2007.

To appear in Southern African linguistics and applied language

studies 25(4).

The redefinition of applied linguistics:

modernist and postmodernist views
Albert Weideman
Unit for Academic Literacy
University of Pretoria

Abstract

The lack of debate about what constitutes applied linguistics brings with it an
uncritical acceptance of views that deserve to be contested. Moreover, it leads
to an ignorance of the historical influence of such views, which directly affects
the basis of applied linguistics research and the training of professionals in the
field. Since attempts to use more inclusive and desirable terms have been
unsuccessful, Young (2005: 43) has now suggested that we revisit the idea of
characterising applied linguistics as a discipline of design (Weideman 1983,
1987, 1999, 2003). This characterisation of applied linguistics is itself not
wholly uncontroversial, however, and calls up valid points of critique. The
paper will discuss the reasons why such criticism is valid with reference to the
various traditional (modernist) definitions of applied linguistics, and the
variety of postmodernist definitions that have emerged. The paper will argue,
finally, that, while modernist definitions of the field have emphasised the
theoretical, scientific basis of the discipline, and postmodernist definitions
identify (social and political) accountability as the critical feature of the
endeavour, the discipline of applied linguistics finds its characteristic feature
in the moment of design. The paper concludes with how one might give a
systematic explanation of this characterisation, in terms of a foundational,
philosophical perspective. It finds that the contributions of both modernist and
postmodernist approaches to applied linguistics can be honoured, and that this
will allow us both to train professional applied linguists responsibly, and to do
research that takes each of the various emphases into account.

Why definitions are important

The lack of debate about what constitutes applied linguistics brings with it an
uncritical acceptance of views that deserve to be contested. Moreover, it leads to an
ignorance of the historical influence of such views, which directly affects the basis
of applied linguistics research and the training of professionals in the field. As will
be noted below, it is not so much the nature of applied linguistic work as the
expectations of what such an endeavour might accomplish that has historically
bedevilled the actual outcomes of applied linguistic designs. Such expectations are
often embodied in the definitions of applied linguistics that the researcher
subscribes to. So, where new entrants into the discipline remain unaware of what
has preceded their work, they may either uncritically accept current (usually
 2

postmodernist) definitions of the field, or, equally uncritically, fall victim to some
of the ideological baggage that has historically come with the use of the term
“applied linguistics”. Both situations are undesirable, and restrict rather than open
up and liberate any attempt at responsibly developing the discipline of applied
linguistics.
It was precisely to rid itself of some of the ideological baggage that often
accompanies our articulation of what constitutes applied linguistics that, in South
Africa, there has been some experimentation with the term “applied language
studies”. The term is still reflected in the title of the joint journal, Southern African
linguistics and applied language studies (SALALS). The introduction of the label
“applied language studies” (Young 2005: 43) was an attempt to make applied
linguistic endeavours in South Africa more inclusive, and more inclusive
specifically of the commonly held interests of all language practitioners in solving
the diversity of language problems that the country is presented with. However, as
Young proceeds to note, this attempt, though desirable and laudable, has not yet
met with widespread acceptance, and he adds that perhaps we should revisit the
idea of characterising applied linguistics as a discipline of design (Weideman 1983,
1987, 1999, 2003). At least one of the promises of such a characterisation is that it
potentially broadens the field of applied linguistics beyond its historical roots,
which lie almost exclusively in the domain of devising solutions to problems of
language teaching and learning.
That the notion of applied linguistics as a discipline of design is itself not
wholly uncontroversial, however, became clear to me recently when an anonymous
reviewer of a recent paper I wrote for SALALS (Weideman 2006) remarked that,
while she is not sure what a postmodern ‘paradigm’ in applied linguistics is, “it
seems to me unlikely that those working within such a ‘paradigm’ would define
applied linguistics as ‘a discipline that devises solutions to language problems’, a
definition [that] seems too narrowly technicist with its focus on ‘fixing up’ rather
than on understanding, on affirming, etc.” Apart from the reasons given above as to
why definitions of one’s field of study are important, both Young’s remark and that
of the anonymous reviewer provided me with the initial prompts to re-open the
topic of the definition of applied linguistics. Indeed, I gave such an undertaking to
the editor of the journal. Though it is not evident from the reviewer’s remark what
it is (other than a language problem) that should be understood instead of fixed, and
though it is equally unclear what it is that should be affirmed (probably: the rights
of the disadvantaged, the contextual specificity and/or the multiplicity of
perspectives on the problem), the remark nonetheless seems to me to be a valid
point of critique, and the paper will begin by discussing the reasons why it is valid
with reference to various traditional (modernist) definitions of applied linguistics.
There is the further implication in the reviewer’s remark, quoted above, that
postmodernist perspectives do not constitute a paradigm. There is evidence to the
contrary in at least one of the contributions to postmodernist applied linguistics that
will be reviewed below, that of Kumaravadivelu (2006b; for another articulation of
the same position, cf. Kumaravadivelu 2003), which unashamedly uses the term to
 3

describe a framework that runs counter to the “positivist, prescriptive research

paradigm” (p. 11) that is characteristic of modernist approaches. I agree with the
reviewer’s remark, however, if it means that we have no clear and singularly
coherent perspective that would go under that label. Indeed, as will become clear
from the discussion of the variety of postmodernist opinions that will be reviewed
below, there is much disagreement (cf. Pennycook 2004) in what is generally
termed “critical applied linguistics”, a component of postmodernist perspectives
which, upon analysis, is probably one of the most representative of such views
(Weideman 2003). So ‘postmodernist’ is used here largely as a term of
convenience, which brings together a number of possibly disparate directions.
Nonetheless, the paper will argue that postmodernist convictions of whatever
variety make a distinct contribution to our understanding of applied linguistics, and
in this sense are characterised by one outstanding feature: a sensitivity to the social
and political impact of the plans that we make to solve language problems
(Weideman 2003, 2006).
Similarly, even though currently some would want to deny this, the paper
will argue that modernist views — another label of convenience, incidentally, that
also masks a potentially wide variety of opinion — have also contributed
historically to our understanding of applied linguistics. Furthermore, though much
in the postmodernist view will differ diametrically from such approaches, the
phenomenon of historical continuity will make it difficult, if not impossible, not to
acknowledge that contribution. The paper examines modernist and postmodernist
definitions of applied linguistics by surveying and discussing fifteen definitions
[exhibits (1) – (15), below] as evidence of a progression from the former to the
latter.
In order to appreciate the relative contributions of opposing views of the
same endeavour, one needs to undertake what is commonly understood to be a
meta-analysis. This kind of analysis conventionally takes a foundational or
philosophical view of the ideas and concepts so analysed. The paper will conclude
with an illustration of one such foundational perspective that promises to give a
systematic account of the relative contributions of modernist and postmodernist
perspectives on how we go about doing applied linguistic work.

How it all began

Defining applied linguistics constitutes an attempt to articulate the nature of the

field. To understand the ongoing debate about the nature of applied linguistics, one
has to begin with an understanding of the historical beginnings of such work in the
realm of language teaching and learning, and specifically in what was once termed
the linguistic method, the ‘oral approach’ or the ‘audio-lingual method’, all of
which are, according to Stevick (1971: 2), “overlapping variants of the same
tradition” (cf. too Fries 1945, Roberts 1982). Applied linguistics began its modern
life in the sphere of language teaching, and this emphasis has been the source of
 4

much critical debate and hand wringing. To many, it seemed that such a focus,
rather than including all or most, excluded too large a number of language
practitioners in other fields. Though this has been and continues to be a valid point
(cf. Bygate 2004), discussions of applied linguistic designs (including this one!)
still take much of their illustrative material from the field of language teaching and
learning, or from sub-fields such as language testing and assessment.
In the audio-lingual method many found a demonstration of their belief that
a method of language teaching could draw directly from a theory of language
description. Ironically, however, as I have shown elsewhere (Weideman 1987: 37),
the debt that audiolingualism owes to linguistics may be much more indirect than is
often claimed. In fact, Carroll (1971: 110) noted more than thirty years ago that the
emphasis in audio-lingual teaching on the aural-oral objective, while perhaps
defensible from an educational point of view, has “little to do with language
learning theory per se.” This remarkable observation was made only a few years
after Marckwardt’s confident claim (1965: 241) at the first TESOL conference in
1964 that the aural-oral method, “the reflection of the linguist’s approach to
language”, was firmly established.
Any serious analysis of the audio-lingual method will show that, far from
finding any justification in theory, especially linguistic theory, what underlies
audio-lingualism is not the result of theoretical analysis, let alone its application,
but the uncritical acceptance of a number of a-theoretical assumptions. Lado (1964:
49f.) lists seventeen such ‘principles’, among them “Teach the sound system”,
“Teach the problems”, “Establish the patterns as habits through pattern practice”,
“Teach the patterns gradually, in cumulative graded steps”, and (principle thirteen!)
“Linguistically, a distorted rendition is not justified as the end product of practice.”
Upon analysis, not a single one of these assumptions can be related to the results of
the linguistic analysis of that time (Weideman 1987: 39-41). They are, instead,
assumptions or beliefs that underlie and support some techniques of analysis, but in
such a case they are not the results or conclusions of the analysis, but precede it.
As I have remarked elsewhere (Weideman 1987: 41-42), such statements as
those of proponents of the audio-lingual method
on the ‘application’ of linguistics in language teaching would, no doubt, have been
seen to be bordering on the absurd if it had not been for the aura of scientific truth
in which they are dressed up. What is ludicrous upon subjecting them to closer
scrutiny, however, becomes tragic when we are reminded that these principles
provided the ‘scientific’ justification for one of the most influential approaches to
the teaching of foreign languages …
Instead of providing us with a tradition of doing applied linguistics that
demonstrated the application of linguistics to the design of a solution to a language
problem, the ‘linguistic paradigm’ of first generation applied linguistics (for an
exposition of these traditions, see Table 1 below) has left us with a language
teaching design devoid of proper theoretical justification. Nonetheless, in spite of
its being thoroughly discredited both theoretically and in language teaching practice
(cf., e.g., Lamendella 1979), the aura of scientific authority that characterised it has
 5

endured, and its legacy has remained alive in the inflated expectations that lay
people and professionals alike seem to nurture. As the analysis in the next section
will attempt to show, this legacy has been strengthened by definitions which
assume that there is a theoretical continuity between linguistics and applied
linguistics.

Mediation or continuity?

Even in the heady days of audio-lingualism, it was clear to academics working in

the field that the link between linguistic theory and language teaching was much
more indirect than initially suspected. The tenuousness of the link is evident, firstly,
in the adherence to the audio-lingual ‘principle’ that one learns by analogy rather
than by analysis. Linguistic analysis, it was felt, was better utilised in the selection
of language materials to be used in the classroom. But in order to make such a
selection, it was realised, secondly, that in order to ‘apply’ theoretical linguistic
insight some technical mediation was necessary. For the selection had to conform
to another ‘principle’, that demanded that we “teach the problems.” The kind of
technical mediation required took the form of a contrastive analysis (cf. Moulton
1962: 182) of the first language of the learners and the target language. Yet it is
insightful that even this ‘mediation’ between theory and practice, in the shape of a
design principle for language courses, was regarded with some scepticism right
from the outset: thus Marckwardt (1965: 242) doubts the efficiency of such analysis
in all cases, remarking that “we have been too slow in translating these into simply
written contrastive sketches which teachers might understand and apply …” Such
observations provide an illustration of the impossibility of ‘applying’ theory or
theoretical description to the design of appropriate language teaching materials
without some form of mediation, normally in the form of a technical design
principle (which selects what should be taught) or instrument. The ‘translation’ that
Marckwardt speaks of constitutes such a mediation between theoretical work and
practice.
The arguments for mediation became much stronger when the structuralist
linguistic theory that purportedly lay behind audiolingualism gave way to
transformational-generative grammar in the late 1970’s. A number of further
developments led to the realisation that traditional, structuralist and
transformational-generative grammar have all “failed to provide information on the
use of language as an instrument of communication” (Roulet 1975: 75). All of these
developments led to an emancipation of the discipline from supposedly depending
on direct input from linguistics. They led, too, to a reconceptualisation of applied
linguistics as a multi-disciplinary endeavour (as in Van Els, Bongaerts, Extra, Van
Os & Janssen-van Dieten 1984), which was informed as much by pedagogical and
psychological considerations as by linguistic theory. Nevertheless, this
reconceptualisation did not undermine in the least the definition of applied
linguistics as a mediator or ‘bridging’ discipline. In the following definition, as in
 6

many others, this notion as well as the idea that applied linguistics lies at the other
end of a continuum which begins with theoretical linguistics is very much in
evidence:
(1) It would … make … sense to regard applied linguistics as just that part of
linguistics which, in given situations, turns out to have applications in some
other field (Buckingham & Eskey 1980: 3).
It is indeed somewhat surprising, if one observes the various arguments in
the historical literature for applied linguistics as a ‘mediating’ or ‘bridging’
discipline (normally: between a linguistic theory and a language practice), to find
that one of the hallmarks of modernist definitions of applied linguistics is the
continuity that they uncritically postulate between linguistics and applied
linguistics. So, for example, we find the following two definitions, exhibits (2) and
(3) below, of applied linguistics in the early 1980’s:
(2) … we cannot study ‘language’, but only ‘language in specific settings’ — an
old observation, but one which places sociolinguistics (and psycholinguistics)
firmly within linguistics, as dimensions of knowing that subject … What is
perhaps less obvious is that this conclusion applies even to those areas which
would seem to be clearly ‘applied linguistics’ … (Crystal 1981: 4).
(3) I would posit that applied linguistics constitutes the point at which all study of
language comes together and becomes actualized (Kaplan 1980a: 10).
The continuity is evident, too, in the title of Kaplan’s other contribution
(1980b) to his book of that time: linguistics can be either applied or not applied. It
is evident, in fact, wherever theorists have attempted a linguistic explanation of
applied linguistics — “this new branch … of linguistics”, as Malmberg (1967: 1)
calls it. And while some of the conceptualisations are more refined, such as (3)
above, even otherwise cautious academics like Wilkins, who posits that it “is quite
wrong to argue … that developments in linguistics should cause changes in
language teaching” (1975: 216), make claims such as the following:
(4) Linguistics is the subject we are concerned with and because it has the same
subject-matter as language teaching, we are entitled to assume that is has
greater importance … (Wilkins 1975: 215; emphases added).
The contradiction between conceptualising applied linguistics both as part of
linguistics, and as something that mediates between linguistics and practical
language situations is therefore evident in the definitions offered by many
commentators. This continuity postulate is no doubt related to larger paradigms in
the whole of Western thought. It is also the major reason why debates on whether
applied linguistics is ‘applied linguistics’ or ‘linguistics applied’ (cf. Davies 1999:
12 et passim) have been relatively fruitless (Pennycook 2004: 801).
In the modernist perspective, science is not only the surest knowledge that
we have, but the only guarantee of an authoritative solution to a problem. In order
to maintain the ‘scientific’ authority of applied linguistics, it is characterised as
being at one end of a continuum of theoretical endeavour. A central point of
critique of the modernist definitions of applied linguistics must therefore be that
 7

they engender scientific hubris, proceed from the demonstrably erroneous

assumption that scientific analysis is neutral, and so nurture inflated expectations of
the results of scientific research. As examples of these inflated expectations,
consider the following two claims by Wilkins (1975: 208; 228):
(5) By studying language in as scientific a manner as possible we should be able
to make change in language teaching a matter of cumulative improvement.
(6) We refer to linguistics in an attempt to make the process of change in language
teaching less subject to fashion and more dependent on the cumulative
increase in our knowledge of language learning and teaching.
There is evidence here of an unadulterated belief in the benefit for applied
linguistics of scientific analysis, a belief, as we shall see below, that was challenged
and rejected in postmodernism. Postmodernist critiques ask the political questions:
who benefits from such an orientation? What positions of privilege are legitimised
and institutionalised by such expectations? The position that postmodernist critique
adopts takes “a view always concerned with questions of power” (Pennycook 2000:
102).
A further point of critique that follows from the belief in science is that
definitions such as (5) and (6) have the effect of conflating the technical
(formative) dimension of experience and the theoretical, i.e. technology is seen as
merely applied science. The detrimental effects of doing so have been identified
and discussed in detail elsewhere (Schuurman 1972, 1977, 2005). As Schuurman
(1972: 378) has pointed out, such a conceptualisation results in downplaying
human creativity, and inhibits the freedom to design new and varied solutions.
Instead, the solutions are rigidly prescribed, as in audiolingualism, by scientific fiat.
Even when applied linguistics had changed its orientation as a result of its
emancipation from linguistic theory as a controlling discipline (cf. exhibit [8]
below), some commentators still took it for granted that new, sociolinguistic ideas,
such as that of communicative competence, should be reflected in language
teaching. Consider the following remark from the mid 1970’s:
(7) If you accept Hymes’ notion that a model of language must be designed with a
face toward communicative conduct and social life …, then it follows that a
model for teaching language must also be designed with a face toward
communicative conduct and social life (Paulston 1974: 350).
In fairness to Paulston, however, as I have remarked elsewhere (Weideman 1987:
44), there is a subtle difference between this remark and the unidirectional
reflection of linguistic theory in language teaching practice. For one thing, Paulston
is quite frank about the incompleteness of the theory at that time. Second, and more
important, is the statement that in the five years preceding her observations in this
paper, i.e. since 1969, “there has been an increasing — and justified — concern for
communicative activities in language teaching” (Paulston 1974: 348). This means
that even before the seminal ideas of Hymes and other scholars working with the
theoretical idea of communicative competence (e.g. Hymes 1971, Halliday 1978,
Wilkins 1976) became widely known in language teaching circles, there were
 8

already signs in the language teaching profession that communicative activities —

an age-old promise of second and foreign language teaching, never quite fulfilled in
conventional or ‘linguistic’ methods — were being introduced in language
teaching.
In the birth of communicative language teaching we find one of the clearest
illustrations of the fact that, in designing solutions to language teaching problems,
theory does not lead the way. Communicative language teaching (CLT) was only
belatedly justified in terms of second language acquisition research and
constructivism, the focuses (see Table 1 below) of fourth and fifth generation
applied linguistic work (for an analysis and references, cf. Weideman 1999, 2006).
Simultaneously, the great variety of solutions designed under the broad umbrella of
CLT, which has at least four different interpretations or directions (cf. Weideman
1985, 1986, 2002; also Kumaravadivelu 2006a: esp. Chapter 6), provides an
illustration of how the creative imagination and freedom of the language course
designers were not inhibited by theory, but (eventually) complemented and justified
by it.
What is historically important in this development is that the continuity
between linguistics as a source discipline and applied linguistics had been broken.
In the 1970’s, as Klosek (1985: 15) has pointed out,
(8) Linguistic theory ceased being applied directly and hypotheses based on other
considerations were formulated and tested… Today, the most interesting
questions, hypotheses, and theories are from those that have sprung from work
already done within the discipline.
Did this break go far enough, however? Or were the hypotheses and theories
now being generated within the emancipated discipline of applied linguistics
simply a perpetuation of the belief in finding a ‘scientific’ basis for the proposed
designed solution to the language problem? As we shall see in the next section,
postmodernist approaches would, a decade after Klosek’s observations,
resoundingly answer that, in the sense of a rupture with the belief in scientific
analysis, the break was not complete, or at least not as complete as some would
have liked.

Discontinuity and contextuality

With the same certainty that modernist definitions of applied linguistics emphasised
the scientific basis of our designed solutions to language problems, postmodernist
perspectives emphasise discontinuity, disaggregation, specificity, fragmentation,
and a multiplicity of perspectives (cf. Kumaravadivelu, 2006b; New London Group
2000). Where modernist definitions of applied linguistics emphasise the general
and the universal, postmodern ones celebrate the contextual and the locally specific
aspects of knowledge. The observation by Davies and Elder (2005: 797) regarding
the sub-branch of language testing applies equally to the whole of applied
linguistics:
 9

Much of the argument … over the last period mirrors the argument in the wider
social science and humanities area, that between the enlightenment (or universal)
view that humanity (and experience) can be understood in similar ways and the
relativist (or local) view that contexts are not just apparently but fundamentally
different. This is the argument from postmodernism, which has insisted … that it is
unacceptable to assume that one size fits all.
The first of a variety of postmodern definitions of applied linguistics that
have emerged is the milder — in the sense of more conventional, and less strident
— view that applied linguistics is a cross-disciplinary activity (e.g. Rampton 1997:
4). Rampton takes his primary cue from Hymes and second generation applied
linguistics (see Table 1 below). This mode of work in the field acknowledged that
language was socially constituted. The effect was a broadening and extension of the
narrowly structuralist views so characteristic of first generation work. Rampton’s
secondary emphasis links current work to the multi-disciplinary endeavours of third
generation applied linguistics. So, for example, in introducing a review of applied
linguistics at the end of the previous decade, Rampton (1997: 16) observes:
(9) … what does stand out in … the state of play in AL [applied linguistics] … is
the level of enthusiasm that authors show for the challenges ahead… It is
difficult to say whether this forward orientation reflects the end of a phase of
fragmentation and the resurgence of a spirit of cross-disciplinary interchange
…
The connection that Rampton makes here to earlier work in applied
linguistics acknowledges the phenomenon of historical continuity. This
acknowledgement is not shared, as we shall see below, by all current views.
Particularly in the more radical, anti-disciplinary views of Pennycook (2004: 803),
we find an almost revolutionary zeal to break with earlier approaches. Pennycook
(2004: 803) dismisses the very work in third generation applied linguistics (see
Table 1 below) which emphasised multi-disciplinary investigation, and which
Rampton acknowledges, in his remark (2004: 801) that
(10) [r]ather than viewing critical applied linguistics as a new form of
interdisciplinary knowledge, I prefer to view it as a form of anti-disciplinary
knowledge.
Yet, even when a revolutionary new paradigm or development presents
itself, there is continuity with tradition. This is certainly true also of the history of
applied linguistics: despite the severe (and justifiable) criticism levelled against the
undiminished faith in science built into first generation applied linguistics, and
despite the fact that post-modernist applied linguistics constitutes nothing less than
a 180º turnaround in approach from this historical beginning, we still have to
acknowledge continuity. One reason for this is that, even though an historical
analysis (such as that in Weideman 1987, 1999, 2003) may present applied
linguistics as a progression of successive generations or traditions, many of these
traditions still exist, and continue to co-exist. In actual designs, moreover, we may
find traces of many of these traditions. Consider the many obvious links between,
for example, first and second generation applied linguistics in Table 1 below (taken
 10

from Weideman 2003: 4, where a more detailed explanation of each tradition is

given), or the apparent link between the contrastive analyses so beloved of first
generation applied linguistics and those made by the fourth generation, second
language acquisition research. Consider, too, how the interdisciplinary emphases of
third generation work find a resurgence, to use Rampton’s term, in the multiplicity
of perspectives that is characteristic of sixth generation applied linguistics.

Table 1: Six successive traditions of applied linguistics

Model/Tradition Characterised by

(1) Linguistic/behaviourist “scientific” approach

(2) Linguistic “extended paradigm model” language is a social phenomenon
(3) Multi-disciplinary model attention not only to language, but also to
learning theory and pedagogy
(4) Second language acquisition research experimental research into how languages are
learned
(5) Constructivism knowledge of a new language is interactively
constructed
(6) Post-modernism political relations in teaching; multiplicity of
perspectives

The continuity of applied linguistic work, in spite of its being done in

distinct yet at times overlapping and simultaneously existing ways, implies that
anyone doing applied linguistics therefore has to shoulder the burden, and deal with
the consequences of all of the history of the field, not just that part with which they
most strongly identify. The possibly strong contestation of such a conclusion,
especially by politically sensitive postmodernist practitioners, does not take away
this mutual responsibility, but in fact confirms it: even in doing work that is
diametrically opposed to first generation work, one is referring to it, and taking it as
a point of reference.
A good illustration of this is provided in Pennycook’s (2004) discussion of
what sets critical applied linguistics, the sixth model of applied linguistics referred
to in the historical analysis offered above, apart from what he calls ‘mainstream’
applied linguistics, and even from different conceptualisations of what post-
modernist applied linguistics itself entails. In keeping with the characterisation
given above, Pennycook (2004: 797f.) concludes that
(11) critical applied linguistics might be viewed as an approach to language related
questions that springs from an assumption that we live amid a world of pain.
The way to alleviate this pain, in this view, is not to be merely ‘critical’ in a
general, objectivist sense, since that isolates one’s analysis from “political
questions, from issues of power, [or] disparity …” (2004: 798). Pennycook is in
fact highly critical of modernist conceptualisations of ‘critical’, that “maintain a
belief in rationality, realism and scientific endeavour” (2004: 799) – all notions that
are characteristic of first generation applied linguistics. He is even critical of milder
 11

notions of the value of multiple perspectives, perhaps such as that of the New
London Group (2000: 15), that “there will be a cognitive benefit to all children in a
pedagogy of linguistic and cultural pluralism”, when he notes (Pennycook 2000:
102) that his “sense of the social and cultural … is not the liberal dream of
equitable social relations and celebratory multiculturalism.” Conceptualisations that
maintain a belief in rationality and science merely maintain the status quo. In order
to define his own position, therefore, Pennycook (2004: 798) significantly has to
refer to that which he is quite vehemently opposed to:
(12) Critical applied linguistics is not about developing a set of skills that will
make the doing of applied linguistics more rigorous, more objective, but
about making applied linguistics more politically accountable.
So defined, sixth generation applied linguistics is, in fact, opposed not only
to the first model referred to above, but also to second and third generation applied
linguistics. Pennycook (2004: 796) refers sarcastically, for example, to the way that
second generation applied linguistics first made the linguist Noam Chomsky into an
‘arch-demon’ before raising Dell Hymes to one of their ‘demigods’. It is interesting
that his venom is directed not only at those who fail to see that placing language in
a social context is not enough, especially where they fail to see that such a context
is thoroughly political, and riven by power struggles, but also at those who profess
to share a critical starting point, yet simultaneously claim “rational scientificity”
(2004: 799) for their work.
Yet there is no doubt that the historical antecedent of the multiplicity of
perspectives that is so characteristic of postmodernist approaches is the multi-
disciplinary agenda first proposed by third generation applied linguistics (for a
prime example, cf. Van Els et al. 1984). In spite of the revolutionary rhetoric, the
point of historical continuity should be clear: postmodernist applied linguistics is as
much defined by reference to what it is not (that which historically preceded it), as
to what it is. The past continues to haunt (and, if one observes Pennycook’s
response, to irk) current practitioners who are opposed to what has gone before,
even when well-intentioned colleagues who more or less share one’s views appear
to fall under the spell of tradition. As Pennycook (1999: 334) put it in an earlier
paper:
Indeed, we as … professionals need to move away from the modernist-
emancipatory assuredness of traditional leftist approaches to critical work and
instead engage with a more problematizing stance that always forces us to question
the ethics and the politics of what we do.
Postmodernist approaches to applied linguistics therefore signal a clear
break, or discontinuity, with the traditions of what Pennycook calls “rational
scientificity”, while at the same time those traditions continue, negatively, to define
them. The discontinuity that is sought with modernism can, as a result of historical
forces, not be achieved (Weideman 2006).
Amongst the variety of postmodernist perspectives, there are also sober yet
incisive views, such as those articulated by Kumaravadivelu (2006b; also 2006a).
Pleading for a disciplinary transformation of applied linguistics that would be alert
 12

to the continued global dominance of English and colonialist thought patterns, as

well as to the understanding that neither research nor the powerful discourse of
scientific rationality is neutral or innocent of political motive, Kumaravadivelu
reviews various conventional but problematic (as we have seen above) definitions
of applied linguistics. At the same time, he provides a sharp, credible critique of the
self-congratulatory way in which the compilers of a recent handbook in the field
(Kaplan 2002) go about omitting some of the most prominent topics and themes
within applied linguistics today. Of the many responsibilities he sees for a
reconstituted, postmodernist applied linguistics, the following observation
(Kumaravadivelu, 2006b) provides a good example:
(13) Now more than ever applied linguists are conscious of the role played by
colonialism in maintaining the Western dominance in knowledge production
and dissemination.
However much appreciation one may have for such sobriety, one finds, too,
that not all postmodernist perspectives are unproblematic. Their sometimes extreme
relativism (cf., for example, Lillis 2003) and intolerance even of kindred views
(e.g. Pennycook 2004) make some of their positions untenable. Lillis’s proposition
(2003: 198) that everything is inconclusive must, of course, exclude this
proposition. It’s the age old dilemma of the relativist: everything is relative except
the thesis that everything is relative. This is an example of how, in some
postmodern work, we indeed find — perhaps surprisingly — an uncritical
acceptance of an assumption or belief that is grounded in something beyond
theoretical analysis. This is not entirely different from the uncritical acceptance and
‘application’ of ‘linguistic’ truths as we have in the work of Lado, the first
generation applied linguist discussed above, which embodies a tradition that
postmodernist approaches are highly critical of.

To each his/her own?

Both modernist and postmodernist understandings of applied linguistics have

enriched the discipline. While modernist definitions of the field have emphasised
the theoretical, scientific basis of the discipline, postmodernist definitions have
identified (social and political) accountability as the critical feature of the
endeavour (for the latter orientation, cf. Weideman 2003).
Common to both understandings, I would argue, is the idea that the
discipline of applied linguistics finds its characteristic feature in the moment of
design. While the ‘narrowly technicist’ conceptions of applied linguistics that are
associated with modernist approaches certainly are open to the kinds of criticism
articulated above, the following definition provided by Corder (1972: 6f.) captures
this common feature as follows:
(14) Research in applied linguistics has as its function the finding of solutions to
problems which arise in the process of planning or designing … practical
activities … [A]pplied linguistics, as other applied sciences, is fundamentally
concerned with design …
 13

The feature of design is acknowledged not only in the modernist concept of applied
linguistics devising a solution to a language problem, but also in postmodernist
work. Cf. the following remark of Bell (2003: 333), made in the context of a
discussion and review, amongst others, of the work of Kumaravadivelu:
… postmethod strategies and principles can be understood as articulating the
design features … of the current paradigm of CLT. What is so refreshing about
these design features is that they contain within them the tools — learner
autonomy, context sensitivity, teacher/student reflection — to construct and
deconstruct the method that inevitably emerges from the procedures derived from
them.
The same holds true for the discussion of the various postmethod frameworks
discussed by Kumaravadivelu elsewhere (2006a: 185-214). It is perhaps the case
that within postmodernist approaches not enough attention has been paid to what
Lillis (2003: 193) calls constructing “a design space”. Lillis works fully within a
postmodernist, and in certain senses post-critical framework, and certainly within
what would in terms of the history of different models of applied linguistics work
(Table 1, above) fall squarely into the sixth category. Lillis’s plea is that an
academic literacies approach to student writing at university — the problem that in
this case needs fixing — should be developed as a ‘design frame’ specifically for
the pedagogy of writing. Rather than continuing to promote what she calls the
‘oppositional frame’ that serves only as critique, she is in agreement with Kress
(2000: 160-161) that design shapes the future. She observes (Lillis 2003: 195):
(15) I am using ‘design’ here in the broad sense of the application of research
understandings to pedagogy… [T]his broad sense of design connects with
Kress’s particular notion of design in relation to critique …The point that I
want to make here is simply that, to date, little explicit attention has been paid
to exploring how an academic literacies stance might inform the theory and
practice of student writing pedagogy.
Though the concept of design is often strongly tied up, in postmodern
applied linguistic work, with language and the use of semiotic resources (cf. Kress
2000), there is, as is evident from exhibit (15) above, enough commonality with
conventional understandings to make a further exploration of this idea worthwhile.
So, for example, Janks (2000: 177) notes that design “encompasses the idea of
productive power … (and) recognises the importance of human creativity.”
Similarly, design is a significant concept in the contributions to the work of the
New London Group on multiliteracies that was published under the editorship of
Cope and Kalantzis (2000). Cope and Kalantzis (2000a: 7) remark, for instance,
that this idea is central to understanding the work of the New London Group: “The
key concept we developed … is that of Design, in which we are both inheritors of
patterns and conventions of meaning, while at the same time active designers of
meaning.” The commonality is most evident in the view that adherents of this
approach have of language teachers, who “are seen as designers of learning
processes and environments” (New London Group 2000: 19). Yet, in line with the
social and political purposes that have always been associated with this sixth
generation of applied linguistics work, the end goal of bringing “creative
 14

intelligence” to bear on the solution of practical problems remains the

transformation (often with a capital ‘T’) of practice (New London Group 2000: 35;
Cope & Kalantzis 2000b).
In the general understanding, there appear to be several successive phases
(Schuurman 1972: 404) in the design process: (a) the identification of the language
problem; (b) the bringing together of both the technical imagination of the designer
and the theoretical insight that has a bearing on the problem; (c) the beginning of
the formulation of an imaginative solution to the problem; and finally (d) the
justification in terms of theoretical knowledge of the solution designed. In
implementing the solution, which is always done in a specific context, there is a
relationship between technical means (the resources available to address the
problem) and technical ends (the purposes to which the solution will be put). It
appears that modernist or technicist conceptions open themselves up to critique by
overemphasising the means, while postmodernist, politically sensitive notions, in
their emphasis on accountability, focus perhaps too exclusively on the ends of the
plans that are made. But both propose plans, and plans are the articulation, as I shall
argue below, of designs.
A good illustration of how the notions of both ‘design’ and ‘affirmation’,
that were referred to at the start, find articulation within an applied linguistic
intervention can be found in the design of the dual-medium BA degree in
Contemporary English Language and Multilingual Studies offered at the University
of Limpopo (Ramani, Modiba & Joseph 2006). Given its goal of promoting both
knowledge of and competence in English and in Sesotho sa Leboa for academic
purposes, this degree programme is so designed that it uniquely affirms the
resources of an indigenous language, and celebrates a commitment to
multilingualism.
In the next section, I explore whether, given the commonality of the notion
of design within modernist and postmodernist approaches, some foundational
perspective that does justice to both contributions is possible.

A systematic explanation

The analysis I offer here is largely based on and taken over from another recent
discussion (Weideman 2006), but, like the belief-based assumptions that underlie
both modernist and postmodernist understandings of the field of applied linguistics,
it is based on a pre-theoretical conviction. The conviction is a fairly simple one:
that nothing is absolute, and that, though one may distinguish between uniquely
different modes of doing and being, all of these are connected to everything else.
One of the major implications of this view is that applied linguistic artefacts,
such as the language-in-education policies or plans that governments make for
schools, or the tests of language ability that professional test designers draw up, or
the language courses that are designed for overcoming language disadvantage, have
two terminal functions: a qualifying or leading function, and a foundational or basis
 15

function. The leading or qualifying function of a plan presented as an applied

linguistic solution to a language problem is to be found in the technical aspect of
design. The plan finds its foundational function, or is based upon, the analytical or
theoretical mode of experience. Presented schematically:

qualifying function
technical
analytical

foundational function

Figure 1: Leading and foundational functions of applied linguistic designs

It is important to note that in this definition the theory does not dictate or
prescribe the design, but is employed to provide a rationale for it. Moreover, the
context in which such a designed solution is implemented invariably has a social
dimension. In modernist approaches, the solution is required to have both validity,
and consistency or reliability, otherwise its authority and integrity are undermined.
In postmodernist approaches, the solution when implemented must also have
ethical dimensions, i.e. must be transparent, accountable, theoretically and
politically defensible, and promote the interests of those affected by it.
The foundational perspective that I employ here to give a systematic account
of these various dimensions makes a connection not only between the leading
technical aspect that we find in the design of the language plan, or the basis
function that the theoretical or analytical mode fulfils, but also between the echoes
or analogies of a number of other aspects of experience within the leading technical
function of the design.
So, for example, the concept of the validity of a plan refers to its technical
force or effect, which echoes the original function of energy-effect. An applied
linguistic artefact, like a test of language ability, must do what it is designed to do.
Furthermore, it must have a technical reliability or consistency, which is an analogy
of the consistent movement associated with the kinematic aspect of reality.
All of these moments are constitutive concepts in applied linguistics, and
have received ample attention in modernist approaches to applied linguistics. Thus,
if we think of reality as a series of successive modes, including, amongst others,
kinematic, physical, analytical and technical or formative aspects, we may recast
the original presentation of Figure 1 as follows in Figure 2:
 16

validity (effect) technical

analytical
consistency rationale

constitutive concepts

Figure 2: Constitutive concepts in applied linguistics

What postmodernist approaches have shown us is that the story of applied

linguistics does not end with modernist emphases. The leading technical aspect of a
language test or course design, or of a language policy, in being qualified by the
technical or formative dimension of our experience, anticipates, and is disclosed
and opened up by other aspects that follow it, such as the lingual or sign mode of
experience, the social aspect of our lives, as well as the economic, aesthetic,
juridical and ethical dimensions of reality (cf. Schuurman 1972: 385-387).
The need for the design to find expression or articulation in some plan or
blueprint anticipates the lingual or sign mode of experience. The blueprint for a test
of language ability, for example, has to be articulated. Its further technical
articulation in informing the detailed specifications of the test task types and items
(Van Dyk & Weideman 2004) is an additional disclosure of its meaning as a
technical artefact.
Since every design has to be implemented, its leading technical aspect also
anticipates its contextualisation within some social environment, and the way it will
operate and regulate the interaction between the designers, those making use of the
intervention, lecturers, administrative officials, and others involved. This is the
social dimension that is unique to each implementation of the design, and it
expresses for each particular case the relation between the technical and social
aspects of our world.
In conceptualising and designing an applied linguistic intervention,
designers have consideration for the variety of factors that impinge upon or
undermine the utility of the intervention. It is no use, for example, that the
intervention is reliable, if that reliability undermines its utility by taking up too
many scarce resources. If we use testing as an example once more, we note that
designers may cite logistical and other administrative constraints for switching
from an old to a new test (Van Dyk & Weideman 2004). In other words, logistical
impediments, such as purchasing and having to operate sophisticated sound
equipment, and administrative requirements, such as having to produce the test
results for up to 8000 testees in a single day so that the enrolment of more than
30000 students can proceed and be completed within a week, put a limit on how
much time can be spent (or, from some points of view, wasted) on the test itself. In
 17

this, the technical design of the test anticipates the set of economic analogies within
the technical sphere. The utility of a test requires that the test designer should
carefully weigh a variety of potentially conflicting demands, and opt not only for
the socially most appropriate, but also for a frugal solution.
In weighing up these various logistical and administrative factors, the
designer of the applied linguistic intervention or artefact brings them into harmony
within the design, which evidences the aesthetic dimension within the technical
sphere, and does so in a way that is defensible and fair, the latter being echoes of
the juridical sphere within the technical aspect that qualifies the design. The various
trade-offs that present themselves to designers of language plans of all varieties, not
only between conflicting sets of political interests, but also between reliability and
utility, or, in the case of a test, between an appropriately rich idea of language and a
poorer, but more consistent and homogeneous one, are further illustrations of
aesthetic and juridical anticipatory moments within the qualifying technical aspect
of the applied linguistic design. Each such trade-off generates a need to weigh or
assess, harmonise and justify a tough and responsible technical design decision. In
fact, each of these analogical, anticipatory moments within the technical aspect of
the design yields a normative moment, i.e. an injunction about what the designer
should do if he or she were to be a responsible applied linguist.
The juridical analogies within the technical aspect of an applied linguistic
artefact are evident, furthermore, in the theoretical and public justification for the
intervention. The applied linguist needs to provide a defensible theoretical rationale
for every design, which serves to enhance the legitimacy of the intervention. I agree
with Bygate’s (2004) central thesis that “applied linguists need to be doubly
accountable”, i.e. both to their peers and to the lay communities they serve. The
more transparent the justification, the more accountable it should also be, to
academics and non-academics alike.
Finally, as noted above, we owe it to postmodernist insight to have seen that
each design reaches out to our fellow human beings; the design itself anticipates
that human beings will use it, and that it will be used to regulate at least some of the
affairs of those who take it. Because interventions have consequences for real
people, their ethical dimensions are not abstract issues, or even affairs that can be
settled by ticking off an ethical checklist on the agenda of a committee that
oversees this. The applied linguistic design either promotes the interests of those
who are affected by it, or undermines their development.
 18

In Figure 3 below, I give a third schematic presentation of how the structure

of the leading technical aspect of design is disclosed by its anticipation of the
aspects that follow it, viz. the sign mode, the social aspect, the economic, aesthetic,
juridical and ethical dimensions, and the regulative applied linguistic ideas
(technical articulation, implementation, utility, etc.) that the connections or
anticipations generate:

is disclosed by/in
articulation
implementation
validity (effect) technical utility
analytical
consistency alignment
rationale
transparency

constitutive moments accountability

Figure 3: The disclosure of the leading technical function of an applied linguistic

design

To summarise, we present the same analysis in tabular form. In Table 2

below, each of the retrocipatory analogies within the qualifying structure of the
leading technical aspect is reiterated, and each of the anticipatory analogies is
articulated once more. The retrocipations are constitutive, founding moments
within the structure of the technical or formative aspect of experience, and function
as the term indicates: as base or foundation. In this sense the analysis claims that
the internal consistency (reliability) of a designed intervention, as well as its
internal technical force or effect (its validity), is really a necessary condition for its
design. The anticipations, analysed above, function as regulative moments,
disclosing and deepening the structure of the technical aspect that guides the
design:
 19

Table 2: Constitutive and regulative moments in applied linguistic designs

Applied Aspect / function / Retrocipatory /

linguistic design dimension / mode Kind of function anticipatory moment
of experience

is founded upon kinematic constitutive internal consistency

(technical reliability)
physical internal effect / power
(validity)

analytical foundational design rationale

is qualified by technical qualifying / leading function (of the design)
lingual articulation of design in a
blueprint / plan
social implementation /
administration
is disclosed by economic technical utility, frugality
aesthetic regulative harmonisation of conflicts,
resolving misalignment
juridical transparency, defensibility,
fairness, legitimacy
ethical accountability, care, service

Applied linguistic designs therefore find their meaning in the service (or
disservice) that they will perform for other human beings. The preceding analysis
illustrates, too, that the care with which designs are made points to the love that we
show for humanity. This love is evident even in the technical artefacts that we
create. The contribution of postmodernism is that it has opened our eyes to this
disclosed meaning of our technical endeavours.
To conclude, with a reference to the starting point of this discussion: our
students deserve not one, modernist narrative, or another, oppositional and
postmodernist one. The same goes for our research. Both the training of new
entrants into the profession and the continuation of applied linguistic research call
for the full story.
 20

Acknowledgements and afterword

This paper is a reworked version of a presentation to the joint LSSA/SAALA 2006 conference in
Durban, and stems from two specific prompts referred to in the text. One of these was made at the
previous (2005) conference, so it carries forward a debate that was rekindled there. My thanks to
those who contributed to the discussion, and so enriched my own understanding of a difficult
topic. I am indebted to two anonymous referees for pointing out a number of features in this
version that deserved either correction or better formulation. I hope that I have done justice to all
of their helpful comments. I was struck, in particular, by the remark of one, that she had been
“jolted by the use of ‘love’”, adding, generously: “… which may be a reason to keep it”. I did. As
to the query of the other, regarding what the impact on actual work in the field is of seeing applied
linguistics as a discipline of design: I hope to follow up this discussion in my keynote address to
the joint LSSA/SAALA 2007 conference, by asking what a responsible agenda for applied
linguistics might be.

References

Bell, D.M. 2003. Method and postmethod: Are they really so incompatible? TESOL quarterly 37
(2): 325-336.
Buckingham, T. & D.E. Eskey. 1980. Toward a redefinition of applied linguistics. In R.B. Kaplan
(ed.) 1980: 1-3.
Bygate, M. 2004. Some current trends in applied linguistics: Towards a generic view. AILA review
17: 6-22.
Carroll, J.B. 1971. Current issues in psycholinguistics and second language teaching. TESOL
quarterly 5: 101-114.
Cope, B. & M. Kalantzis (eds.). 2000. Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social
futures. London: Routledge.
Cope, B, & M. Kalantzis. 2000a. Introduction. Multiliteracies: The beginnings of an idea. In B.
Cope & M. Kalantzis (eds.) 2000: 3-8.
Cope, B, & M. Kalantzis. 2000b. Designs for social futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (eds.)
2000: 203-234.
Corder, S.P. 1972. Problems and solutions in applied linguistics. In J. Qvistgaard, H. Schwarz &
H. Spang-Hanssen (eds.) 1972. Applied linguistics: Problems and solutions. Vol.
III of the Association Internationale de Linguistique Applique Third Congress,
Copenhagen: 1-23. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.
Crystal, D. 1981. Directions in applied linguistics. London: Academic Press.
Davies, A. 1999. An introduction to applied linguistics: From practice to theory. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Davies, A., & C. Elder (eds.). 2004. The handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Davies, A., & C. Elder. 2005. Validity and validation in language testing. In E. Hinkel (ed.) 2005.
Handbook of research on second language teaching and learning: 795-813.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fries, C.C. 1945. On learning a foreign language as an adult. Reprinted in F. Smolinsky (ed.)
1985: 51-59.
 21

Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.

Hymes, D.H. 1971. On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride & J. Holmes (eds.) 1972.
Sociolinguistics: Selected readings: 269-293. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Janks, H. 2000. Domination, access, diversity and design: A synthesis for critical literacy
education. Educational review 52 (2): 175-186.
Kaplan, R.B. 1980a. Toward a redefinition of applied linguistics. In R.B. Kaplan (ed.) 1980: 9-12.
Kaplan, R.B. 1980b. On the scope of linguistics, applied and non-. In R.B. Kaplan (ed.) 1980: 57-
66.
Kaplan, R.B. (ed.) 1980. On the scope of applied linguistics. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury
House.
Kaplan, R.B. (ed.). 2002. The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Klosek, J. 1985. Applied linguistics — free at last. TESOL applied linguistics interest section
newsletter 6 (1): 14-15.
Kress, G. 2000. Design and transformation: New theories of meaning. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis
(eds.) 2000: 153-161.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 2003. Beyond methods: macrostrategies for language teaching. London: Yale
University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 2006a. Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006b). Applied linguistics in the age of globalization. Translated and
published in Portuguese as “A linguistica aplicada na era da globalizacao.”
In L.P. Moita Lopes (ed.). New ways of doing applied linguistics / Por uma
linguistica aplicada indisciplinar: 129-148. Sao Paulo, Brazil: Parabola
Editorial.
Lado, R. 1964. Language teaching: A scientific approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lamendella, J.T. 1979. The neurofunctional basis of pattern practice. TESOL quarterly 13 (1): 5-
19.
Lillis, T. 2003. Student writing as ‘academic literacies’: Drawing on Bakhtin to move from
critique to design. Language and education 17 (3): 192-207.
Malmberg, B. 1967. Applied linguistics. International review of applied linguistics 5: 1-
2.Marckwardt, A. 1965. Old paths and new directions. Reprinted from V.F. Allen
(ed.) 1965. On teaching English to speakers of other languages, Series 1 (3-8) in
F. Smolinksi (ed.) 1985: 240-245.
Moulton, W.G. Linguistics and language teaching in the United States 1940-1960. Reprinted from
Trends in European and American linguistics (82-109) in F. Smolinski (ed.) 1985:
170-187.
New London Group, The. 2000. A pedagogy of multiliteracies. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (eds.)
2000: 9-37.
Paulston, C.B. 1974. Linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL quarterly 8 (4): 347-362.
Pennycook, A. 1999. Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL quarterly 33 (3): 329-
347.
 22

Pennycook. A. 2000. The social politics and the cultural politics of language classrooms. In J.K.
Hall & W.G. Eggington (eds.) 2000. The sociopolitics of English language
teaching: 89-103. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Pennycook, A. 2004. Critical applied linguistics. In A. Davies & C. Elder (eds.) 2004: 784-807.
Ramani, E., Modiba, M & Joseph, M. 2006. Variable competencies in students’ bilingual academic
writing (in English and Sesotho sa Leboa) in a dual-medium BA degree.
Presentation at the 2006 SAALA conference, Durban, 6 July.
Rampton, B. 1997. Retuning in applied linguistics. International journal of applied linguistics 7
(1): 3-25.
Roberts, J.T. 1982. Recent developments in ELT (Parts I & II). Language teaching 15(2 & 3): 94-
110; 174-194.
Roulet, E. 1975. Linguistic theory, linguistic description and language teaching. London:
Longman.
Schuurman, E. 1972. Techniek en toekomst: Confrontatie met wijsgerige beschouwingen. Assen:
Van Gorcum.
Schuurman, E. 1977. Reflections on the technological society. Jordan Station, Ontario: Wedge
Publishing Foundation.
Schuurman, E. 2005. The technological world picture and an ethics of responsibility: Struggles in
the ethics of technology. Sioux Center, Iowa: Dordt College Press.
Smolinski, F. (ed.) 1985. Landmarks of American language & linguistics. Washington: United
States Information Agency.
Stevick, E.W. 1971. Adapting and writing language lessons. Washington: Foreign Service
Institute.
Van Dyk, T. & A. Weideman. 2004a. Switching constructs: On the selection of an appropriate
blueprint for academic literacy assessment. SAALT Journal for language teaching
38 (1): 1-13.
Van Els, T, Bongaerts, T., Extra, G., Van Os, C. & Janssen-van Dieten, A. 1984. Applied
linguistics and the learning and teaching of foreign languages. London: Edward
Arnold.
Weideman, A.J. 1983. The systematic bases for the distinction linguistics/applied linguistics. SA
journal of linguistics 1 (1): 38-52.
Weideman, A.J. 1985. Vier rigtings in kommunikatiewe taalonderrig. Neon 48: 42-51.
Weideman, A.J. 1986. Directions in communicative language teaching. L.A.U.D.T. Papers B150.
21 pp.
Weideman, A.J. 1987. Applied linguistics as a discipline of design: A foundational study.
Unpublished doctoral thesis. Bloemfontein: University of the Free State.
Weideman, A.J. (ed.). 1994. Redefining applied linguistics. Proceedings of the 14th annual
conference of the Southern African Applied Linguistics Association.
Bloemfontein: SAALA.
Weideman, A.J. 1999. Five generations of applied linguistics: Some framework issues. Acta
academica 31 (1): 77-98.
Weideman, A.J. 2002. Designing language teaching: on becoming a reflective professional.
Pretoria: BE at UP.
 23

Weideman, A.J. 2003. Towards accountability: A point of orientation for post-modern applied
linguistics in the third millennium. Literator 24 (1): 1-20.
Weideman, A.J. 2006. Transparency and accountability in applied linguistics. Southern African
linguistics and applied language studies 24 (1): 71-86.
Wilkins, D.A. 1975. Linguistics in language teaching. London: Edward Arnold.
Wilkins, D.A. 1976. Notional syllabuses: A taxonomy and its relevance to foreign language
curriculum development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Young, D. 2005. After 25 years, is SAALA making a difference to our research, understanding,
teaching and language praxis in our multilingual society? Opening keynote
address: SAALA/LSSA Conference, Dikhololo, 7 July 2005. In J. Geldenhuys &
B. Lepota (eds.) Proceedings of the joint SAALA/LSSA 2005 conference. Pretoria:
SAALA. P. 37-65.

TUK02288.04/06/2007