Linguistic theory must be sufficiently rich and comprehensive to be able to account for the structure of the most complex or elaborate manifestation of language. In consequence any structurally less complex verbal behaviour is typically explained as a use of some ‘reduced’ or ‘simplified’ code or register. Many languages, if not all, are said to possess such reduced registers and it is said to be part of a native speaker's competence to be able to use such ‘reduced registers’ where appropriate. It is part of his total communicative competence to know when it is appropriate to use such registers. These reduced or simplified registers are associated with more or less well defined situations of language use or types of discourse. Telegraphese is obviously restricted by the medium of transmission as well as the restricted range of communicative functions it is used for, e.g. orders, reports and announcements of plans. Technical description in botanical and ornithological reference books have a purely referential function, while the so-called language of instructions has clearly restricted rhetorical functions.

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

The notion of simplification has been a familiar one in language teaching for a long time. It underlies not only the production of “simplified readers” but also the whole process of syllabus design. Essentially, it is the pedagogic analogue of the linguist's idealization of data, from which it ultimately derives: the teacher simplifies by selecting and ordering the linguistic phenomena he is to deal with so as to ease the task of learning, and the linguist idealizes by selecting and ordering the linguistic phenomena he is to deal with to ease the task of analysis. In both cases the purpose of the operation is essentially a methodological one. And in both cases there is a danger that something crucial may be left out of account for the sake of methodological convenience. In this paper I want to suggest that something crucial IS generally left out of account and that the notion of simplification can be given a more general, and significant, definition. In the first part of the paper I shall try to work my way towards this definition and in the second part I shall cry to draw out a number of implications for language teaching pedagogy that seem to arise from it.

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

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

In their search for more solid theoretical underpinnings applied linguists are turning increasingly toward the burgeoning field of pidgin and Creole linguistics (Schumann 1975). This attraction stems from recent changes in orientation in these two domains of linguistics that have led to a shared interest in the psychological processes underlying language acquisition. Abandoning their primary concern for the nature of the input data provided to the second language learner, applied linguistics are paying more attention to the nature of the psychological structures and processes that determine what type of data the learner will “take in” and that guide him in the transformation of the intake into his version of the target language. The focus on the learner's language processing mechanisms is evidenced by the favor enjoyed currently by the branch of applied linguistics labelled -- quite inappropriately -- error analysis. At the same time, creolists are looking at pidgin and creole languages from a different standpoint. They are less concerned with the problems that these languages pose to genetic classifications of languages or with the historical filiation among extant pidgins and Creoles. They believe that because of the very fact that these languages, particularly pidgins, assume limited communicative functions in speech communities they are more likely to provide insights on the nature of language acquisition and on the relationships between linguistic structure and the communicative setting.

The growing interest in error analysis shows a concern with errors as evidence of learner language systems. A study of errors becomes a means of revealing what the learner has yet to know. However, the analyst takes a lenient view of errors as such. What has to be remedied is the system, not the symptoms. Nevertheless, the errors produced may be more or less serious. As the analysis will normally reveal a host of deficiencies in the learner system, it may be difficult to know where to start and what to emphasize in applying the results. This is where error evaluation fits in, i.e. the study of error gravity (see Fig. 1.).

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

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

If one would ask me as a regular, though not systematic reader in applied linguistics to mention a major theoretical issue in this field of study, I would choose for the controversy about “behavioristic” audiolingual learning versus “mentalistic” cognitive code learning. This dichotomy is apparent in many theoretical papers, and starting point of various research programs.

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

C'est un truisme que de dire que la grammaire descriptive traditionelle repose sur des notions vagues et floues. L'absence de concepts dignes de ce nom fait que ce type de grammaire (le plus répandu encore aujourd'hui hélas!) ne peut décrire que ce que l'on voit -- à savoir l'énoncé linéaire de surface (c'est ce que Chomsky appelle “le niveau observationnel”). C'est ainsi par exemple que le sujet grammatical d'un énoncé, à cause de la place privilégiée qu'il occupe dans la chaîne linéaire, se voit attribuer implicitement ou explicitement, le rôle de locomotive de la phrase (“c'est le sujet qui fait l'action”). Mais le sujet grammatical n'est pas seul à ne pas avoir de statut précis dans la grammaire scolaire. Si on regarde du côté du verbe, on constate que ce dernier reçoit des labels tels que “dynamique” ou “statique” selon qu'il exprime “une action” ou “un état.” Il est permis de se demander ce que des labels de ce genr- peuvent bien apporter à la compréhension des phénomènes GRAMMATICAUX étant donné qu'ils renvoient purement et simplement à l'extralinguistique! Toujours en relation avec le verbe, la grammaire scolaire de l'anglais parle “D'ACTION EN COURS” lorsqu'on se trouve en présence de la forme dite “progressive” (BE + ING). Implicitement une action en cours renvoie à un acteur, à un agent responsable: nous retrouvons ici la “locomotive de la phrase” et la croyance naïve, toujours implicite, que la grammaire d'une langue colle à la réalité extralinguistique, qu'elle en est le calque fidèle et qu'en conséquence le seul problème pour une grammaire est d'établir ce type de correspondance biunivoque entre discours et réalité, entre les mots et les choses. On retrouve le slogan “c'est le sujet qui fait l'action” jusque dans la façon dont sont traités et définis les verbes dits “défectifs,” à propos desquels on dira qu'ils ne prennent pas d's a la troisième personne du singulier -- ce qui trahit une conception linéaire de l'énoncé -- et aussi, ajoutons-le, un manque total d'ouverture sur le problème de la structuration des énoncés.

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

English Reference Grammar for Polish Students or shortly Polish English Grammar (PEG) is a pedagogical contrastive grammar. It is written on contrastive principles and is based on the results of investigations conducted by a team of Polish linguists within the Polish-English Contrastive Project, sponsored by Center for Applied Linguistics at Arlington, Virginia and the Polish Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education. The Project is managed by Professor Jacek Fisiak, Director of the Institute of English Studies at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan. Two volumes of the studies have already been published and two more are in preparation. (Fisiak 1973, 1974). The studies are conducted in the theoretical framework of generative transformational grammar, covering the most recent developments of the theory, without priority given to any specific version of the theory. Case grammar, generative semantics, extended standard theory, natural phonology, natural generative grammar and even language-in-the-context versions are all considered in the studies. Being basically theoretically oriented, the Project is not directly applicable in pedagogical practice, although a considerable amount of work is also being done along the didactic lines.

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

In this essay, the methodological point of departure is the assumption that the Saussurian inherited distinction between diachronic and synchronic levels of description is fictitious and arbitrary and will therefore have to be abandoned in its stringent interpretation (see Baumgärtner's convincing display of arguments (Baumgärtner 1969) and, in the same vein, Kanngießer 1972). Not only, it will be argued, is this meanwhile classical dichotomy unnecessary, and does it fail to account for similarities between semantic change and certain types of human reasoning, but it leads into blind alleys when one attempts to systematize various linguistic phenomena. The integration of catachresis, metaphor, and other figurative usage of lexical items into a theory of grammar are cases in point (Abraham 1975).

Pour toute une tradition linguistique, la linéarité est considérée comme une des propriétés fondamentales du langage. “Tout le mécanisme de la langue en dépend” affirmait Saussure. La constitution de classes paradigmatiques, l'analyse distributionnelle supposent que les unités se suivent ou se remplacent mais ne sauraient être présentes simultanément en un même point de la chaîne.

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