984), Anderson and Lynch
(1988), Breen (1989), Brumfit (e.g. 1979, 1984), Brumfit and Johnson (1979),
Breen and Candlin (1980), George (1972), Larsen-Freeman (1980), Legutke
and Thomas (1991), Lynch (1996), Prabhu (1987), Skehan (1998), Stevick
(1976), Widdowson (1978, 1983), and the pedagogic and teacher education
materials published by theoretical practitioners such as Abbs and Sexton (1978),
Frank and Rinvolucri (1991), Lynch and Anderson (1992), McEldowney
(1982), Ur (1981, 1988), White (1978/1979), Wright (1994), or the work of
programme evaluators, such as those reported in Alderson and Beretta
(1992). I list these specifically because none of these writers (among others) to
my knowledge defined their work in the way Kramsch does in her paper.
Her paper also makes no mention of the fact that this work drew widely on
the writings of linguists and educationists such as Dewey (e.g. 1910),
Bruner (1960, 1966, 1983), Halliday (1974, 1985), Hymes (1971), and Wells
(1981, 1985) or indeed that, in fact, it drew hardly at all on linguists such
as Chomsky. From Kramschs perspective, whatever its statements and
intentions, CLT in theory and practice was directed to meeting the commercial
needs and interests of the wider context. Interpreting publications such as
those cited above in this way, her account therefore constitutes a radical
reinterpretation of a truly substantial body of theoretical and practical work
generated over more than 20 years, virtually all of which was explicitly
premised on the need for a holistic, interactive and learner-oriented conception
of language, language use, and language learning, and hardly any of which
(and none of the above output) was explicitly oriented towards the learning
of language for commercial purposes.
Indeed, Kramschs account is such a huge reassessment of this period in
educational applied linguistics that it amounts to a claim that the conceptual
and practical developments articulated and promoted by applied linguists
were completely different fromand in the majority of cases in contradiction
tothe actual theoretical reasoning and practical contributions of the period.
Claims made by numerous of the above applied linguists to be developing
a socio-cognitively-inspired, learner-driven, meaning-oriented pedagogy
aimed at facilitating learners perceptions of, memory for, and ability to
use language within pedagogically effective discoursethese claims turn out
according to Kramschs interpretation instead to have worked to enable the
teaching of language for commercial purposes.
If this is indeed Kramschs argument, then the implications for the entire
field are intimidating: applied linguistic research is irreparably contaminated

578

DISCUSSION

and undermined by the broader econocultural context within which applied

linguists work. No space apparently for dissident applied linguists whose
arguments mean what they intendthe meanings of applied linguists are in
the hands of those determinant econocultural forces. By its nature this
argument must equally apply to other areas in applied linguisticsto the
work undertaken in gender and language, in the applied linguistics of
opinion-polling, in forensic linguistics, and in any other areas of the field.
It seems our thinking and research are putty in the hands of those wider
forces; we cannot mean what we write, or through engagement with practice
do what we intend. Maybe indeed, we are condemned, to misquote Eliot,
to do the wrong thing for the right reason. But where, then, does this
leave Kramschs own theoretical and practical position? Or is it the case that
more simply, she has oversimplified her account of applied linguistics
and CLT? My concern here then is to question the implied argument for
a superdeterminant relationship between econocultural contexts and
research, and to resist reinterpretation of research where the evidence
suggests this may not be legitimate. It is not, however, to question
the problematic nature of the contexts within which we work: on this there
is no question.
The second concern focuses more on the ways forward. Here the issue is
how to take forward the pragmatic engagement with the non-applied
linguistic communities. It seems to me Kramsch rightly stresses the need for
discussion across the applied and relevant lay communities before engaging
in research (her emphasis), as a pre-requisite for conserving the integrity of
applied linguists. As we have already noted, the need to engage with the lay
public is also acknowledged by Cameron, Myers, and Eades, and indeed,
ironically given Kramschs earlier criticisms of the movement, this was also
one of the foundation stones of the learner-based syllabuses and of
evaluation studies of CLT (cf. Swales 1990; Alderson and Beretta 1992).
Yet there is a problem here which seems not to be acknowledged; for
although open and public discussion and debate are essential processes,
they do not guarantee the outcomes. By definition these can escape the
best intentions of the research community. The key question then is, how
can applied linguists participate in such debates so that their expertise
can properly inform the conclusions? It is, after all, hard to tell our story
in ways which make sense to our interlocutors, lay or otherwise. Yet we
surely need to go beyond the principle of debate, and indeed beyond
the idea of only participating in debates before applied linguists engage with
real-world issues.
In a previous issue of this journal, Mitchell (2000) concluded an argument
in which she focused on the need to engage with the educational powerbrokers by defining the dilemma in terms of two alternative positions:
Should we argue, in line with our past practices, that theory
building, and an enriched understanding of the processes of

MARTIN BYGATE

579

classroom teaching and learning developed through noninterventionist research, will lead in the long run to the most
principled insights which can best inform teachers craft theories,
and thusindirectlytheir practices? Or should we aim to build
up research skills and traditions which equip us to intervene much
more directly in the teaching process, experimenting actively
with specific techniques and using learning outcomes rather than
processes as our main measure of effectiveness, so as to generate
the kind of evidence base seen as most useful by current policy
makers? (Mitchell 2000: 299300)
There are doubtless ways in which the framing of the second option might
be usefully reworked (for instance maintaining a focus on process, and
retaining a concern to explore participants perceptions and conceptualizations). And I would argue particularly for the more widespread use of
cyclical research designs, a point implied consistently throughout the
evaluation literature (see for instance Alderson and Beretta 1992). Yet with
these provisos, as Mitchell suggests, it seems to me that we need to go well
beyond debate, and grapple much more substantially with the full range of
assumptions and procedures which are used by our interlocutors, whether
they are our potential paymasters, or the members of the public we
might be aiming to serve. And this speaks beyond the specific area of
educational applied linguistics to the field at large, and indicates directions
already sketched out for the development of a methodologically pragmatic
discipline.

CONCLUSION
To return, then, to the generic and pragmatic nature of the discipline.
It seems to me that the papers suggest the need for work in three main areas:
on the specific principles and methods we use to engage with real-world
challenges; on our shared and strengthening disciplinary culture; and on the
concepts, constructs, and practices needed to study those fundamental issues
with which we need to engage across the breadth of our field. There seems,
therefore, to be some commonality here across the sub-areas in terms of
the wide range of problems we aim to engage with across private, public,
and professional contexts: those related to language use across different
contexts and domains; those associated with language variation, both within
and between speakers; those associated with interaction between different
types and groups of language users; those related to the impacts of language
experiences and learning over time; and those related to professional and lay
involvement. These are basic issues which might form part of a core applied
linguistics, and constitute what is a long-term disciplinary enterprise.
The functioning of language in the context of real-world problems, and what
to do about it, are issues which are not about to go away and which no other
discipline is available to address.

580

DISCUSSION

And as Eades in particular implies, central within this must be the

adequacy of the empirical evidence and its careful analysis and interpretation
of the way language relates to the problem in question. Without a
scrupulous and broadly consensual methodology, and, perhaps, some more
broadly consensual agreement about our intellectual history, our authority is
seriously compromised. To attempt a real-world engagement without this will
be foolhardy; but unless we do, I suggest, our discipline is not in fact a
pragmatically oriented applied linguistics. It is perhaps here, in this tension
between intra-disciplinary accountability and our potential real-world roles,
that all of the papers in this special issue make their most powerful cases,
and here that there may be much valuable work to be done.
Final version received September 2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am grateful to two reviewers for their helpful and insightful comments on a previous draft of
this paper.

REFERENCES
Abbs, B. and M. Sexton. 1978. Challenges.
A Multi-media Project for Learners of English.
London: Longman.
Alderson, J. C. and A. Beretta (eds). 1992.
Evaluating Second Language Education. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Allen, J. P. B., A. Davies, and S. Pit Corder (eds).
1973, 1974, 1975, 1977. Edinburgh Course
in Applied Linguistics, Vols 14. London: Oxford
University Press.
Allwright, R. L. 1984. Interaction in the
language classroom, Applied Linguistics 5/2:
15671.
Anderson, A. and T. Lynch. 1988. Listening.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Breen, M. 1989. The evaluation cycle for language
learning tasks in R. K. Johnson (ed.): The Second
Language Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Breen, M. and C. N. Candlin. 1980. The
essentials of a communicative curriculum
in language teaching, Applied Linguistics 1:
89112.
Brumfit, C. J. 1979. Practice and Principle in
English Language Teaching. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.

Brumfit, C. J. 1984. Communicative Methodology

for Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Brumfit, C. J. 1995. Teacher professionalism
and research in G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer
(eds): Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 2741.
Brumfit, C. J. 2001. Individual Freedom in Language
Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brumfit, C. J. and K. Johnson (eds). 1979.
A Communicative Approach to Language Teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bruner, J. S. 1960. The Process of Education.
Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. S. 1966. Toward a Theory of Instruction.
Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. S. 1983. Childs Talk. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bygate, M. 2004. Some current trends in applied
linguistics: Towards a generic view in S. M. Gass
and S. Makoni (eds): AILA Review 17: World
Applied Linguistics, pp. 622.
Cameron, D., E. Frazer, P. Harvey,
M. B. H. Rampton, and K. Richardson.
1992. Researching Language: Issues of Power and
Metod. London: Routledge.

MARTIN BYGATE

Cook, G. 2000. Language Play, Language Learning.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crystal, D. 2003. Final frontiers in applied
linguistics in S. Sarangi and T. van Leeuwen
(eds): Applied Linguistics and Communities of
Practice. Selected papers from the Annual
Meeting of BAAL, Cardiff University, September
2002. London: BAAL, in association with
Continuum, pp. 924.
Davies, A. 1999 An Introduction to Applied
Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Dewey, J. 1910. How we Think. Boston, MA:
D.C. Heath.
Frank, C. and M. Rinvolucri. 1991. Grammar in
Action Again (2nd edn). New York: Prentice Hall
International.
George, H. V. 1972. Common Errors in Language
Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1974. Learning How to Mean.
London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An Introduction to
Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
Hymes, D. 1971. On Communicative Competence.
Philadelphia PA: University of Philadelphia
Press (reprinted in C. J. Brumfit and K. Johnson
1979. A Communicative Approach to Language
Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Krashen, S. D. 1981. Second Language Acquisition
and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (ed.). 1980. Discourse Analysis
and Second Language Research. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Legutke, M. and H. Thomas. 1991. Process and
Experience in the Language Classroom. Harlow:
Longman.
Lynch, T. 1996. Communication in the Classroom.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lynch, T. and K. Anderson. 1992. Study Speaking.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McEldowney, P. L. 1982. English in Context:
Learning Materials. Walton on Thames: Nelson &
Sons Ltd.

581

Mitchell, R. 2000. Applied linguistics and

evidence-based classroom practice: The case of
foreign language grammar pedagogy. Applied
Linguistics 21/3: 281303.
Pennycook,
A.
1994.
Incommensurable
discourses? Applied Linguistics 15/2: 11538.
Prabhu, N. S. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, C. and S. Sarangi. 2003. Uptake of
discourse research in interprofessional settings:
Reporting from medical consultancy, Applied
Linguistics: Special Issue: Researching the Discourses
of Workplace Practice 24/3: 33859.
Roberts, C., T. Jupp, and E. Davies. 1992.
Language and Discrimination. Harlow: Longman.
Sarangi, S. and C. Candlin. 2003. Introduction.
Special Issue: Researching the discourse of
workplace practice, Applied Linguistics 24/3:
27185.
Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language
Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stevick, E. W. 1976. Memory, Meaning and Method.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swales, J. 1990. Genre Analysis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ur, P. 1981. Discussions that Work. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ur, P. 1988. Grammar Practice Activities: A Practical
Guide for Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wells, G. 1981. Learning through Interaction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wells, G. 1985. Language Development in the
Pre-school
Years.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University Press.
White, R. V. 1978/1979. Functional English. Books I
& II. London: Nelson.
Widdowson, H. G. 1978. Teaching Language as
Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, H. G. 1983. Learning Purpose and
Language Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wright, T. 1994. Investigating English. London:
Arnold.