WOLFGANG KÜHLWEIN (ED.)

LINGUISTICS AS APPLIED LINGUISTICS

AILA-REVIEW 4

(1987)

Table of contents: Editor's Preface

5

Wolfgang Kühlwein

Externality and finalization In linguistics 9

Christopher Brumfit

Concepts and categories In language teaching methodology

25

Bernard Spolsky

The place of linguistics In a general theory of second language learning and In language teaching

32

Ikuo Koike

Focuses of applied linguistics In Japan: a case study

44

Walter v. Hahn

Computational Linguistics: Theoretical foundations, misconceptions and applications

57

Martin Ball

Clinical linguistics 69

Melanie Mikes

The (applied) linguist's concern in multilingualism

88

Editor's Preface

Since its foundation in 1964 the Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée (AILA) has been growing rapidly. Its increased membership corresponds to the expansion of the scholarly fields which it covers. Whereas AILA had rested on merely two pillars in the early days after its foundation, '(foreign) language teaching' and 'linguistic data processing', it has since experienced

- subtle subdivision of these two major applied linguistic areas into a vast number more or less closely related to them, as well as

- an assimilation of many new major applied linguistic areas kindled by an awareness of language-related tasks and needs of society.

The large number of sections, commissions, workshops etc. which will be

devoted to an equally large number of applied linguistic fields at the 1987 AILA congress in Sydney is a striking manifestation of this process.

What is positive about this development is the amount of flexibility and adaptability which applied linguistics and AILA manifest whenever a contribution is required to the solution of language-related problems, which are posed in a multitude of differing shapes. These vary across social, geographical, political, economic, and many other needs and constraints. Thus the possibilities for society to benefit from applied linguistics are enhanced.

What is disturbing about this development, on the other hand, is the corresponding increase of difficulties faced by everyone who is engaged in the theory and practice of linguistics of remaining aware of their field in its entirety. From the AILA-congress to another this experience has been imposing itself more and more ostensibly to each participant.

It might be argued that such an awareness of the entire field was unnecessary and impossible to achieve in an age of specialization to such a high extent as it is prevalent at present. As a corollary of this argument one would have to hold the view that an organisation like AILA, which, apart from covering the whole world, above all, covers the entire range of applications of linguistics, is redundant.

The editor frankly admits that within his ten years of service within AILA and his own national affiliate of AILA he has never come across an applied linguistic uomo universale. Quite obviously there hardly is an applied linguist who could without losing credibility claim to have a command of the current state of research in all applied linguistic fields, enabling him to produce fruitful results in any applied linguistic field at any time. However, this is not the point. What matters more than being a specialist in the forefront of scholarly discussion in as many applied linguistic fields as possible involves the ability to allow research and practice in one's 'own' (limited and restricted) domains to benefit from the ways in which problems are posed, treated, and answered in adjacent areas - and, vice versa, to contribute to further developments of those areas by putting at their disposal methods used and insights achieved in one's own domains.

If cross-boundary scholarly interaction is not to remain a random affair of isolated attempts of individuals, then an appropriate public forum is required. AILA congresses are such a forum. The AILA Revue is another one. Due to its various limitations it cannot and due to the comprehensive character of AILA, it need not, and therefore it should not attempt to rival specialized journals in each individual sub-area of applied linguistics.

Those who will share my view that patholinguists, psycholinguists, foreign language teachers, that computational linguists, translators and language teaching media technologists, that language planners, applied sociolinguists, and multilingualists - just to mention a few out of a multitude of existing and possible interactive constellations -, can learn a great deal from each other, will assign to AILA and to the AILA-Review the following two major tasks:

- The development and presentation of individual applied linguistic fields

according to their current state of research in such a way as to make them accessible and useable for scholars and practitioners beyond the scientific community primarily concerned

- The continuous reflection of the ground on which applied linguistics stands in its entirety of manifestations, the search for what the applied linguistic areas share, the critical assessment of their relationship to linguistics and other neighbouring sciences. The achievement of this goal cannot be done in a static way. Instead, the above-mentioned fact of continuous change as a constitutive component of applied linguistics must be taken into account as an intrinsic, essential determiner.

- It is primarily this second mentioned task, to which AILA-Review IV intends to

make a modest contribution. - The first article challenges linguistics to confess to its applied nature and tradition:

LINGUISTICS AS APPLIED LINGUISTICS The authors of the following papers are familiar with this concept, and

thematize it by focusing on various large applied linguistic areas in summarising their present state from the aspect of their interrelationship between theory and application:

- Language Learning/ Language Teaching - Computational Linguistics - Clinical Linguistics - Multilingualism As the editor is in confirmed accordance with the policy of AILA of increasingly

opening up beyond its traditional European - American - Australian sphere towards all continents, an Asian scholar presents the present state of applied linguistics as seen from the above-mentioned angle of theory/ application, in this case the president of the Japanese Association of Applied Linguistics. The comparison between this article and the others makes evident another essential task which only AILA can perform: That of laying open conditions, constraints, theoretical grounds, methodical procedures, specifications of applied linguistic concern according to their variations across the geographical parameter - as a prerequisite for an increase in intercultural scholarly cooperation. -All contributors to this volume

have exerted key functions in AILA and /or in their national affiliates, and /or are well known to AILA from their contributions to AILA congresses and/or other activities in their special applied linguistic fields.

The editor's thanks are due to all contributors as well as to this colleagues in the AILA publications subcommittee and to AILA Treasurer Johan Matter, who once again took the often nerve-racking task upon him of serving as managing editor, and to his colleague Cor Koster whose help in seeing this publication through production proved to be invaluable.

The editor's apologies are due to the whole readership for the fact that once again the AILA Review could not come out in the year it was designed for (1986), but one year later. This delay was caused by a state of uncertainty as to whether the AILA-Review could be continued or not, which lasted longer than one year. I think the reason for these difficulties should be owned up frankly and publicly. A generation ago a leading applied linguist is said to have coined the phrase "Applied Linguistics - that is linguistics with money". From today's perspective I regret to have to oppose to this: "AILA - that is applied linguistics without money". But: the underlying drives that ultimately are constitutive for what AILA is doing are the desire for a better international understanding to come true. The farther we proceed in this direction the less means will be spent on what separates peoples but rather on what they share - among other things applications of the study of languages.

Wolfgang Kühlwein Vice-president of AILA

Externality and Finalization in Linguistics Wolfgang KühIwein University of Trier/ Federal Republic of Germany Centre Universitaire de Luxembourg/ Grand Duchy of Luxembourg 1. Educational and political frame 1.1 Historical background

The history of the study of languages and linguistics provides ample evidence for the hypothesis that the study of languages has primarily been motivated by forces and drives which would nowadays be labelled as "external" (s.b. part 2) rather than internal, as applied rather than theoretical.

Panini's fairly structuralist grammar of Sanskrit originated from an external underlying impulse to relate religious studies to sources of the past and as a result of this to provide the necessary means for getting access to the older religious Veda scriptures, rather than from an interest in the thousands of definition formulae, which he devised to describe the Sanskrit language, for their own sake or for the mere sake of describing their interrelationship.

Equally, the considerable attention which linguistics and language study enjoyed in ancient Greece, should ultimately be seen as a reflection of external reasons that in this case were of a philosophical nature: linguistics as providing the key to an answer to the essential question: 'Is the world an ordered or is it an unstructured whole?' If linguistics could prove that language structure and language use followed ordered principles, there would have been a high probability of inferring, on the basis that language constitutes one part of this world, that the world was well-ordered in its entirety. Actually, an even more far-reaching external dimension can be traced behind this philosophical one: to prove orderedness was equipollent to proving the existence (vs. absence) of forces which created and kept an eye on this cosmos (vs. chaos) : the Gods (as for details of this controversy cf. Democritus, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle). Linguistics as externally motivated by philosophical considerations and as " finalized"(s.b.part 3) for purposes of theology.

As seen from this perspective, the gap between this philosophically-theologically oriented linguistic school of the Greeks and their more philologically oriented Alexandrian school is by far not as wide as it is usually assumed: despite their differences in subject-matter both schools shared the expressed intention to finalize their linguistic research: the Alexandrians put it at the disposal of rhetoricians (cf. also the corresponding finalization in the Renaissance), glossators, text commentators and others.

The interplay between externality and finalization in linguistics will have become apparent. Instead of minutely tracing the entire history of linguistics and language study under the perspective which we have chosen here, just a few more examples for other external spheres and finalizing factors will suffice to provide us with the historical background for an evaluation of the

corresponding present-day situation of linguistics. The multifaceted political sphere has frequently motivated linguistic doing: In

the pre-mediaeval Arabic empire the role of the Arabic tongue was reinforced for mere reasons of political influence in subjugated countries; whoever intended to climb the social ladder was expected to be able to read the Koran, and as the Koran was not allowed to be translated, a certain command of Arabic was necessary; the ensuing linguistic studies were finalized in such a way as to increase the development of teaching materials for Arabic. Many examples along similar lines could be provided even for present-day multilingual settings - extending as far as ethnocentric abuses of language study as an imperialist instrument (linguistic chauvinism).

After the age of Romanticism has kindled an intense interest in previous stages of one's past, linguistics got affected, as it could be finalized in such way as to provide grammars and dictionaries for older and up to then more or less forgotten stages of one's language: means which unlocked old written texts, which in turn yielded the desired access to a deeper understanding of one's culture. 1.2. The present-day situation

It was not until the second/ third decades of our century that linguistics did its best to separate itself from any kind of external constraints. This process has often been called 'the emancipation of linguistics': a term which has quite a positive ring for the ears of a scholar. The long-term social effects it caused to linguistics and linguists seem to be not quite as positive. The more linguistics endeavoured to separate itself from man/ society the more man/ society got alienated from linguistics. The chronological sequence indicates that it is not man/ society who are to be blamed for this present-day situation.

Indicators in an increasing number of countries are the tremendous difficulties for trained linguists to find suitable employment, the increasing fund-raising problems for research into language, the low position that is granted to linguistic demands on priority-lists of institutes of higher education.

It is highly disturbing that in a situation so precarious to linguistics it is rather political groups, universities 'vice chancellors' conferences, the media, which call attention to this impasse of linguistics (along with various other social sciences equally concerned) than the disciplines affected, their scholars, their professional organizations (among others AILA).

Resignation and kismet - devotion on the linguists' side will not do to overcome the lamento. Rather than assuming the passive attitude of shifting responsibility off the sphere of one's austere scholarly tasks towards society, which happens to be unaware of the benefits it can draw from linguistics and towards wrong educational policy, which refuses to give language education in its due, as linguists we ought better to actively scrutinize ourselves in two respects; - Why did linguists and language study drift into their present situation? A

question that might, if properly answered, already yield the key to the second one;

- Is there a way out? The first question will lead us to a reappraisal of the externality-factor in

linguistics. The second one will yield a plea for an integration of what has become to be called Â(theoretical) linguistics' on the one hand and ´applied linguistics' on the other.

For epistemological reasons we turn for an answer beyond the field directly concerned, i.e. beyond linguistics, towards a wider scope as offered by the philosophy of science.

For our purposes, however, most of the theories that were developed by the philosophy of science, share the following disadvantages: - they were developed to account for the research process rather of natural

sciences than of social sciences - projections into fields like linguistics, which has a share in both natural and

social sciences, at best remained scattered attempts - 'weddings' of theories among each other remained scarce. 2. Externality justified

Considering the enthusiasm with which structural linguistics - both in its taxonomic and in its generative appearance - was hailed as the 'Copernican revolution in linguistics', the above mentioned present situation is the more puzzling. The question imposes itself: was it really a revolution? To judge what makes a mere change in scientific progress a revolution we best turn to T.S. Kuhn (1962, 1976, 1977: 321 ff., 1981).- His theory of scientific revolutions equated sciences with natural sciences, however; all examples used by Kuhn stem from the realm of natural sciences. This restriction might be the very reason, why, as far as we can see, his theory has never systematically been applied to linguistic science - despite applications to the progress of fields like clinical medicine ( Rothschuh ), and even of theology ( Küng ). Therefore our following attempt can be a tentative one only.

Without doubt the transition from traditional philology to structural linguistics evinced several characteristics which are to be considered as constitutive for 'scientific revolutions':

A. The preceding traditional prescriptive view had become fossilized, i.e. it was not any longer seriously questioned. Its mere existence had come to be regarded as a sufficient justification for further following along its traditions. No more questioning concerning its initial raison d'être, no questions concerning projections at the end of research tasks. The problem-solutions which were achieved according to its coherent tradition of research got acknowledged without any reservations. The prevailing view was firmly manifested alike in language education and textbooks.- According to Kuhn's general theory of scientific revolution such a state of discipline would bear in itself the germ for its own overthrowal, i.e., for the replacement of the older 'disciplinary matrix' (= 'scientific paradigm' in Kuhn's earlier, 'disciplinary system' in his most recent terminology) by a new one.

B. It is also true that the following view, the structuralist one, as compared to the one it replaced, was characterized by: a. A higher degree of accuracy : descriptions of language based on the new

(structuralist) theory were in better agreement with the results of observation of language - though admittedly not in 'best' agreement e.g. thinking of the question of psycholinguistic reality of generative linguistic models (which induced anthropological linguists to pose the question whether they ultimately are 'God's truth or the linguist's hocus-pocus').

b. A greater consistency -internally, as regards the conceptual and methodical tools used for description of the entirety of levels of language structure, i.e. from sound to sentence -externally, as regards its compatibility with theories that were used in related sciences, and that were equally based on a systemic-structuralist way of thinking.

c. A (at least somewhat) broader scope , as regards the extension of its consequences beyond the observations which it was originally expected to describe and explain, e.g. to etics and emics in behavioural science, in anthropology, in ethnology, and other fields.

d. A considerably higher degree of simplicity : language phenomena which had been classified as 'irregular' and therefore been isolated by the previous prescriptive view (e.g. 'irregular' verbs assigned to the appendix of English grammars) got integrated within a more systemic framework of description.

On the other hand however:

A. Even without going into more detail it seems apparent that the degrees up to which these criteria were met, vary to a considerable extent. - A fifth criterion, which should be fulfilled by a good scientific theory, in order to qualify it as a serious candidate for replacing an existing disciplinary matrix, would be its fruitfulness with respect to its power of revealing new phenomena or hitherto undiscovered relationships among phenomena which are already known. This criterion is met by generativist versions of the structural disciplinary matrix to a certain extent (e.g. disclosing deep structure relations among types of sentences that differ at the surface etc.), however, by the taxonomic versions of the structuralist disciplinary matrix.

B. The 'scientific community' concerned experienced a change of a merely internal kind; interdisciplinary penetration remained very limited. This is significant, because sciences provide few examples only for overcoming of a disciplinary matrix by forces that originate from within the respective scientific community (Krafft, 1977: 46 f). Many examples can be provided, however, for the hypothesis that it is rather an externally caused widening of the scholar's matrix, that it is rather his getting into contact with and his getting equipped with patterns of education and training, that differ from those of the established scientific community of his original provenience, that are at the bottom of revolutionary changes in science.

C. The structuralist disciplinary matrix soon experienced a large amount of diversification. A great amount of proliferation - both in the taxonomic and in the generative branch - caused competing articulations of the matrix to claim equal validity. As a result the acknowledged rules of problem-solving (Kuhn 1976 : 90 ff.) got loosened to such an extent as to question former standard-solutions.

The common denominator of all of these three considerations: from the

philosophy of science point of view adopted here definite reservations seem to be appropriate when it comes to the question of assigning revolutionary quality to the advent of structuralism in linguistics. - At any rate, the last mentioned characteristic (diversification, proliferation) of a matrix has always been in the history one of the most tangible indicators of a state where a

threshold was reached, beyond which a new disciplinary matrix emerged. And this, it seems to me, is exactly what happened to linguistics at this point, and what is still going on now by granting functional-pragmatic interaction the central position in linguistics.

If we critically apply all criteria of scientific revolutions as they have been presented so far, to this change, we come to the conclusion that the emerging of functional-pragmatic linguistics makes much more of a scientific revolution than the earlier transition from traditional to structural linguistics had done. In particular, this time the process of the change is of a highly external nature, the more so as man is being made the hinge of language study in a capacity which extends far beyond linguistic concerns (encompassing them, nevertheless): man as 'homo sociologus' (Kanngießer 1976: 126).

Before going into the implications of this linguistic revolution for the field which we have got accustomed to call 'applied linguistics' we should cast a backward glance at the time when linguists resumed 'applied' interests in our century.

The birth of the world association for applied linguistics (AILA) coincided with the heydays of the 'structuralist linguistic' (again in its widest sense, as used above) matrix. Here we refrain from going into the question as to how far the existence of the latter was one of the prerequisites for the renewed interest in finalization - which caused such a rapidly growing spectrum of applications - as a predictable counter-reaction. What is more important is the fact, that the awakening endeavours to finalize linguistics met with a state of development of linguistic theory that was characterized by a fairly low amount of consensus (s.a. proliferation). But

- if it is true that the future of linguistics along with many other social sciences depends on their readiness to let themselves be assigned to other spheres/ tasks/ problem-areas of life in order to take an appropriate share in the solving of the attendant problems (as indicated above) - and this is equivalent to saying: if the future of linguistics depends on its willingness to open up again towards finalization

- and if it is right that the chances of finalization being successful are the better, the more maturity/ consensus a theory has gained (as will be argued below)

we get stuck in a dilemma. It could not and cannot be resolved within the framework of the structuralist matrix.

This answers the first of the two questions which we raised initially. As to the second one ('Which way out?') we now have to ask whether a solution can be offered by the new functional-pragmatic disciplinary matrix.

Too frequently 'linguistics' and 'pragmatics' were opposed to each other in a paradigmatic way (cf. titles of monographs and articles like 'Linguistics and Pragmatics'). It goes without saying that here 'linguistics' is equal to 'structural linguistics', i.e. internal orientation of language study, as opposed to the externality-factor which is inherent in pragmatics according to the concern which pragmatics has with use of language in society, purposes to which language use is put, effects which language use intends to achieve. However, from the criteria presented for scientific revolutions above, we can infer the two matrices, the structural one and the functional-pragmatic one, are distinguished by a qualitative difference. Rather than paradigmatic their relationship is one of reducibility: the structural matrix can be regarded as a reduced matrix if compared to the functional-pragmatic one. And it is always

the reduced matrix which gets superseded by the more explanatory one in scientific progress. Thus, if we can conceive of the relationship between both matrices in this way, it follows that the external factors, inherent in pragmatics, can in no way be regarded as alien to 'linguistics (proper)', but become legitimate constituents of 'linguistics'.

Ergo: the attempt to apply Kuhn's philosophy of science to linguistics provides us with a nice base for the justification of externality in the disciplinary matrix of linguistics. - And to admit finalization externality is a prerequisite (s.b.).

vs. normativism see Janich-Kambartel-Mittelstraß, on Darwinism vs. Finalism Schaefer, on relativism of science Brunkhorst, on phases in finalism in particular But: at the point where it comes to finalize science, Kuhn admits helplessness. We can sum up his correspondences as follows: '(normal science = internal) vs. (revolutionary science = external)'. This, however, rather means cutting the Gordian knot of values and social relevance of research, than solving the problems of finalization. Despite the influence which he attributes to external factors in revolutionary phases of what he calls 'basic science', it seems he would rather regard them as impediment when they appear as determiners of what he calls 'applied science'. He states different degrees of freedom for the two fields: the 'Inventor' and the 'Applied Scientist' "are not generally free to choose puzzles"(1977: 237); "The problems among which they may choose are likely to be largely determined by social, economic, or military circumstances external to the sciences." (1977, 238). He concludes from this distinction: "It is, I think, by no means clear that the personality characteristics requisite for pre-eminence in this more practical sort of work are altogether the same as those required for a great achievement in basis science", and ends up with "I am by no means clear where this suggestion leads us. The troublesome distinctions between basis research, applied research, and invention need far more investigation" (ibid.). As a consequence applications (and inventions) can merely rely on random results achieved by strength of scientific education - be it even of a merely rudimentary kind (example: Edison). The reason why Kuhn's philosophy of science gets stuck in this impasse - unexpectedly -, is due to the rigidity with which he opposes basic to applied science. Therefore the passage from justified externality to finalization in linguistics requires a different view of the relationship between 'basic' and 'applied' research. This key might be provided by a 'wedding' of Kuhn's theory with a more European approach: that of the finalist philosophy of science. 3. Finalization made possible 3.1. General

For finalist philosophy of science to comply with criteria which we labelled 'external' above like needs, purposes, effects, is not a by-product of scientific activity but constitutes its guiding principle (for more details on descriptivism vs. normativism see Janich-Kambartel-Mittelstraß , on Darwinism vs. Finalism Schaefer, on relativism of science Brunkhorst, on phases in finalism in particular Boehme, but also Andersson, van Daele, Hohlfeld, Robach and Vossenkuhl. This is an extremely controversial issue. It is true that within these last few decades the mainstream of linguistic science rather followed the contrary direction, adhering to an antifinalist position. As, however, it has turned out above that finalization will be relevant for the future of our field, an

assessment is required. - What is it that makes the finalist position so controversial? - It negates the existence and even the possibility of pure, valuefree science. - It allows itself to be based on a normative rather than a descriptive

philosophy of science. The 'purity'-argument is, of course, derived from the history of natural sciences,

where pure science was opposed to technology. It was/is the task of pure science to describe the phenomena of nature and their interrelationship. It was/is the task of technology to use these descriptions: to the benefit of mankind - (hopefully). A clear-cut distinction. As we shall see below, the cut isn't that clear- not even in natural sciences. Nevertheless, in an endeavour to emulate rigid classification of natural sciences linguistics followed suit. Theoretical linguistics got opposed to applied linguistics, pure linguistics to impure(?) linguistics, linguistics proper to linguistics improper(?). What else could the use of identifying modifiers like 'pure' or 'proper' mean but the tacit attribution of the contrarious qualities to fields from which one wanted to be explicitly distinguished? (There is some irony in the fact that adjectives like 'pure' or 'proper' do, after all, semantically not belong to the world of what is true and what is false, i.e. to the world which science is supposed to describe, but rather to the world of what is good and what is bad, i.e. the world of values, i.e. that very world which 'pure' science would refuse to be concerned with).

It seems to us that two fundamental misconceptions are involved. A. To take over from the realm of natural sciences the above mentioned partition was a serious mistake because though linguistics can be regarded as belonging to natural sciences in many respects, it can with equal justification be subsumed under social sciences from many other aspects. Humboldt knew, the object of linguistics, language, is both ergon and energeia. It is both static and dynamic, it is both item-and-arrange-ment and item-and process. These 'both-and'-dyads could be multiplied. It is due to them that in so many respects research into language is more complex than research into nature.

The fact that linguistic took over above mentioned distinction from natural sciences becomes even more precarious when we acknowledge that: B. Even for natural sciences the philosophical ground is shaky, on which the The fact that linguistics took over the above mentioned distinction from natural distinction rests between sciences that are pure vs. other related fields that are not. The concept of pure science rests on a descriptive philosophy of science (cf. Janich-Kambertel-MitteIstraß 1974: 22 ff.) in other words:

- Existing theories are rather followed than seriously questioned (cf. Kuhn's 'normal' science).

- As for potential applications all that scientific research can contribute, is to provide 'humus' for them.

- Scholarly activity is carried out by transempirical subjects - The space within which scholarly activity takes place is value-free. - e. Disciplinary treatment of problems prevails - even in cases where the

- problems are a non- or interdisciplinary nature; and accordingly: - The social organization of research rather is one of scientific communities

than one of task-oriented communities - Discourse between scholarship and the socio-political sphere is excluded.

The task of science is to 'demystify' (cf. in detail Brunkhorst) the world. This

could be performed 'purely' if the scientist possessed an Archimedean point, from which he/ she could unhinge the world.

But we haven't got such a point. Therefore scientists are themselves objects of the demystification-process, and as a consequence cannot operate within a transempirical, value-free space. The ways and degrees as to which objective and social reality become accessible to science does not only depend on the structure of reality but also on knowledge, strategies of thinking etc. of different scientists.

If therefore, we have to leave the descriptive philosophy of science we end up

with a normative one: a. It admits of the relativity of scholarly doing. b. It is justificatory rather than arbitrary. c. It is strategic rather than darwinistic. d. It can grant social purposefulness a determining role for scholarly activity. Though this position will vehemently be opposed by a great number of

contemporary linguisticians, it actually can draw on quite a respectable tradition (for more details cf. Kühlwein 1987a):

- Plato aimed at a unification of what is true (science!) and what is good (values, purposes!).

- For Aristotle science was knowledge which was expected to stabilize practice - a practice, however, in which theorizing is always part of practice itself.

- After Descartes had reestablished the primacy of academic theorizing – at the expense of separating it from practice - in the 17th century, David Hume reestablished the direct connection between both in the 18th century. After all, it is Nature which he let say "indulge your passion for science, but let your science be human, and such as may have a direct reference to action and society." (cf. Kühlwein, 1988).

3.2. Specific

When projected unto the study of language the finalist position - qua normative philosophy of science - will have to dismiss as untenable all those concepts which are built on a separation of theoretical linguistics from purposefulness, effectfulness, 'application', e.g.:

A. The paradigmatic concept, according to which e.g. applied linguistic departments got institutionalized at many institutions of higher education independent of and side by side with theoretical linguistic ones.

B. The derivative concept, according to which theoretical linguistics equals general linguistics, from which applied linguistics is derived as early as it comes e.g. to describing the vowel system of a particular language.

C. The adversary concept, according to which theoretical linguistics is concerned with theory, applied linguistics with practice; applied linguistics thus becomes a kind of recycled linguistics.

D. In particular the concept which is most frequently drawn upon by scholars who would call themselves 'applied' linguists, has to be discussed here: 'goal-orientedness' as distinguishing applied from theoretical linguistics. As a next step it is often said, applied linguistics is 'socially relevant', implying that theoretical linguistics is not. - That applied linguistics is goal-oriented is a tautology, but this cannot mean that applied linguistics could monopolize the criterion goal-orientedness. The same holds true for 'social relevance' as derived from it. Just to indicate a few arguments against such an usurpatory view:

a. Even the most confirmed finalist would not deny the fact that socially relevant, practical use of theoretical insights frequently occurred unpredictably ( - whether this kind of 'humus' - dependence of application makes applied research economic, is an entirely different question).

b. The kind and degree as to which the objects with which theoretical and applied linguistics are concerned alike, reveal themselves, are determined by the theories under which they are viewed; a neo-Kantian position.

c. Socially relevant educational implications might be mentioned, with can well emanate from a concern with linguistic theory-formation. A training in linguistic theory-formation can well contribute towards educating a scholarly mind, towards developing those 'aptitudes scientifiques', which become more and more indispensable for the task of coping with this world in a time in which the angles under which we see and assess it are changing at an ever-increasing speed.

Ergo: admitting of goal-orientedness in the interest of fulfilling socially relevant

purposes as an important feature for 'applied' linguistics must by no means mean that this criterion should be used as a line of demarcation that could set off applied linguistics from theoretical linguistics.

Besides, applied linguistics would be on a somewhat safer ground, if the often rashly term 'social relevance' were replaced by 'social relatedness' anyway.

To these - and other - concepts of demarcation we oppose an integral view. The

former ones may be visualized as follows: vs

The integral one would be rather of a complementary contrapunctual than of an alternative-exclusive format:

Theoretical

L I N G U I S T I C S

Linguistics

Applied Linguistics

(Theoretical) Linguistics

Before examining the prerequisites which are necessary to make this integral concept work, we should point out a side-effect, which might be said to be of a mere terminological structures. - Instead of specifically marking 'applied linguistics' as opposed to 'linguistics' (i.e. '(theoretical) linguistics'), it is 'theoretical linguistics' which has to be specifically marked in the concept, which conceives of linguistics as admitting finalization anyway - based on all the historical evidence which we presented initially: 'linguistics' per se finalized, within which, however, an integral and central position is due to theory, i.e. to theoretical linguistics. If we conceive of linguistics in that finalized way, the - often troublesome, because so frequently misunderstood - label 'applied' could be dispensed with!

The necessary prerequisite to make this concept work is compatibility of the

following three research-phases: As long as 'applications' are carried out as sporadic projections of theoretical

insights onto practical problem fields (antifinalist 'humus-linguistics'; see above), compatibility is rare. What is underdeveloped in applications of such a kind is careful screening in the constitutive phase as to intended finalization, in other words an early consideration of the interrelationship of causa efficiens and causa finalis. This kind of 'socket-and-plug-applications'; may without doubt cause outstanding results occasionally; as the basic pattern of applied linguistics, however, it is - to say the least - uneconomic; the fact that all too often the strength of current provided by the socket turned out to be the wrong one, accounts for the negative ring which still adheres to the term 'applied linguistics' fairly often.

Therefore we would like to emphasize: when we speak of finalized linguistics, we do not at all mean 'applied linguistics' in that sense, which disregarded/ disregards the compatibility of the three research phases.

Now compatibility among the three linguistic research phases can be achieved better: via the above mentioned reducibility of linguistic matrices. In addition, if we conceive of linguistics as finalized, the initially mentioned

practical problems

constitutive phase

theory-dynamic phase

finalizing phase

theory-dynamics of neighbouring sciences (e.g.

sociology, psychology, anthroplogy, etc.)

internal/ external legitimation

internal

legitamtion

external

legitimation

highly normative/ social

descriptive normative

possibility - perhaps necessity: future of linguistics! - of getting assigned to problem-areas of society will be facilitated, as is indicated by the structure of the justificatory component in the above figure.

To be more specific: what exactly do 'constitution' and 'finalization' stand for? The phase of constitution provides space for questioning the preconditions of

research, and therefore relates to the a priori- dimension; rather propositionally than socioculturally oriented philosophers of science would call it the 'transcendental' area (cf. Diemer 1977: 7 ff.) which comprises:

- Formalia (concepts like elements, interrelations, similarity, contiguity, unity, constancy, consistency)

- Constitutiva (the dimension of what is considered as axiomatic and well-founded; the typicality of the world: Idio-world, (ideal)- normal world, thematic world, scientific world; reality-concept: Constitution of what one considers as real: Subjective, intersubjective, intersubjective-objective reality)

- Rationale (forms of logic used: Aristotelian, non-aristotelian, dialectic, others) Obviously it is here that the researcher makes his/ her decision as to the facets

of reality he/ she selects and determines for investigation. It is the phase of exploration, of screening, of pre-theoretic intuitions (ter Meulen 1976: 88), the phase where drives, motivations, modes of thinking and apprehension of the scholar exert their influence: the meta-scientific phase, that leads to tentative hypothesis-formulation. Simultaneously this phase of questioning the preconditions of research is most essential for shifts to cause revolutions.

It is true the constitutive phase can be determined by a predominantly internal

legitimation: - without questioning the basic matrix principles any longer, hundreds of

theses e.g. on sets of synonymous expressions had been written in dialectology in the first half of this century: internally legitimized by the drive to increase the range of descriptions of phenomena under the auspices of the prevailing matrix.

- A theory of grammar, once outlined, as a rule evokes a multitude of studies which would articulate and refine the theory, provide more delicacy -without necessarily questioning its basic principles.

What will be considered as a change by anti-finalists in these cases would

become precarious for finalists: freeing oneself from the constraint of constantly reflecting the basic principles of one's disciplinary matrix entails a concentration on more and more subtle and esoteric phenomena (cf.a. Kuhn 1976: 36ff.,175).

In the case of definitely external legitimation of constitution it is social constraints that determine selection, determination, classification of problems for investigation, that set priorities, that define problem-areas, e.g.

- language and speech disorders - multilingualism - linguistic data processing

- (foreign) language learning/ teaching - international understanding - etc.(for further problem-areas cf. the structure of AILA world congresses) with a view to developing purposeful concepts for amelioration. The decisive

point of this kind of functionalized research is its difference from mere instrumentalism. The functional aspect is already considered in the constitutive phase. 'Applied' considerations in this functional sense do not merely follow theory-dynamics, but also precede it.

We infer from these examples that the question whether a certain piece of research should be labelled as theoretical linguistic or as applied linguistic, cannot be answered materialiter, but that it is the respective constitutive framework that determines this assignment - e.g. a case grammar study as done to achieve more subtlety within the system of cases, i.e. done matrix-internally vs. the same study as done under the auspices of the role which case frames can play for foreign language teaching. Even entirely new research fields can be proposed for external reasons: e.g. the investigation of neurolinguistic processes within the context of speech therapy. In this case research is not functualized in the aforementioned way of yielding previously defined effects, but rather yields 'fall-out' (Böhme) for finalization.

Externality in the constitutive phase need not impair the degree of subtlety, to which we pointed in the case of internally legitimized constitution. The investigation can, of course, be equally subtle, but it is assigned a different place-value. Its results would not be directed backwards to the very cause of the investigation (e.g. increasing the areas concerned by the matrix or refining the matrix). Instead the place-value of the given subtle investigation would be determined by a position between emanating from (external) constitution on the one hand and opening the gates towards (equally external) finalization; in other words it would be subsumed under theory-dynamics - a theory-dynamics, which in this case has to be seen as a phase within the wider three-phase-framework outlined.

We used 'social determination' as a criterion for externality in constitution. This criterion deserves much more screening than can be done here. It certainly is not only the by now traditional applied linguistic areas that have to be subsumed under it. We can only indicate the problem here by means of an extreme example. As a rule lexicological studies of e.g. Old English, Old French, Old High German etc. are illustrations of what we called internally legitimized constitution. If, however, such a study

- originated from the (external constitutive) desire to achieve better understanding of the present-day speech-community of the respective language

- and if the study were done in such a way as to admit finalization by improving our ability to comprehend older texts as carriers of previous stages of culture

- and if the researcher held the opinion that a better understanding of history could have a bearing on a better understanding of the present,

could the Old English lexicological study not then be said to be socially (i.e. externally) determined? The size of the scientific community concerned might be of a little help for the answer: in the second case, it will definitely extend the mere linguistic community. But we are aware of the fact that this argument is a quantitative one merely.

On the other hand: when one considers that to an increasing extent scientific tasks are tackled and solved by more than one individual, would it really have to be a requirement for each member of the team to consciously penetrate the constitutional and finalizing framework of what he is researching? Or would it suffice if this framework were taken care of by those members of the team who take an active share in the planning stage of their common project? The complexity can be increased further: what holds true for different individuals within one project is equally valid for the relationship of projects among each other, which are parts of one encompassing supraproject...

As it is not only linguistics which is concerned, we have to leave it to professional philosophers to decide on these issues. What happens in the phase of finalization?

Setting out from an (in this phase unquestionable) external legitimation, research gets oriented substantially according to finalized aims. Thus far all finalists would agree. Furthermore there is (not a complete but) a considerable amount of agreement about the necessary preconditions for this process:

- a 'mature' theory as a result of the theory-dynamic phase (vs. a multitude of competing and proliferating theories; see above!)

- the ensuing elaboration of specialized theories via extensions of the core of a 'mature' theory as a breachless passing from scientific theoretical to scientific applied research, which in turn can open more and more towards immediate practical orientation.

Thus this phase is concerned with 'practically oriented fundamental research' - which is no contradictio in se if seen within this finalist framework, because this is the phase, in which e.g. basic science and technology converge. - Once again, the situation is more complex in linguistics than in natural sciences. Owing to the dual nature of linguistics as belonging to both natural and social sciences the requirement of development one 'mature' theory is too rigid.

It is true natural sciences do yield convincing examples for difference in achievement according to presence vs. absence of maturity of theory; e.g. when opposing fermentation and flow research. Fermentation research had been dominated by internal orientation, a long-lasting competition of rivalling theories, among which no one was able to gain the day for quite a long period. The results in the realm of technology were fairly meagre. On the other hand flow research had early reached a fairly wide consensus about its basic theoretical principles; that is to say it developed a mature theory early. The results in hydro- and aerodynamics are amazing.

For linguistics the maturity claim has to be mitigated. It would certainly be a futile attempt: to wait for the emerging of the mature linguistic theory. As indicated above, we consider the functional-pragmatic matrix as marking a decisive step forward in this respect. In the future a fair amount of finalization could well be achieved, if linguistics paid more attention

- to what existing linguistic theories share and - to those linguistic theories which try to see language both as an object of

natural and of social sciences.

4. Final Remark

We shall conclude this treatise by pointing to a field which shares with linguistics the fact of being both scientia and ars : medicine as clinical medicine. In an attempt to use clinical medicine as a touchstone for Kuhn's philosophy of science, Rothschuh illustrates that despite the priority which medicine as scientia gives to gaining rather than to applying insight, this gain is always understood as a means to successful task-solution. The encompassing external determination of medical science, the wish to ease the doctor's decision-making at the sickbed, has never been seen as an obstacle to the development of theoretical concepts of health and disease -theoretical concepts, however, which rather are of a synthetic, unifying, than of an analytic kind. There is always an externally determined framework; and it is not a question of whether externality comes in in the constitutive or in the finalizing phase; it comes in in both. - Medicine as clinical medicine/ linguistics as finalized linguistics: their two phases where externality plays a role cause a cyclic conception of their research process: a cycle of theory and application as the basic pattern for gaining scientific knowledge, a pattern which comprises applied (in the sense of finalizing) considerations as constitutive elements of cognition.

And to come back to our introductory remark: never has the future of 'medicine as clinical medicine' been seriously questioned! References Andersson, G. (1978): 'Praxisbezug und Erkenntnisfortschritt'. In Hubig, C./W. von

Rahden (eds.), Konsequenzen kritischer Wissenschaftstheorie, Berlin/ New York, 58-80.

Böhme, Gernot et al. (eds.) (1978a): Die gesellschaftliche Orientierung des Fortschritts. (=Starnberger Studien 1), Frankfurt a.M.

· et al. (1978b): 'Finalisierung revisited'. In G. Böhme et al. (eds.), Die gesellschaftliche Orientierung..., Frankfurt a.M., 195-250.

· et al. (1978c): 'Automatisierung und Finalisierung'. In G. Böhme et al. (eds.). Die gesellschaftliche Orientierung ..., Frankfurt a.M., 69-130.

· et al. (1978d): 'Alternativen in der Wissenschaft - Alternativen zur Wissenschaft'. In Hubig, C./W. von Rahden (eds.), Konsequenzen ..., Berlin/ New York, 40-57.

Brunkhorst, H. (1978): Praxisbezug und Theoriebildung, Frankfurt a.M. Bugarski, R. (1978): 'Reflections on the goals of linguistics'. In W.U. Dressier/

W.Meid (eds.), Proceedings of the Xllth International Congress of Linguists, Innsbruck, 249-252.

Burnet, J. (1973): The Ethics of Aristotle, New York. Currie, G./A. Musgrave (eds.) (1985); Popper and the human sciences, Dordrecht. Diemer, Alwin (ed.) (1977a): Die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Revolutionen und die

Geschichte der Wissenschaften. Meisenheim am Glan. · (1977b): 'Wissenschaftsentwicklung - Wissenschaftsrevolution -

Wissenschaftsgeschichte: Einführung in die Thematik'. In A. Diemer, (ed.), Die Struktur.... 4-19.

van Els, Theo et al. (1984): Applied Linguistics and the Learning and Teaching of Foreign Languages. London.

Hohlfeld, R. (1978): 'Praxisbezüge wissenschaftlicher Disziplinen. Das Beispiel der Krebsforschung'. In Böhme, G. et al. (eds.), Die gesellschaftliche Orientierung ..., Frankfurt a.M., 131-193.

Horkheimer, Max (1931 - 1949, 1985): Gesammelte Schriften: Bd. XII Nachgelassene Schriften: 1931 - 1949, Gunzelin, Schmid, Noerr, (eds.) Frankfurt a.M.

Hubig, C./W. von Rahden (eds.) (1978): Konsequenzen kritischer Wissenschaftstheorie, Berlin/ New York.

· (1978): 'Das Defizit der Finalisierungsdebatte und eine pragmatische Alternative'. In Hubig, C./W. von Rahden (eds.), Konsequenzen ..., Berlin/New York, 111-138.

Hübner, K./N. Lobkowicz/ H. Lübbe/G. Radnitzky (eds.) (1976): Die politische Herausforderung der Wissenschaft, Hamburg.

Hume, David 2 (1962): 'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding'. In L.A. Selby-Bigge (ed.), Enquiries Concerning the Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals by David Hume. Oxford.

Janich, P./F. KambarteI/J. Mittelstraß (eds.) (1974): Wissenschaftstheorie als Wissenschaftskritik, Frankfurt a.M.

Kanngiesser, Siegfried: 'Spracherklärungen und Sprachbeschreibungen'. In D. Wunderlich (ed.), Wissenschaftstheorie..., 106-160.

Kant, Immanuel (1787, 21911): 'Kritik der reinen Vernunft'. In Königlich-Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften (ed.), Kant's Werke, vol. Ill, Berlin.

Krafft, Fritz (1977): 'Progressus Retrogradis: Die 'Copernikanische Wende' als Ergebnis absoluter Paradigmatreue'. In A. Diemer (ed.), Die Struktur ..., Meisenheim am Glan, 20-48.

Kühlwein, Wolfgang (1985): 'Linguistic Integrality: Research Methodology'. In ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics, 67-68, 127-140.

· (1987a): 'The Need for Integration of Applied and Theoretical Linguistics; Research Objects, Research Goals'. In Olga Tomic/Roger Shuy (eds.), The Relationship of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. New York, (In Print).

· (1987b): 'Haben Geisteswissenschaften eine Zukunft? - These, Appell und Chance am Beispiel der Linguistik'. In B. Spillner (ed.), Perspektiven der angewandten Linguistik: Arbeitsfelder. Kongreßbeiträge zur 16. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik. Tübingen, 24-30.

· (1988): The interdisciplinary Framework of the Theory-dynamic Phase in Finalized Linguistics'. In Kastovsky/ Szwedek (eds.) Linguistics Across Historical and Geographical Boundaries. In Honor of Jacek Fisiak on the Occasion of his Fiftieth Birthday. Vol. II: Descriptive, Contrastive and Applied Linguistics, 1311- 1319.

· (1988): ' "Let your science be human": Linguistics as Applied Linguistics'. In J. KIegraf/D. Nehls (eds.), Festschrift Nickel (In Print).

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962): The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago. · (1976): Die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Revolutionen, 2. revid. und um das

Postskriptum von 1969 ergänzte Auflage, Frankfurt a.M. · (1977): The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and

Change. Chikago, I11. · (1981): Was sind wissenschaftliche Revolutionen?. (Schriften der Carl-Friedrich

von Siemens-Stiftung. Themen XXXIV. 10. Werner-Heisen-

berg-Vorlesung, 24-Februar 1981). ter Meulen, A. (1976): 'Grammars and Empirical Theories'. In D. Wunderlich (ed.),

Wissenschaftstheorie.... 87-96. Mittelstraß, J. (1973): 'Das praktische Fundament der Wissenschaft und die

Aufgabe der Philosophie'. In Kambartel, F./ J. Mittelstraß (eds.), Zum normativen Fundament der Wissenschaft, Frankfurt a.M.

Popper, Karl R. (71982): Logik der Forschung. Tübingen. Rombach, H. (ed.) (1974): Wissenschaftstheorie 1. Probleme und Positionen der

Wissenschaftstheorie. Freiburg. (1974): 'Praxis und Theorie - das Anwendungsproblem der Geisteswissenschaften '.

In H. Rombach (ed.), Wissenschaftstheorie 1. Probleme..., Freiburg, 168-172. Rothschuh, K.E. (1977): "Ist das Kuhnsche Erklärungsmodell wissenschaftlicher

Wandlungen mit Gewinn auf die Konzepte der Klinischen Medizin anwendbar?' In A. Diemer (ed.), Die Struktur.... Meisenheim am Glan, 73-90.

Schäfer, W. (1978a): 'Normative Finalisierung. Eine Perspektive'. In G. Böhme et al. (eds.), Die gesellschaftliche Orientierung ..., Frankfurt a.M., 377-416.

· (1978b): 'Zur Frage der praktischen Orientierung des theoretischen Diskurses: ein Plädoyer gegen drei Denkverbote der antifinalistischen Wissenschaftsforschung'. In C. Hubig/ W. von Rahden (eds.), Konsequenzen..., Berlin/ New York, 81 -110.

Slama-Cazacu, T. (1985): 'the "Why", "What" and "How" of Applied Psycholinguistics', Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata 2/3, 9-17.

Vossenkuhl, W. (1978): 'Zur Legitimationsfunktion sozialer Bedürfnislagen'. In C. Hubig/ W. von Rahden (eds.), Konsequenzen .... Berlin/ New York, 189-215.

Wunderlich, Dieter (ed.) (1976): Wissenschaftstheorie der Linguistik, Kronberg.

CONCEPTS AND CATEGORIES IN LANGUAGE TEACHING METHODOLOGY* Christopher Brumfit University of Southampton Great Britain

This paper will be concerned with the issue of simplicity and comprehensibility

for the performance of a practical language activity: teaching languages. But I would like to start by referring to a philosophical discussion which identifies exactly the problem. In the 'Times Literary Supplement' of April 6 1984, Mary Midgley reviews Bok's book 'Secrets: On the ethics of concealment and revelation'. Midgley comments during the review: 'What we now most need is .... a close examination of the question as they arise. Every large practical problem has its conceptual aspect, which is just what a philosophical training ought to make us able to detect. Because the conceptual system is a continuous whole, this will lead us to the vast questions in the end. But we cannot do effective business with those unless we have approached them by the right path - unless we have picked out the relevant conceptual issues in the first place and have watched out all through the journey for flaws in the system of ideas. The outcome does not depend just on a few abstract concepts.... any more than it depends only on the facts. It involves a whole labyrinth of intermediate ideas by which we group and interpret the facts. And this is where we normally get lost.' (Midgley. 1984:363).

It is a truism as well as a paradox that language controls us as much as we control language. The very process of making a definition, or the explaining of a position, involves us in isolating ourselves from other equally valuable and relevant positions or terms. Consider some of the dichotomies usefully explored in various disciplines of relevance to language teachers: 'competence/performance', 'competence/communicative competence', 'ac-quisition/learning', 'elaborated/restricted', 'accommodation/assimilation', 'illocution/perlocution', and so on. Each of these oppositions developed as part of an argument aimed at a particular group of workers within a particular field; each of them has been taken over at some point, for better or worse, by language teachers, teacher trainers and advisors. The first point I want to make is that such terms cannot be transferred without severe risks, for they were not intended to solve teaching problems specifically, but problems in their own fields. They vary, of course, in the extent to which they are based on empirical work or on logical analysis. Krashen (1979), for example, claims that the acquisition/learning distinction as he formulates it is a legitimate extrapolation from research evidence that derives directly from empirical studies, while Bernstein's elaborated/restricted code was entirely based on abstract model-construction and hypothesising which was only subsequently (and then only slightly) put to any kind of empirical test (Bernstein, 1971). Other major distinctions, such as competence/ communicative competence, can scarcely be put to any kind of empirical test at

all. They represent large-scale formulations of procedure whose value will be seen in the extent to which, actually or metaphorically, they are taken up by scholars and used as basic elements in their thinking.

All of these distinctions have value, whether true or false, valid or invalid, insofar as they assist the process of clarifying our ideas, and lead to arguments by which they can be rejected, refined or accepted for the time being as useful. But the problem within teacher education is that these are not categories which teachers themselves, on the basis of their own professional experience and needs, can address directly. They are not, as teachers, able to survey the evidence for acquisition and learning and decide the validity for otherwise of Krashen's arguments; for that they have to rely on his own surveys (Krashen, 1981, for example). They have neither the training, the time, nor - in most cases - the inclination, to enter the conceptual worlds of sociological theory, or of philosophical linguistics, or of psychology, in order to understand fully the bases of the arguments which led to categories being established in the ways they have been. Nor is this in any way to denigrate teacher's willingness to think or read or study. We all have the same problem as soon as we move out of our immediate professional spheres. Anyone working in our field soon discovers that the very term 'language' raises quite different expectations to linguists, who have usually thought in terms of rule-governed generative systems, to psychologists, who have been more concerned with the ability to use symbols for the expression of meaning, to sociologists, who are more concerned with the ideological implications of structures of shared meanings. All three of these specifications are caricatures (or if you like simplifications), but the general tendency will be accepted, I think. Such differences in view surface as soon as we have arguments about, for example, the extent to which chimpanzees have a language faculty.

The effect of this is to downgrade the professional understanding of teachers at the expense of that of theorists, whether linguists, applied linguists, or scholars in other disciplines, for teachers are thus only in a position to receive categories from others, not to evaluate them by procedures which derive directly from the experience of being a teacher. Not is this a problem which applies only to teaching. It lies at the very heart of applied linguistics, insofar as our discipline claims to be problem-orientated. Every practical problem requires categories relevant to its solution. If language is central to the problem (that is, if it is an applied linguistic problem), the categories must be directly usable within the problem area, and explicitly relatable to appropriate theory - which will never of course be exclusively linguistic theory, for then the problem would be a linguistic one, not an applied one.For teachers, this means that methodological categories need to be simultaneously relatable to current theory, and to be directly interpretable in classroom strategies which can be planned and adjusted by teachers. Categories will therefore change, as our understanding of language and the world changes, and also as new generations change their demands on education in general and language education in particular. As in most spheres, the categories taken for granted at particular times may be the greatest barrier to improvement of practice, for they may act as blinkers, closing relevant options, rather than as telescopes, focusing attention on the most important areas to be concentrated on. A good example of the latter category-blockage is the strength of the concept of the four skills in language

teaching. I have discussed this in more detail elsewhere (Brumfit, 1983; 1984:69-71), and I shall only refer to it briefly here. The traditional division is

listening speaking reading writing.

Built into this is an order of priority, and a view of the separation of activities which has interfered with teachers' ability to consider language as genuine communication. This shows itself particularly in the separation of listening and speaking, and the implication that conversation/ argument/ discussion can be separated into two independent components, or that listening in conversation is the same as listening to extended monologue. Welford (1968:291) notes that 'where the whole task is a closely coordinated activity... the evidence suggests that it is better to tackle the task as a whole', for 'any attempt to divide it up tends to destroy the proper coordination of action and subordination of individual actions to the requirements of the whole ... and this outweighs any advantage there might be in mastering different portions of the task separately'. Nevertheless, generations of language teachers have learnt that the most basic categories for describing what they are doing are these four. Furthermore, many teacher trainers will testify to writing classes that make no acknowledgement of the structure of written discourse, but are versions of copying, or repetition of structural patterns through the written mode. By concentrating the centre of language teaching on the overt acts rather than on the role that those acts play in motivated linguistic behaviour, whether communicative, or conceptional self-clarification, or expressive, these categories distract teachers from a concern with language acquisition to a concern with pre-acquisition activities which are only a small part of the total process. Successful language teaching has had to work against this categorisation to be effective.

However, it is easier to criticise than to produce equally attractive alternatives. The following set seems better:

conversation/discussion comprehension (either speech or writing) extended writing extended speech.

Such a set can be defended, though there are still a number of problems, for

'extended writing' (as Trim, personal communication, has pointed out) does not incorporate certain modes of written discourse, such as telegrams, which deserve consideration, at least in specific purpose courses. I have not yet found an elegant formulation for the intention of a category to express 'writing for a genuine purpose'. We can defend the position that planning strategies for extended writing and speech will be similar, but that there are specialised realisation skills necessary for both separately which will not be called upon in conversation. The relationship between this planning and comprehension is unclear, and requires further discussion, but a case can be made for the first three of these categories being more satisfactory as basic categories for general school language teaching, with the fourth as an optional extra, than the four skills of tradition.

Similar points can be made about the ordering implicit in the division of lesson plans into 'presentation stages' and 'practice stages', or writing

exercises into 'controlled, guided and free'. The ordering in each case has a learning theory built in which conflicts with current views of the nature of acquisition, whether or not one is happy with Krashen's categories. Textbooks throughout the world (there are so many that it would be invidious to single out particular ones for mention) are written as if every lesson must include new elements for presentation, so that teaching becomes top-heavy with teacher-dominated material, and the opportunities for practice, let alone the much more important naturalistic use of language are severely restricted. Furthermore, the assumption is that practice will follow from presentation, that the latter cannot be an inductive pulling together of what has already been used and dimly perceived to be systematic, but must be a deductive and controlling mechanism in which the power and knowledge emanates from the teacher and the textbook. The effect of such a strong categorisation is either to conflict with the notion of self-construction of language-systems for communicative purposes so that there is a permanent mismatch between acquisition beliefs and methodological categories, or to lead to inappropriate rejection of the whole idea of presentation and practice, so that any organisation of the class at all with clearly structured procedures is opposed.

Again, the classification of writing activities implies an inappropriate progression, for 'free' activities are rare outside the creative writing class, and the difficulty of working in a guided situation, as when we write a paper for an academic conference, minutes of a meeting, essays for supervisors at university, theses, or reports for newspapers, is in many ways greater than that found in creative writing (though that, too, has its constraints which have to be crafted into the structure). Indeed, controlled writing activities are scarcely other than pre-writing activities, since the concern is exclusively with the code at the expense of communication and a motivated organisation of discourse.

Nor is this kind of problem restricted to hangovers from precommunicative teaching assumptions. The term 'communicative activity' risks being equally unhelpful for it rarely makes the crucial discrimination between an exercise motivated by the teacher, and one with intrinsic, non-linguistic motivation of the same kind that would apply in mother tongue language use.

I hope this very brief account makes some of the difficulties clear with conventional categories. This is not, of course, an argument against such categories - without categories we cannot carry on discussion and improve either our thinking or our practice - but it is an argument for an explicit relationship between such category systems and relevant theory. This may sometimes require intermediate categories which enable teachers to make basic classifications which can be theoretically motivated, superordinate to those of direct classroom practice, or of greater generalisability than many of those so far considered.

I have already extensively argued for the distinction between accuracy and fluency (or language work for pedagogic feedback, and language work for an external purpose) as a useful distinction which has both a theoretical dimension and a direct practical implication, because the relative proportions of time and activity spent on each of these allows argument about fundamental views on the nature of language acquisition in direct relation to explicit classroom acts (Brumfit, 1984).

Another similar category system which seems to me to have value in the teaching of literature is the distinction between text-text study and text-world study (Brumfit, 1981). Other categories which have had similar value in the

literature have been Rivers' 'skill-using/skill-getting' (Rivers, 1972) and Widdowson's 'usage/use' (Widdowson, 1978).

It is not my purpose here, though, simply to list useful categories and assert their value. The major point I want to make is an epistemological one, and relates to the relative statuses of teaching and applied linguistics. The claim that all language teachers are applied linguists is as vacuous, or imperialist, as the rarer but not unknown claim that all language users are applied linguists. Being a good teacher is never exactly the same thing as understanding teaching; there are many things we can do well that we cannot fully understand. The accumulated professional wisdom of teachers is a kind of understanding, and so are the accumulated survival techniques of the profession. So too are intelligent conceptual analysis, empirical research, and experimental results. All are valuable, and all are partial. But the intention of applied linguistics is presumably to produce insightful descriptions and explanations of the conditions of language in use in problematic areas. By doing this it contributes to linguistics by validating some concepts, questioning others, and generally providing a renewal of connection for linguistic theory, and to the problematic area itself by clarifying the underlying pattern of assumptions held by practitioners in that area. And doing this, applied linguistics cannot avoid becoming interdisciplinary. But practitioners in problem areas do not want to understand only, but to practise effectively, and for this they need their own instrumental criteria for the concepts and categories that they use. The argument that categories should make sense to practising teachers is not primarily an argument about public relations, 'how to get our good ideas accepted', but about validity. Ideas that do not catch on reveal a mismatch between the practices of one set of professionals and another. Either could be wrong, for the temptation to do no more than cope administratively is as strong for teachers as the temptation to do no more than cope theoretically is for applied linguists. The interesting question is the area of mismatch, and this cannot be dismissed exclusively as a stubborn and reactionary resistance to change by unenlightened practitioners, though of course it could be that.

Underlying this argument is a view of the nature of teaching which should be made explicit, so that it can be criticised and rejected or improved upon. The final part of this paper will attempt to clarify this view.

Teachers deal with people, just as politicians or town planners do, and unlike, say, doctors and psychiatrists, they deal with people whose crises, if any, are externally imposed rather than resulting from internal disorder. The people teachers deal with are normal people. The major consequence of this that experimentation has to be extremely careful, with extremely sensitive feedback mechanism, if it is not to be irresponsible and dangerous. Because we cannot predict our future knowledge, we cannot predict the consequences of our actions, so that methodological reform is more analogous to electoral procedure (proportional representation, for example, rather than a straight victory for the candidate with the most votes) than it is to the application of scientific principles. Furthermore, the people who spend far and away the most time with learners are teachers - far more time than researchers or advisors. People in the latter category can offer breadth of observation of learners in many situations, to complement the depth of most teachers' immersion in one set of local conditions. But the subtle monitoring of change, the recognition that - especially in language teaching - learning and self-consciousness, development and identity go together, the

sensitivity to the individual rather than to the group or the stereotype, the inconsistency that necessarily accompanies responsiveness to personal needs, all this can only come from the teacher. Without such close attention, change will remain insensitive and crudely manipulative. Only teachers are in a position to determine whether modes of interaction are to be continued or discontinued, whether change is advantageous or dangerous, whether the class is stagnating or maturing. And all this places a terrible responsibility on teachers, because most teachers are well aware of this, and even more aware of the administrative, financial, emotional and personal constraints which prevent them from performing such a demanding task effectively.

But it also places a terrible responsibility on advisors, educational theoreticans and applied linguists. We have a responsibility to address, if not to resolve, the conceptual confusion referred to in the quotation with which I started this paper, but to do this in terms which make sense of the experience of teachers, as well as the experience of researchers and theoreticans. We have to offer categories which teachers can reject on the basis of teaching experience, without having to become inefficient theoreticans or researchers in order to do so. That is, we cannot say in effect, 'These are categories we can vouch for on the basis of the best available research and discussion; take them and implement them as best you can'. We can say there are some sets of categories which (on the basis of our own extensive experience of teaching, or of extensive collaboration with practising teachers) can be rejected by reachers because they directly influence classroom planning or improvisation. We have, in other words, to put our conceptual and technical expertise in the service of the different expertise of the people whose work we serve, even when that conflicts with our own hierarchies and academic traditions. For without such a modification there can be no collaboration and our communication will be simply shadow boxing.

In this paper I have tried to illustrate some of the difficulties in creating categories which are genuinely practical without being trivial and theoretically valueless. Whether or not the exercise has been done well or badly, I want to insist in conclusion that it is more important that we try to do it - even badly - than that we only do the things we can do well already. Without such an effort, our understanding of teaching and learning will be both partially irrelevant, and irrelevantly partial. Note: *Based on a paper given at AILA, Brussels 1984. References: Bernstein, B. 1971, Class, Codes and Control Vol1: Theoretical Studies Towards a

Sociology of Language, Routledge and Kegan Paul. Brumfit, C.J. 1981, 'Reading skills and the study of literature in a foreign

language', System 9,3: 243-248. Brumfit, C.J. 1983, The integration of theory and practice', in Alatis, J., Stern, H.H.

and Strevens, P. (eds) Applied Linguistics and the Training of Language Teachers: Towards a Rationale, Georgetown University Press.

Brumfit, C.J. 1984, Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching, Cambridge University Press.

Krashen, S. 1979, 'A response to McLaughlin "The monitor model: some methodological considerations'", Language Learning 29,1: 151-167.

Krashen, S. 1981, Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning, Oxford, Pergamon Press.

Midgley, Mary 1984, Review of Sissela Bok, Secrets, TLS, 6 april: 363. Rivers, Wilga 1972, Speaking with Many Tongues, Howley Mass., Newbury House. Welford, A.T. 1968, Fundamentals of Skill, London, Methuen. Widdowson, H.G. 1978, Teaching Language as Communication, Oxford University

Press.

The place of linguistics in a general theory of second language learning and in language teaching Bernard Spolsky Bar-Ilan University Israel 1 Introduction - Direct and indirect relations

The relations between theory and practice, never simple, are even more complex when dominated by a struggle for scarce resources. It is easy to paint a rosy picture of scholars and professionals cooperating cheerfully to achieve common aims, but in fact, the aims of the theorist and of the practitioner are generally so far removed from each other that it is not easy to recognise whatever overlap there may be. Only when intense social pressures, backed by full mobilisation of resources for a single goal (whether building an atomic bomb, sending a man into space, or finding a way to cure AIDS), have forced theorists and practitioners into close collaboration does one have anything like a common recognition of mutual dependence; otherwise, the gap between theorists and practitioners stays wide, and the flow of information is uneven and often one-way.

Perhaps this is not such an undesirable state of affairs. Second language teaching that is based on linguistic theory (and that alone) has little to offer, as witness the long chill grasp of formal grammar on foreign language teaching or peculiarly regrettable effects of American structural linguistics on the development of the Audio-Lingual Method. The Audio-Lingual Method is a good example of social pressure providing urgency for collaboration. During the Second World War, the U.S. Army, needing to teach previously untaught languages, had employed, linguists trained to write grammars of these languages. The linguists believed that the methods they had used to discover the structure of unwritten languages provided the basis for language teaching. While this was not an unreasonable assumption to make, for the then current language teaching practices generally were limited to teaching formal reading and writing skills in languages with an extensive literature and well-developed written grammars, the unthinking transfer of the approach the Army linguists developed to new situations did not always work. It is tempting to argue that it was the inadequacy of their linguistic model that explained the failure of the teaching method when, in answer to the political pressure of the U.S. reaction to the challenge of Sputnik, it was moved outside of the institutional support of the Armed Services Training Program to the freer atmosphere of the secondary school classroom. It is more reasonable to suggest in fact the basic problem was a failure to recognise that the relation between linguistic theory and language teaching is distant and indirect.

To understand this relation, we need first to distinguish between linguistic theory and language description. Put simply, the goal of a linguistic theory is

to account for the structure and use of language. One branch of linguistics (an "applied" branch in the strictest sense of the word1, but usually considered close to the theoretical core of the field2 sets out to provide the best possible descriptions of languages. Descriptive and historical linguistics both contribute to theoretical linguistics, which deals with the nature of language in general rather than of any specific language, by providing data on which to test theoretical models. But it is unusual for theoretical linguists to find relevant data in the productions of the second language learner.

Facts about individual languages, which constitute the product of descriptive linguistics, and hypotheses about the structure of language both have considerable potential relevance for second language teaching. There are few who could conceive of teaching a language without having available at least a basic grammatical description; while natural language teaching may be enjoying a probably undeserved vogue, it still takes place in classrooms with textbooks. Thus, even if we ignore issues of implicit and explicit grammar teaching, we cannot dismiss the claim that the more a language teacher knows (explicitly) about the specific language he or she is teaching, the more chance there will be of successful teaching. But a grammar book is not a substitute for a teaching approach. Language descriptions provide a useful, perhaps even a necessary condition for teaching, but are certainly not sufficient in themselves. Pedagogical grammars may be tested by their usefulness in a classroom, but criteria other than pedagogical usefulness are important to theorists and grammarians (Spolsky 1978).

Hypotheses about the nature of language are also of fundamental importance to second language pedagogy, for they contribute to an understanding of the task faced by learner and teacher. If language is a collection of unrelated items, we must teach the items one by one. If language is a matter of items and arrangement, the process of learning and teaching is different., for it involves practising the arrangements as well as learning the items. If part of language is innate, there are implications for teaching, for this part will need direct teaching. As Newmeyer (1982,1983) points out, the generativist revolution led to major changes in concepts of the nature of language learning in general and second language learning in particular. Almost all of the implications of linguistics for language pedagogy listed in Spolsky (1968) were, as Newmeyer (1983:142) asserts, "either points of intense controversy before the generativist revolution in linguistics or else were rejected outright."

Any theory of second language learning must start then from a theory of what language is like. But the precise nature of the relation between theory of language and language pedagogy is far from clear, and certainly not direct. The intervening field is second language theory, and it has become increasingly clear that a second language learning theory is only partly dependent on linguistic theory. To understand the relations between linguistic theory and (second) language pedagogy, we must ask then about at least two distinct issues: the relation of linguistic theory to second language learning theory, and secondly, the relation between second language learning theory and second language pedagogy. The second is a matter of relation of theory and practice; the first is the more intriguing issue of relations between two theories with some overlap but quite different goals. It is appropriate to look at these issues in turn, then to return to the general

issue of the possibility of a dynamic and productive relation between linguistics and language teaching. 2 Linguistic theory in second language learning theory

In one view, second language learning is seen as being derived from two unrelated theories, a theory of learning and a theory of the nature of second language knowledge. In such a view, we might aim to combine the work of two sets of experts, calling on psychologists to specify how learning takes place and on grammarians to specify what is to be learned. This kind of approach seemed to be workable in the potent alliance between behavioural psychologists and structuralist linguists that provided the intellectual base for the Audio-Lingual Method. While Chomsky's attack on Skinner (Chomsky 1959) was generally focussed on his specification of language knowledge, it led him also to raise fundamental questions about the nature of learning3. The difficulty of separating what is to be learned from how learning takes place is then the central reason we need theories of second language learning.

For a number of reasons4, scholars in the field of second language learning have attempted to maintain close contact with linguistic theory. The American school of contrastive analysis5 was a direct response to the limitation set by structural linguistics which claimed that every language must be described in its own right (see Sridhar 1976, Spolsky 1979). It was ultimately forced by changing linguistic emphases, especially evidence of the effect of universals and markedness to attempt to incorporate these developments into second language learning models (see for example Eckman 1977, 1981 a, 1981b). The recognition of the significance of learner's errors in second language learning (Corder 1977) was derived from a similar demonstration in first language learning (McNeill 1966). And the field of Second Language Acquisition or Interlanguage (see e.g. Selinker 1971, Davies and others 1984) is very sensitive to developments in the study of first language acquisition.

These developments are surely appropriate, for the more we know about the nature of language, about what is learned, the more opportunity we have to understand how it is learned. Any theory of second language learning must be responsive to new insights into the nature of second language knowledge. That the influence tends to go one way only (i.e. that linguistic theorists are relatively uninterested in second language learning as evidence of the correctness of their theories) is a separate issue6, but the importance of linguistic theory for second language learning theory is not in question.

But the usefulness of linguistic theory to a theory of second language learning is severely limited by the restriction of areas to which linguistic theory is presently applied. The restriction of most linguistic theories to phenomena at or below the level of the sentence is generally acknowledged; nineteenth century linguistics was concerned mainly with the word, and twentieth century with the sentence. This is not the place to discuss the reasonableness of these limitations within the terms of reference of linguistic theory (there obviously continue to be many attempts to overcome the constraints), but their effect on second language learning cannot be minimized.

A serious problem with much second language acquisition research has been its narrowness, its confinement to explaining the learning of a limited number of sentence grammar. That its applicability is limited does not say that it is wrong, or of no value, for as it succeeds with its self-appointed task, it will add certainly that is now missing to crucial parts of a general theory. But the limitation helps explain some of the crucial lack of common ground covered by linguistic theory and language learning theory. To the extent that former is limited to specific aspects of language (such as morphology and syntax), so it will not deal with more general aspects of language learning that are of critical importance in modern second language teaching.

We can see the effect of this limitation by comparing current second language acquisition theory (admirably summed up by Ellis 1985) with the model of second language learning proposed by Gardner (1985). Between them, these two scholars have provided in their recent books a first-rate picture of the state of second language learning research in 1985. Their differences derive from the perspective that each adopts and from the different criterion each accepts for second language learning. Ellis, working in the Interlanguage or second language acquisition (SLA) tradition with its close emulation of contemporary theoretical linguistics, is concerned essentially with the learning of grammar. The emphasis in modern studies of grammar has been on what is universal: we recall the early transformationalist assumption that all children had mastered the essential features of the syntax of their first language by the age of five. In contrast to the tendencies of orthodox theoretical linguistics, the second language acquisition field has dealt effectively with the challenge of variability (Tarone 1983), but its emphasis has been on variable grammars and not on variability in levels of achievement. Researchers have been interested in variation in order or process of acquiring control of grammatical items but not in differences in proficiency. Ellis (1985) therefore finds the influence of individual or instructional factors, and specifically, attitude and motivation, on the order of learning morphology and syntax to be unproven. Gardner, however, works in a social psychological model that stresses variation: he uses a wide range of measures of language proficiency and use and shows how this variation can be accounted for by individual differences in ability and attitude. It is perhaps not unfair to sum up their differences in this way: we can see the effect of changed conditions on language learning as a whole (as Gardner shows us), but our study of the microprocess of syntax learning (that Ellis charts) has not taken us further than appreciating its complexity and the fact that it is both internally and externally controlled.

To oversimplify, we might characterise linguistic theory as concerned with theoretical language, with selected abstract aspects of the linguistic competence of idealised monolingual speaker-hearers. These are constraints that many in second language acquisition research have tended to accept, while second language learning theory attempts to work with language in use, in the real world. The characterisation is unfair because there are many efforts in both fields to overcome these limitations: there are linguistic theorists who attempt to incorporate both variation and higher levels of structural organisation into their models, and may in second language acquisition who follow in both of these directions.

3 Language in use

There are many scholars working in the wider field of language in use. Even within the field of theoretical linguistics, there is constant pressure to go beyond the sentence, or beyond syntax to semantics and pragmatics, or beyond homogeneity to sociolinguistically explainable variation. These are important pressures, and of great value to language learning theory for the fuller view they provide. But my point here is not that they do not exist, but that the impetus for them has not come from the demands of language learning theorists or practitioners. The work of Labov in dealing with variation, or of Bickerton with pidginisation, were soon adapted to second language learning theory7, but I do not know of pressures from second language learning that have had direct effect on work in theoretical linguistics8.

There are two conflicts that are particularly relevant to second language learning theory. The first is between notions of linguistic competence and linguistic performance. The complexities of knowledge and skills involved in second language learning certainly set complex challenges to any attempt to maintain interest in the abstract competence of ideal monolinguals, but one rarely if ever finds data or problems from second language learning cited in theoretical linguistic papers. The second is the contrast between interest in linguistic competence as Chomsky defines it and communicative competence as Hymes presents it. The model proposed by Hymes (1972, 1985) for an ethnography of speaking has extremely important implications for and applications to educational linguistics, but its impetus was stylistics and anthropology and not language learning or teaching.

In his theoretical work, Chomsky chose (perhaps unfortunately9) to use the term linguistic competence to refer to the underlying knowledge of an idealised native speaker of a language that enabled such a person to distinguish grammatical from ungrammatical sentences of the language. Chomsky distinguishes competence, which is to be accounted for in the grammar, from performance, which includes such factors as the memory limitations which explain the constraint on the length of sentences that are grammatically infinite. Now this last illustration should help make clear that Chomsky was using the terms quite differently from their normal use; it is a mistake to confuse Chomskyan competence with normal ability. Be that as it may, his use of the term pre-empted others who wanted to talk about a language speaker's ability as linguistic competence; it further confined attention to the rules of the language considered appropriate to a Chomskyan generative grammar, with its basic limitations to sentence-length utterances and its exclusions of socially interesting variation.

The way was open then for Dell Hymes, building on Roman Jakobson's masterful analysis10 of the functions of language, to propose the notion of communicative competence, defined by some as linguistic competence plus all other rule-governed aspects of language use, but by Hymes himself as something that contrasts with rather than supplements linguistic competence.

The heart of the argument is that extensions in the scope of linguistics to include pragmatic, discourse, text and the like, do not suffice, as long as the directions and foundations of linguistics itself remain unchanged (Hymes 1985:10)

The idea is particularly valuable in setting a wider goal for the second language learner, for it suggests that he/she be required to develop all the communicative skills of a native speaker and not just control the basic grammar of the sentence.

In their influential review of the issue, Canale and Swain (1980) recognise the relevance of communicative competence to both second language teaching and testing. Their approach to the question arose, they report, out of problems in measuring the achievement of students in French classes. They note some of the confusion between teaching approaches (grammatical versus communicative versus situational) and the theoretical uses of the terms. They note that Chomsky uses the terms competence and performance in both a weak and strong sense. The weak sense is the claim referred to earlier that there is a distinction between language knowledge and language use; the strong sense is a claim of a distinction between competence as the grammar and performance as the psychological factors involved in speech perception and production. As Hymes (1972) pointed out, this approach leaves out the issue of appropriacy: the knowledge not that a sentence is well-formed but that it is appropriately used in a specific context. Hymes (1972) put it like this:

We have then to account for the fact that a normal child acquires knowledge of sentences not only as grammatical but also as appropriate. He or she acquires competence as to when to speak, when not, and as to what to talk about with whom, when, where, in what manner. In short, a child becomes able to accomplish a repertoire of speech acts, to take part in speech events, and to evaluate their accomplishment by others ...(277-8).

Hymes goes on to distinguish communicative competence (knowing all the rules)

from performance (actually using them). Canale and Swain examine two controversial issues: whether communicative

competence includes or is separate from linguistic, and whether one can usefully distinguish between communicative competence and performance. On the first, they are finally convinced that it is better to include linguistic within communicative competence so as make clear their ultimate indivisibility; rules of grammar are meaningless (except presumably to the grammarian) without rules of use.

Jackendoff (1983) presents another strong argument for the primacy of linguistic competence and thus for its recognition as the central component of any performance models. While competence models are not processing models and so do not usually make claims to represent the method of mental storage of the structures and rules postulated, performance models are also process models, with consequent claims for the nature of the storage, which is itself a claim about the nature of competence. Put another way, Hymes who argues that communicative competence is independent of linguistic competence, or Carroll (1981) who calls for a performance grammar, still presuppose about the form of storage of knowledge, i.e. of a grammar, which is what a competence model is. Cognitive models that concentrate on "procedural knowledge" also assume the necessity of defining the "declarative knowledge" that underlies it11. It does not seem possible therefore to ignore the question of the form of the grammar or to avoid the need to consider the relationship between competence and performance.

Canale and Swain's own model of communicative competence involves recognising three distinct but related competencies, with definable boundaries. The three are:

Grammatical competence. ... knowledge of lexical items and of rules of morphology, syntax, sentence-grammar semantics, and phonology .... Sociolinguistic competence. ... sociocultural rules of use and rules of discourse.... Strategic competence. ... verbal and non-verbal communication strategies that may be called into action to compensate for breakdown in communication due to performance variables or to insufficient competence (29-30)

Within each of these components Canale and Swain recognise "a subcomponent

of probability rules of occurrence" to account for the "redundancy aspect of language (Spolsky 1968)". Kelly (1981) on the other hand prefers to deal with this as a performance problem: he analyzes performance features such as noise in listening to speech. The work on communicative competence suggests then that a knowledge of a second language learning involves not just linguistic knowledge, but knowledge of a set of other rule-governed language systems, or a complex of such systems: learning a language involves not just learning the phonology, morphology, sentence syntax, and semantics, but also the pragmatics, discourse rules, rules of sociolinguistic appropriateness, and rules for verbal and non-verbal conversational strategies.

Hymes has proposed that this be dealt with by what he calls an ethnography of speaking, and a good deal of valuable research in this tradition makes clear the interesting complexity involved. This has certainly been a fruitful field for applied linguistics to learn from. Studies of speech acts have stimulated interesting work in applied linguistics (cf Blum-Kulka 1982), and work in such areas as politeness (Brown and Levinson 1978) is adaptable to second language concerns (Walters 1981). Thus, the "hyphenated" fields are also of considerable significance for the theory and practice of second language learning and teaching. 4 Second Language Learning Theory and Language Teaching

There are two views of the relation between second language learning theory

and second language teaching. In one approach, the task of a theory of second language learning is to determine the method of teaching. The Audio-Lingual Method was seen by many as a direct application of structural linguistics. As Transformational Grammar became more established, there were scholars who proposed modification in teaching drills, to go from pattern practice of the Audio-Lingual Method to some new transformational drills12. Similar direct relations are sometimes proposed between more elaborated second language learning theories and teaching. Thus, the monitor model has been interpreted by Krashen (1982) as showing the validity of the Natural method.

In this kind of approach, there is unidirectionality proposed (the theory says what the practice should be) but bidirectionality implied (failure of practice should lead to modification of theory). But to see the main task of a second language learning theory as providing a teaching method misses

the complexity of second language learning. Rather, the task of a general theory of second language learning is first to account for the fact that second language learning occurs and secondly to explain generalisable differences in achievement among language learners. In such a view, a theory cannot be expected to determine a single best method, but to account for the successes and failures, the appropriacy, of various methods under different conditions.

In a general theory of second language learning, we seek to determine the success of learners with various kinds and levels of previous knowledge, skills, capabilities, attitudes, and motivations when they are exposed to different amounts and kinds of learning opportunities in achieving various specified kinds and levels of knowledge and skills in a second language.13 "Language teaching" appears in this model as the amount and kind of learning opportunity; it interacts with the other aspects of the model in specifiable ways. For instance, we can ask about the effect on the learning of specific linguistic items or skills by various kinds of learners of tutored instruction compared with untutored exposure. In the model, there is a close interaction between theory and practice for the former is intended to explain the latter and the latter is considered as evidence for the correctness of the former. A language learning theory that seemed to argue for a single teaching method would be wrong or too loosely specified; one that had nothing to say about language teaching would be too narrowly specified.

At the same time, a theory of language teaching necessarily includes many factors that are not ever likely to be included in a theory of language learning. For instance, while a general theory of second language learning will want to consider the influence of variations in the person from whom a language is learned (teacher or peer, native speaker or not), it will be most unlikely to move the social, political and economic factors that control selection, training, hiring, status and pay of language teachers. Similarly, while it will deal with the effect of various amounts and kinds of exposure to the second language, it will not be expected to deal with the complex social, political, economic, ideological, and practical issues that determine how school timetables are made up.

What I am arguing essentially is that language teaching practice is based on more than language learning theory. In the best of all possible worlds, teachers might be sovereign, but even then there would still need to be negotiation over conflicting claims among the teachers of various subjects. On pedagogical grounds, it may well be demonstrable that the most effective language learning takes place when it is the first priority of the school system (as in the Canadian immersion programmes), but in the absence of some special political, economic or ideological pressure, the organisation of the curriculum is more balanced and the attention paid to this fundamental principle of language learning theory much more constrained.

All of this then should lead us to a more modest view of the relation between second language learning theory and language teaching. Second language learning theory learns from rather than controls teaching; it sets out principles which, as Stevick (1986) puts it, explain the advantages of various options rather than lays down specific rules. Given the complexity of the circumstances under which language learning takes place, it is a mistake to assume that any one method, approach, or technique will suit all learners, all circumstances, all goals. There are multiple paths to specific results. The theory cannot prescribe a single solution, but should attempt to

chart the outcome of various attempts. In other words, while a theory of second language learning has important implications for language pedagogy, it is not to be applied directly. 5 Contrasting goals

Scholarly fields have their own views of their tasks, and it is this which

determines their openness to others. The fundamental gaps between applied and theoretical fields arise from this difference in definition. The practical orientation of the applied field sets quite different criteria than the theoretical concerns of the theorists. Linguistic theorists have spent considerable time debating the criteria for a scientific grammar. For the structuralists, the debate between hocus-pocus and God's truth linguists (Householder 1952) was important, but notions of consistency to the data, simplicity, and generalisability were generally accepted. The transformational grammarians are divided not over their aim of explaining what is universal (and so innate) in the underlying structure of language, but in what evidence can be brought to bear on such an issue, on what is the claim for instance of psychological reality.

It is these first questions that set the differences. The transformationalist asking what is universal, or the second language theorist asking what explains differences, are like blind men grasping different parts of a strange creature and wondering why their descriptions disagree. But the priorities are socially rather than theoretically defined. Rewards are different; scholars in theoretical fields tend to feel insulted to be told that their results have practical results, and one might note how Chomsky upset the language teaching field in 1966 when he was believed to have said that no work in linguistics was relevant to language teaching14. But the organisation of many university departments gives pride of place and influence to the theorists whose stands then determine the hiring and rank of the applied linguists. These practical results may be regrettable, but the history of universities records many similar struggles.

Perhaps one of the more regrettable results of applied linguistics as follower rather than leader is a tendency to carry over goals that are not altogether appropriate. Second language acquisition researchers have spent a great deal of effort trying to emulate the concern of the theoretical linguist with universals while trying to use the methods of the psychologist for studying differences. The result can easily be work that is not respected by either of the source fields.

By now, applied linguistics and its various branches are well enough established, both intellectually and institutionally, to be able to afford a good deal of independence. It is unlikely that the applied fields will come to dominate the theoretical. There is little evidence that I can see that either the practical field of second language pedagogy or the field of second language learning theory are influencing general linguistics. Applied linguistics, like the other "hyphenated" fields will continue both to draw on linguistic theory and to chafe at its constraints. Only changes in the sociology of the field or external pressures are likely to change this situation.

References Blum-KuIka, Shoshana. 1982. Learning to say what you mean in a second language:

A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics. 3.1, 29-59.

Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C. (1978), 1987. Politeness: some universals in language use. Cambridge University Press

Canale, Michael and Swain, Merrill. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1.1, 1-47

Carroll, John B. 1981. Conscious and automatic processes in language learning. The Canadian Modern Language Review. 37.3,462-474.

Chomsky, Noam. 1959. Review of B.F.Skinner, Verbal Behaviour Language, 35: 26-57.

Chomsky, Noam. 1966. Linguistic theory. In Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, working commitee reports.

Corder, S.Pit. 1977. The significance of learners' errors. IRAL- lnternational Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161 -170.

Davies, Alan, Criper, C., and Howatt, APR (editors). 1984. Interlanguage. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Eckman, Fred. 1977. Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning 27.2, 315-330.

Eckman, Fred. 1981 a. On the naturalness of interlanguage phonological rules. Language Learning 31.1, 195-216.

Eckman, Fred. 1981b. On predicting phonological difficulty in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4.1, 18-30.

Ellis, Rod. 1985. Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Faerch, Claus and Kasper, Gabrielle. 1986. Cognitive dimensions of language transfer. In Kellerman, Eric, and Sharwood Smith, Michael, editors. 1986. Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press, pages 49-65

Fisiak, Jacek. 1983. Present trends in contrastive linguistics. In Cross-language analysis and second language acquisition, edited by Kari Sajavaara. Volume 1, pages 9-29

Gardner, R.C. 1985. Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: the Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Greene, Judith. 1972. Psycholinguistics. Penguin Books. Householder, Fred W. Jr. 1952. Review of Z.S. Harris, Methods in structural

linguistics. International Journal of American Linguistics, 18: 260- 268. Hymes, Dell. 1972. On communicative competence. In Sociolinguistics, edited by

J.B. Pride and J. Holmes. Penguin Books Hymes, Dell. 1985. Toward linguistic competence. Revue de I'AILA: AILA Review, 2:

9-23 Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Closing statement: Linguistics and Poetics. In Style in

Language, edited by Thomas A. Sebeok. The Technology Press of MIT and John Wiley and Sons

Kelly, Robert. 1981. Aspects of communicative performance. Applied

Linguistics, 2. 2, 169-179. Krashen, S.D. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:

Pergamon Institute of English McNeill, David. 1966. Developmental psycholinguistics. In The Genesis of language,

edited by Frank Smith and George Miller. Cambridge: MIT Press Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1982. On the applicability of transformational generative

grammar. Applied Linguistics, 3.2, 89-120 Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1983. Grammatical theory: its limits and possibilities.

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Roberts, Paul. 1966. English syntax. New York: Harcourt Brace and World. Schumann, John. H. 1974. The implications of interlanguage, pidginization and

creolization for the study of adult second language acquisition TESOL Quarterly 8,145-152.

Selinker, L. 1971. Interlanguage. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209-231

Sridhar, S.N. 1976. Contrastive analysis, error analysis and Interlanguage: Three phases of one goal ? Indian Linguistics, 37: 258-281.

Spolsky, Bernard. 1968. Linguistics and language pedagogy – applications or implications ? Twentieth Annual Hound Table on Languages and Linguistics. edited by James E. Alatis. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, pp. 143-155

Spolsky, Bernard. 1971. Reduced redundancy as a language testing tool. Applications of Linguistics: Selected papers of the Second International Congress of Applied Linguistics, Cambridge, September 1969. edited by G.E. Perren and J.L.M. Trim. Cambridge University Press, pp 383-390.

Spolsky, Bernard. 1978. The relevance of grammar to second language pedagogy. AILA Bulletin. 2, 23, 5-14.

Spolsky, Bernard. 1979. Contrastive analysis, error analysis, interlanguage and other useful fads. Modern Language Journal. LXII, 5-6 250-257.

Spolsky, Bernard. 1985. Formulating a theory of second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Volume 7, pages 269-288

Spolsky, Bernard. Forthcoming. Conditions of second language learning: Introduction to a general theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stevick, Earl.W. 1986. Images and options in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.

Tarone, Elaine. 1983. On the variability of interlanguage systems. Applied Linguistics, 4.2, 142-164

Walters, Joel (editor). 1981. The Sociolinguistics of deference and politeness. International Journal of the Sociology of Language No 61.

Notes

1. It remains sensitive both to the state of theory (in setting criteria for categories of description) and to the requirements of the data.

2. It is part of linguistics proper, together with theoretical and historical linguistics, in the late Carl Voegelin's distinction between linguistics proper and its "hyphenated" fields, such as socio- and psycholinguistics and applied linguistics.

3. See e.g. Greene (1972).

4. Their training is still more likely to have been in general linguistics than in applied linguistics, and their departmental colleagues (particularly those concerned with their promotion) are usually general or theoretical linguists.

5. It is important, as Fisiak (1983) has shown, to distinguish the American version of Contrastive analysis that was motivated by applied linguistics from the earlier and continuing European tradition for the synchronic comparison, for theoretical reasons of languages. This latter activity parallels (but somewhat surprisingly does not seem to have close intellectual ties with) similar work, especially in the US but also in Europe, in the search for linguistic universals.

6. And a major motivation for Interlanguage study which takes as its object of study the language of the second language learner.

7. Labov by Tarone (1983) and Bickerton by Schumann (1974).

8. It is to be noted that theoretical linguistics are far from convinced by the claims of sociolinguists; see Newmeyer (1983).

9. Hymes (1985) discusses the uses of other terms like "proficiency" and "abilities" and "com-municative habits", and notes "That 'competence' became a term of reference, of course, is due to Chomsky".

10. Jakobson presented this model in the "Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics" at the 1958 Conference on Style; see Jakobson (1960) pp. 350-377. Hymes was present at the conference (see Hymes 1985:13) and acknowledges the influence in his development of the notion of "ethnography of speaking" and later use of the term "communicative competence"

11. See for instance Faerch and Kasper (1986).

12. See for instance Roberts (1964). 13. For a discussion of this model, see Spolsky (1985 and forthcoming). 14. 14. Chomsky (1966). But Newmeyer (1982, 1983) points out that Chomsky's

skepticism "about the significance, for language teaching, of such insights and understanding as have been attained in linguistics and psychology" is generally cited out of context, ignoring the next sentence where he says "that the effort of linguists and psychologists to approach the problem of language teaching from a principled point of view are extremely worth while from an intellectual as well as from a social point of view."

Focuses of Applied Linguistics in Japan: a Case Study Ikuo Kolke Keio University Japan 1. Introductory Remarks

Due to the great number of external factors which determine applied linguistics, and which constantly cause new applied linguistic areas to evolve, no philosophy of science has ever managed to establish a universally agreed upon classification of the entire field of applied linguistics. The diversity in structure of the various congresses of AILA mirror this state. As most classifications of the field are done from a discipline-oriented or (better) from a task-oriented point-of-view, and as AILA congresses also illustrated the often immense diversity of concern which different parts of the world have with different applied disciplines or tasks, it might be worthwhile to emphasize the geographical parameter by presenting the state of the art of applied linguistics and its relationship to linguistic theory as seen from the angle of one particular region.

AILA had been founded in Europe. Upon to now all AILA congresses had been held in the Euro-American sphere. These are unambiguous indicators for the obvious fact, that interest in and development of applied linguistics have expanded within Europe and Northern America: Theory and practice of language learning/ teaching - the area within applied linguistics that secured most attention in the time when AILA was founded -, in particular those devoted to teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) have developed so rapidly that this area has by now become closely related with research on language acquisition, bilingualism, language teaching, methodology, teaching materials, psychology, language policy, educational technology, contrastive analysis, error analysis, computational linguistics, linguistic theory formation of phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, discourse and cross-cultural communication - just to mention a few areas of major importance, which are exerting growing mutual influence on each other.

In view of this extensive Euro-American amount of activities it might be of special interest to have a look at the present state of the field as it presents itself in an area which is somewhat remote from Europe and America. This is why we choose Japan for an example. Corresponding reports from other parts of the world and countries would certainly be of equal importance.

Due to the long-lasting secludedness of Japan, some more introductory remarks concerning the state of policy of language education in this country might be appropriate before going into various focuses of applied linguistics in Japan.

- The students. - In Japan approximately 12 million people (out of a total population of approximately 120 million) learn English at every stage of schooling: About 4 million junior high school students (3 class periods a week), nearly 4 million senior high school students (5 periods a week), 1 million junior and 4-year-college and university students (2 or 3 periods of study per week in minimum essential courses); in addition English is taught at a great number of language schools that are attached to business companies and other institutions, which have a genuine interest in improving the command of English among the groups of persons attached to them.

- The teaching materials. - Six different English textbooks - approved by the

Ministry of Education - are in use for junior high schools, about forty for senior high school students. Nearly four thousand textbooks and teaching materials sell for college and university students - no ministerial approval being necessary at this level. There are about two hundred publishers of English teaching materials in Japan, including English and American companies. TEFL has become an economic factor of considerable weight in Japan.

- The teaching methods. - What methods are practically used in English classes

in junior and senior high schools in Japan? Generally, language teaching methods are still based on grammar-translation. However, recently, much more emphasis has been placed on the newer trends of TEFL in these schools (for more details cf. part 2). This is probably due to the growing internationalization of present-day Japan.

- Applied linguistics - theoretical linguistics. - It is true that most areas of

applied linguistics in Japan still evince the determining influence which had been exerted in their initial stages as well as in subsequent stages of their development by linguistic theory-formation, but at present interest in tracing the feedback which linguistic theory-formation derives or could derive from applications, is securing more and more attention. The relationship between theory and application in linguistics has ceased to be a one-way-road, leading from theory to application. This cybernetic feedback-pattern allows for applied concerns to become a factor of constitutive importance for further stages of theory-formation in linguistics, which in turn will have a bearing on the solving of applied problems etc.

But our view should not be restricted to the sole axis applied/ theoretical linguistics. What has been pointed out for the relationship between these two fields holds true for the one between applied linguistics and other fields as well, such as psychology, sociology, socio-cultural communication, language pedagogy (in a wide sense), and others.

- Disposition. - It is above all the following fields, to which a great amount of applied linguistic research is devoted in Japan, and which we shall present in more detail below:

- Learning/ teaching English as a foreign language - Contrastive linguistics - Sociolinguistics - Computational linguistics - Neuro- and patholinguistics

This list cannot, of course, claim exhaustivity. 2. English learning/ teaching methodology 2.1. Historical and geographical preconditions

As done above for the setting of the whole field of applied linguistics, the

assessment of the present day situation of TEFL in Japan requires one to be aware of some specific preconditions concerning this country.

Japan is a monolingual, monoracial, and monocultural country - thus differing in many respects from many European and from Northern American countries. It is much closer to China and Korea both in distance and culture. A great deal of research devoted to the origin of the Japanese language has, after all, brought us little evidence of our roots: Siberia? Mongolia? The South Pacific area? In a third century A.D. historical record a Chinese author describes Japan as a small but content paradise located rather far from mainland China. There must have been a long tradition of communication in some way or another between the inhabitants of these islands and the Chinese. In the course of centuries Japan imported the Chinese writing system and transformed Kanji (Chinese character) into the simplified Kana and Katakana as they are used today. It is significant that this was achieved by use of books and periodicals (on Buddhism and Confucianism) despite the fact that the Japanese had no command of spoken Chinese.

The first stages of the teaching of English as a foreign language in Japan faced mutatis mutandis the same situation. English as a foreign language was first taught in Japan in 1808, and it was only at the instigation of England herself that the Japanese government asked carefully selected Japanese to learn English in order to serve as interpreters. Any assessment of traditional theoretical and applied linguistics must take into account the fact that Japan's feudalistic government having kept the country in isolation for more than 260 years, opened up its doors as late as 1868; this means that direct contacts on a larger scale with speakers of European languages did not happen before 1872, when 119 British, 50 French and 19 American specialists first set foot on Japanese soil.

There were no reliable dictionaries available, no contrastive grammars. The students had to rely on direct learning/ teaching methods in order to get acquainted with the manifold technological and cultural features, which were new to them, from these native speakers via their European languages, which were equally new to the Japanese. At approximately the same time the first 107 Japanese men were sent abroad for study.

By the time these native instructors returned to their home countries, they left behind a knowledge of how to use original texts, and methods of translation. Japan's next major goal was to import knowledge of Western technology - via the reading of books, papers, and magazines! This sociopolitical situation determined the following stages of linguistic research: subtle techniques of text criticism, lexicological studies, concentrating on precise and accurate meanings of lexemes in foreign languages, and contrasting them to 'equivalent' expressions in Japan, evolved. Expressions in Japanese were invented in contrast to English ones as verbal exponents for an equivalent content, and soon got widely used.

2.2. From the Twenties to the present day

TEFL in Japan benefited greatly from the linguist Harold E. Palmer, who dedicated himself between 1922 and 1936 to improving TEFL by the use of the oral method, which he himself devised. The situation described above will provide the explanation why this method was received so favourably in Japan. Palmer's method was based on the idea that learning English as a foreign language follows lines that are similar to that of a child acquiring English as its native tongue. As basic "speech learning habits" he distinguished mimicry-memorization, auditory observation, oral imitation, chaining, semanticizing, composition by analogy. In order to master these principles, the following exercises were suggested: ear-training exercises, articulation exercises, repetition exercises, reproduction exercises, substitution exercises, imperative drills, and conventional conversations. Palmer's oral method prevailed in Japan throughout the prewar-period.

Since the audio-lingual approach was introduced by its founder, C.C. Fries at the University of Michigan, it rapidly gained ground in Japanese junior high school. It became the prevailing method in post-war TEFL in Japan. In some respects the teaching procedures of the audio-lingual method resembled those of the oral method. The main difference was that the audio-lingual approach is based on structural linguistic theory and behavioural psychology, whereas the oral method was not. As a consequence of the first mentioned basis the audio-lingual approach had a view of linguistics as based on contrasts, which the oral method had not shared; and as a consequence of the second mentioned basis the audio-lingual approach used pattern practice as based on a habit formation theory of behaviouristic psychology, whereas the oral approach was lacking such a psycholinguistic format.

Among the principles of structural linguistic theory the following ones exerted great influence on TEFL within the framework of the audio-lingual approach:

- The view of language as a system of arbitrary symbols - The role of contrast of linguistic elements in determining language structures - The view of language behaviour as a social habit - The emphasis on the sound-side of language. As a consequence - in particular of the first characteristics mentioned above -

TEFL in Japan increasingly became aware of structural contrasts between languages and of corresponding difficulties which the learner experiences.

At the same time this is the point at which contrastive analysis started to become a valuable tool for foreign language teaching. In particular contrastive analysis between English and Japanese developed extensively: in grammar, pronunciation, meaning and discourse, thus opening up to the wider area of cross-cultural contrastive studies. The idea of contrast can be seen in a corresponding variety of fields in current English textbooks; its bearing was greatest in pronunciation drills.

Another emanation of structuralist theory of language, pattern practice at the sentence level, can be seen in many classroom activities. It is especially in junior high schools that many devices for improving these activities have been tested.

Quite obviously the influence of structural, especially of American linguistics on the teaching of English as a foreign language in Japan cannot be overestimated.

The advent of generativism in linguistic theory caused another reorientation of foreign language teaching methodology. Japanese linguistics is said to have reached quite a high level of theoretical generative grammar studies. On the basis of new insights derived from generative descriptions of English and of Japanese the way is opening up toward a universal grammar on this basis. The expectations of both theoretical linguists and generative-grammar-orientated Japanese teachers as to the potential contributions of a generative grammar towards improving foreign language teaching methodology were rather high. It still is felt that language acquisition cannot be explained only through habit formation. The shortcoming of a teaching approach which is exclusively based on surface structure with all its ambiguities got stronger the more insight theoretical analyses yielded into deep structures and transformation processes. This led to the cognitive code learning method, which emphasizes an understanding of the rules prior to practising. On the whole, generative grammar may be said to have exerted rather an indirect influence on the improvement of teaching methodology.

A number of less linguistically based, but primarily learner-centered approaches such as the Silent Way, Community Language Learning, the Comprehensive Approach and Suggestopedia have also been imported to Japan up to the present day, however, via special language schools rather than ordinary public or private high schools. Research on these types of instruction, as reported in Japan, does not seem to be gaining convincing success. We assume that all of these approaches would fail if they were introduced to the entire Japanese school system, owing to the large size of Japanese classes and to the widespread conservative group teaching methods.

Most recently the communicative teaching approach has been introduced. Japanese history may once again be seen as one reason why this approach being based on learning through communication and emphasizing communicative needs of the learner, is particularly welcomed. The Course of Study administered by the Ministry of Education strongly suggests that communicative competence and activity - and as a consequence the development of communicative ability via corresponding class activities - are appropriate teaching goals. Recent theoretical research as well as experiments in teaching practice have enhanced the effectiveness in teaching communicative competence. Some would emphasize methods of teaching through drills from a sociolinguistic point-of-view, others would take a psycholinguistic look toward language acquisition, others cherish the idea of a comprehensive functional-notional syllabus, etc. To get an idea of the difficulties faced, one should know that language teaching principles as they are manifested in textbooks have to be approved by the Ministry of Education - and it is a fact that these books still are rather grammar-syllabus centered than notional-functional-syllabus centered. Actually, some more research is needed concerning the question of effectivity of the notional-functional approach as developed by the Council of Europe since 1975, for teaching situations outside language teaching for special purposes. It will definitely be too difficult for an average Japanese class of 50 students to achieve a successful grasp both of the grammatical and of the notional-functional aspects of the English language simultaneously.

Language Testing in Japan has been influenced by developments in the theory of testing in England and America to an extent equal to the one on the various methodological approaches. Both subjective and objective tests are widespread, because many teachers for English and testing specialists attribute certain advantages and disadvantages to both types. The Standard Test of English Proficiency as used in Japan differentiates between six different levels of testing and is administered to up to 1,7 million examinees twice a year, by a non-profit-making organisation supported by the Ministry of Education.

- Some other types of English Language Testing popular in Japan are e.g. TOEFL, TOIEC, United Nations Examinations, Cambridge Examinations, and Oxford Examinations. Actually, many entrance examinations to universities and colleges include English. In particular the examination administered for entrance to national universities includes an objective type of test.

As for the differentiation according to language skills, in listening compre-hension special difficulties are caused for Japanese learners of English by a number of sounds and their distribution which is different from Japanese, by the complexity of structures of sentences, their logical sequencing, and also by the factors of pause-duration and frequency in speech. A number of study groups devoted to the investigation of listening comprehension have already provided a considerable amount of reports on this subject. - The ways of measuring direct understanding of passages in a foreign language without the aid of translation has also been thematized. Still, however, translation is very popular in schools. Probably due to the above-mentioned tradition, translation techniques have developed considerably; English teachers are fully conscious of elaborate and accurate translations, and regularly request their students to do translation work in classes: both in schools and universities.

The measurement of reading comprehension faces great difficulties. Speaking tests, unfortunately, seem to have not been improved. More time and

more research seems to be necessary to comply with this desideratum. 3. Language Acquisition

There are two distinctive overall trends of research in language acquisition in Japan. One is traditional, giving long-term case studies of Japanese language by small children since birth. The other trend, on which we shall concentrate here, is the psycholinguistic approach, strongly influenced by American research. It originated from generative theories and soon became subdivided into two branches:

- First language acquisition of native Japanese children living in Japan and - Japanese children's acquisition of the English language both in Japan and the

United States. The first-mentioned branch can be seen as sharing the older Japanese tradition

to some extent: longitudinal studies of first language acquisition. But nowadays these studies are carried out within the field of developmental psychologists mainly who observe and describe the process of Japanese

language acquisition by their own children. Vast amounts of data were collected about the time span from the one word stage to the multiple word stage. The method of analysis adopted for these studies mirrors a strong influence of Piaget. Consensus has been reached concerning the developmental stages of acquisition from readiness (second month to 1 year), the babbling stage (1 year to 1,5 years), the naming period (1,5 to 2), enumeration without word order (2 to 2,5), imitation period (2,5 to 3), 'maturation': able to connect simple sentences (3 to 4), the 'talkative' period (4 to 5), appropriate conversation (5 to 6). Seen together with a corresponding first language acquisition experiment for American children these investigations on first language acquisition can also exert a function to which we pointed out above: To contribute towards grammatical theory via a feedback process from application to theory, and apart from that they thematize the problem of the psychological reality of linguistic categorizations.

Research on second language acquisition is getting more and more popular in Japan. In particular we notice the great influence which Krashen has on a great number of scholars. Several books and articles written by Japanese researchers have appeared in this field. One of the most interesting subjects for them is research into the questions 1. of possible orders to determine the acquisition of grammatical elements and

rules 2. similarities of acquisition order in the acquisition of English as a first language

by native English speakers as compared to the acquisition of English as a second language

3. the influence exerted by age and environmental factors on foreign language acquisition

4. the relationship between second language acquisition in a natural environment and second language teaching, e.g. the teaching of English for Japanese and other students

5. the developmental stageing of language acquisition 6. error analysis and interlanguage phenomena.

Again, applied linguistic study in this field interrelates with theoretical linguistics by providing evidence for hypotheses concerning potential universality. Research on the acquisition order of morphemes carried out on a longitudinal basis, has shown similar results to corresponding language acquisition studies by a number of American and European linguists. Considering the basic differences of Japanese as opposed to European and American languages, the similarity across languages in the acquisition order of morphemes indicates universal features. High school students who have never been to America and Europe and who learn English only in Japan prove the high correlation with Dulay and Burt's study of acquisition. The Dulay and Burt bilingual battery was used in a test, done by 700 junior high school students on the acquisition of morphemes. A high correlation was found between the data which resulted, and the Japanese subjects' data. This correspondence would indicate, that learners of English as a foreign language (e.g. Japanese learners) and children who grow up in an English speaking country follow corresponding acquisition processes - quite an interesting result for research into universal features of language acquisition; quite a crucial result, however, for the impact of language contrasts and interference-theory. To make a decision, much more research is needed.

Beyond the area of morphology there are also striking parallels

concerning the acquisition of syntactic structures and concerning communicative phenomena. We know, children tend towards acquiring first words for concrete and only afterwards words for abstract things or events, their semantic understanding being ego-centered. At every stage of acquisition error analysis is applied as a useful tool to give insight into interlanguage phenomena, revealing the structure of interlanguage grammar, although, admittedly, many errors rather reflect faults due to pedagogical, psychological, sociological factors of the learning environment. The findings of this kind of research are also applied to teaching materials analysis, the order of acquisition of grammatical elements, as derived from these studies being compared with the arrangement of corresponding grammatical rules in teaching materials. Of course, one still has to be very cautious when trying to generalize without experiments. Interference and the contrastive linguistic factors have to be taken care of.

Japanese children who lived in English-speaking countries are supposed to make great progress in the first six months of learning English. Despite the difference in speed of acquisition correspondences in the acquisition of morphemes and syntactic structures are evident. As for the interrelationship between communicative and grammatical structures, the former become more and more elaborate with increasing development of acquired grammatical elements, even at the simple stage of word-sentence acquisition.

As for the acquisition hypotheses underlying language acquisition, Krashen's idea of the monitor hypothesis, the input hypothesis, and the natural approach have been favoured and tested in a number of experiments related to the teaching of English to children. Quite an amount of discussion is going on concerning the input hypothesis and the one concerning the natural approach. Further areas that contribute towards the thematized relationship between language acquisition and language universals, are studies on Creoles and pidgins.

A further area within the various relationships between theory and application of linguistics which is rarely thematized, is the interrelation between second language acquisition and historical development of English. Certain correspondences can be noticed tentatively. 4. Contrastive Linguistics

The beginning of contrastive study in Japan is marked by the year 1932, when language contrasts between English and Japanese were first made an object of investigation. These studies were, of course, not yet based on strictly structural linguistic grounds, as theoretical and systematic contrastive linguistics along structural principles started as late as in the 1950s at the University of Michigan. Most extensive and applicable results have been achieved by the contrastive study of phonology, above all. The results led to manifold suggestions for amelioration of teaching methods concerning English pronunciation and listening comprehension on the side of Japanese school children. Thus contrastive Japanese/ English phonological insights derived from contrastive studies on a structural basis can be found in high school textbooks, drill books and teacher' manuals of English throughout the country.

Contrastive analysis of syntax has not gained as much ground as that of

phonology; just to mention a few outstanding topics where structurally oriented linguistic theory led to contrastive English/ Japanese syntactic analyses: transitive and intransitive verb constructions, adverb contrast in adverbial structures etc. - There also exists a general survey of contrastive analysis of grammatical items between English an German.

Contrastive analysis received a special impulse from the development of generative grammar. The theoretical potential of Chomsky's generative -transformational rule mechanism was assessed in the light of the Japanese language. It turned out that many transformational rules of English are equally applicable to Japanese structures. As seen within framework of older generative transformational theory - Chomsky's Syntactic Structures his standard theory and his extended standard theory - this observation of rule correspondences holds true both for rules operating in the base component, for semantic interpretation rules, and in addition for auxiliary rules. Surface structure phenomena and deep structure phenomena are described both for English and Japanese as a basis for contrasting the manifestations of the deep structure level on the surface, e.g. word formation, word order in sentences, sentence patterning.

A more recent theoretical impulse was received by contrastive analysis from case grammar, e.g. yielding a comparison of subject and object in English and Japanese.

There are also semantic and lexicological contrastive analyses on the basis of various current linguistic theories.

Perhaps the most recent impulse is given by semiotics, in particular by the pragmatic dimension of semiotics. The respective contrastive studies extend beyond the language sphere, e.g. comparing gesture and body language between English and Japanese.

Contrastive analyses highly influenced by semiotics and pragmatics are also devoted to linguistic behaviour concerning the language pair German/ Japanese (carried out by the National Research Institute of Language). They concentrate on the ways of expressing speech acts like greeting, asking for the way, introducing oneself, informing people; they thematize conversation in specific settings like shopping conversation; and - reaching beyond language - they also include proxemics: All these and other related areas have been thoroughly investigated and .checked in Japan and Germany. In particular for cultures and languages which are as distant from each other as Japanese and European cultures and languages, it is of utmost importance to incorporate theories which account for non-verbal behaviour in contrastive studies - the various ways of interrelationship between verbal and non-verbal behaviour differing so widely.

Another report within the vast field of theoretical and applied contrastive linguistics is devoted to the comparative analysis of the communication process of American and Japanese people - in particular to the use of politeness expressions. The respective investigations set out from universal rules of human behaviour in the politeness-sphere, and dealt with the respective expressions in both languages both from a linguistic and from a psychological point of view. 5. Sociolinguistics

It was in the 1950s that research on the relationship between language

and society, research on 'language life' first prospered in Japan. The center of this activity research is the National Language Institute which was established in 1984. Both theoretical, applied and very practically oriented studies - many of them closely interrelated - on the relationship between the Japanese language and the life of Japanese people marked the first stage of the research history of the institute. The next stage was marked by major large scale projects on the interrelationship between language and life locally defined groups of inhabitants of various parts of the country. - Along with regional variation language behaviour was studied according to social variation within specified contextual conditions, such as appropriate expressions in given situations, topic reality, socio-psychological situational constraints, relevance exerted by linguistic contextual criteria. - The former studies are group-based, the latter ones are highly individual.

As had been stated about teaching methodology and about contrastive linguistics, research into the relationship between language and society influenced by the generative movement from the end 50s onwards throughout the 60s. Due to by now well-known shortcomings of generative theories concerning the description of linguistic variation, it is in particular since the 1970s that sociolinguistics - now done on the basis of more recent linguistic theories - prospers. The most important trends are the following: 1. A general survey devoted to language life for the inhabitants of large cities,

in order to get data which can be compared to a related kind of language studies as done for rural areas 20 years ago.

2. The extension of what sociolinguistics was traditionally concerned with into the analysis of communication and discourse. By now the application of various linguistic theories to discourse analysis have become a major concern of sociolinguistic research.

3. Culture and language; i.e. the correlation between linguistic expression and cultural/ social phenomena. It is social habit formation within particular cultures which makes this sphere an object of sociolinguistics. An example is the way of naming people in Japanese vs. Western societies. The Japanese manner of selecting names is ego-centered and hierarchical. Thus persons above the speaker are named by designations which indicate their positions, whereas persons subordinate to the speaker are named by their real names.

4. Research in politeness expression (see above). Owing to its importance in Japanese this area - as indicated in 3. - has become a research field of its own. The Japanese language is full of polite expressions which mirror the hierarchical structure of Japanese society. Owing to their function of easing conversation, politeness expressions enjoy more and more attention by linguists. In any situation where people need/ want to be polite to others, this intention is manifested by an obligatory choice among differing honorific expressions in word formation, in flexional endings of verbs, polite forms of sentences and of discourse - all of them mirroring subtle degrees of delicacy.

5. Cross-language sociolinguistic analysis on an international scale. The politeness expressions of English and Japanese are contrasted from a language-systemic point-of-view and from the point-of-view of language use. These studies become more and more closely related to comparisons concerning no-verbal communication in each language community.

Closely related to sociolinguistics, bilingual studies have started. At first sight Japan looks like a monolingual country. Actually, however, a limited number of Chinese, Korean, Ainu, returned students and various other groups from outside the country have their own serious communication problems and corresponding difficulties in identifying themselves with and adjusting to Japanese society.

Besides dialectical and sociolectal varieties of Japanese, standard language use and loan verbs, the notation of Kanji enjoys growing attention from a sociolinguistic point-of-view - all these fields being in close relation with actual life.

The real problems with present-day sociolinguistics do not rest with the spectrum of objects but rather with the methods of research and their underlying theories - due to the multifaceted nature of the very objects of research in sociolinguistics: the tremendous variation of vocabulary, meaning, phonology, and performance factors according to practical conditions and constraints.- Statistical analysis has become quite popular as a methodological tool, and so has computer technology as a suitable instrument for dealing with larger amounts of data. - At the same time information exchange on an international scale is increasing. 6. Computational Linguistics

The years 1985 and 1986 experienced a boom in the publication of books and

papers, and a certain number of translations on computational linguistics and linguistic analysis by computers. A study called "Linguistic Standardization", supported by the Grant-In-Aid for Scientific Research by the Ministry of Education was launched as a joint research project of linguists and computer technologists. It covers almost all fields related to computational linguistics, such as linguistic analysis, machine translation from English to Japanese, the relationship between linguistic and logical expressions, linguistic understanding, discourse analysis, and language acquisition as related to computer operations.

Like in other parts of the world the cheaper prices of personal computers caused them to be used widely. This external phenomenon has also led to many linguists and teachers getting interested in computer operations and statistical analysis of large amounts of language data.

Computer-assisted instruction is exerting more and more influence on the study of Japanese and English as a foreign language. In particular it has begun to develop as a medium for self-learning procedures at the lower elementary and junior high school level.

There are also quantitative analyses of data, done by the computers: studies in word frequency, specific studies like the use of words frequently appearing in popular songs; the computers also are of assistance in the above-mentioned fields of dialectology and sociolinguistics, e.g. in marking borderlines of dialectic regions by establishing a matrix of dialectical features for each dialect.

Machine translations English/ Japanese are significantly improving and becoming more popular. Actually to an increasing extent computer translations are also used in the realm of scientific life - simple translations of everyday conversation, on the other hand, have become quite popular in pocket-size electronic calculators.

All these fields of application are, of course, based on the computational analysis of language. After all, it is due to the cooperation between computer technologists and linguists that e.g. artificial intelligence and machine translation have reached the present standard. In particular it is up to the linguists to determine what part of language structures should be formalised for the automatic data processing of language. The particular framework of this treatise, as oscillating between theory and application of linguistics, requires to point out to the major object of computational linguistics today: the search for linguistic models with a high compatibility with computer-use, the development of linguistic rule-mechanisms appropriate to computer mechanism, computerisable linguistic theories that are able to cope with the huge amount of data from real language life. As in other fields described above, the stage has also been reached in computational linguistics where feedback from computer analysis to linguistic theory formation can be noticed. 7. Neurolinguistics and Patholinguistics

A considerable amount of neurolinguistic research is devoted to structures specific to the brain of Japanese people, which seems to be different from other races except Polynesians. According to the otolaryngologist Tadaharu Tsunoda, Westerners strongly respond to an isolated vowel in the right hemisphere of their brains prior to the left hemisphere, as in the case of non-linguistic sounds, such as the sounds of machines, nature or sentiment. On the contrary, Japanese generally respond to an isolated vowel in the left hemisphere of the brains, which controls language functions and calculation, which priority as compared to the right one, as in the case of insects, birds, dogs, cats, cows, horses, weeping, laughing, sighing, humming, natural waves and the wind.

Why does this happen? The Japanese language has many vowels which constitute a word, such as e 'picture', e 'prey', o 'tale', etc. In the course of living and growing up in a Japanese language environment people gradually become accustomed to these Japanese vowels and 'vowel-words'. Americans raised in Japanese follow the same route as native Japanese speakers in responding to the left hemisphere. Polynesians follow the same pattern because of the similarity of the sound system of their language to that of Japanese. - With non-Japanese speakers the left hemisphere (which does not control isolated vowels with them) only controls consonant-centered types of sounds, CV and CVC, etc. and applies the advantages of logos for controlling linguistic functions and calculation; contrary, in Japanese the left hemisphere controls both isolated vowels and sounds like some natural sounds of nature and emotion, onomatopoeia, etc. - in other words they use logos and pathos together in order to function in harmony and fusion. This psycholinguistic insight might turn out to be the main reason why Japanese people create their own culture differently from European culture centering on 'reason'. -

As for research into language disorders and speech disorders, perhaps the most striking current tendency is its growing interdisciplinarity. Thus studies on aphasia are related to the finding rules determining language structures and use, such as by generative grammar, generative semantics, speech pathology, audiology, experimental phonology in addition to neurology and psychology - fields which, after all, have a fairly long tradition

of contributions to speech disturbances and disorders. Each of these fields carries with it its own research methods into the analysis of aphasia, e.g.:

- Several findings of psycholinguistics as related to generative theory formation have been made use of for the description of aphasic phenomena during approximately the last ten years.

- Distinctive features of sounds, as seen within the theoretical framework of generative phonology are used for the analysis of speech disorders.

- Partial or total loss of grammar in aphasic cases have been analysed in the framework of generative grammar, syntactic features, the lexicon and semantic interpretation.

- Disorders in understanding words and sentences are also analysed in terms of the ideas provided by semantic interpretation within formal linguistic theories.

What seems to become clear in these analyses is the assumption that rules and

hierarchies as represented in generative grammatical description are also explicable within the framework of phenomena of language disorders. New findings based on recent linguistic theories can predict rule mechanisms that formerly remained undiscovered. - However, a large amount of phenomena remain that cannot be explained by these theories. Thus, special problems are caused by perception in general perceptual strategies and processes in cases of aphasia, biological 'common sense', and the psychological processes of aphasia, as well as language specific or language-group-specific aspects, e.g. the troubles which Japanese aphasics have with confusing post-positions and word order in spoken and written sequences.

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS Theoretical foundations, misconceptions, and applications Walther v. Hahn Forschungsstelle für Informationswissenschaft und künstliche Intelligenz University of Hamburg Federal Republic of Germany 1. Introduction

Computational linguistics originated in the paradigm of analysis and sorting programs for research in linguistic or literary studies. Especially in Europe (under the rather misleading term of "linguistic data processing") this field restricted itself to mere manipulation processes for existing portions of text (corpora), including elementary statistics.

In the last ten years or so the paradigm of "Artificial Intelligence" has offered a wide range of new perspectives1 on Computational Linguistics which could lead not only to the innovatory use of computers in linguistics but also to closer cooperation between linguistics and computer science. This latter effect has been desired by theoretical linguists for a long time and could encourage computer scientists to think in adequate terms about, for example, man-machine-interaction. 2. Theories

Let me first sketch some ideas about the shift of theoretical positions in Computational Linguistics.

Computational Linguistics quite rightly never claimed a genuine theoretical basis to its methods. Being only a tool for empirical work, Computational Linguistics merely arranged the linguistic data in a useful physical order for traditional research (indices, frequency lists). Or it inherited more or less the theories of the corresponding linguistic subfields of morphology (automatic lemmatization, segmentation) and syntax (natural language parsing).

In the case of statistics, Computational Linguistics could not rely on a specific theory of language statistics. On the contrary, this application of string manipulation programs combined with statistical software very soon demonstrated widespread misunderstanding about the usefulness of statistical material.

Too many people overestimated the effect of lack of information (caused by partial data or intuitive generalizations in handsorted material). They hoped to get new interpretatory ideas from complete or statistically preprocessed data. However, when fully available, these methods turned out to be what they are at best: a better proof for the generality of linguistic

1 see e.g. Lehnert/Ringle (1982) or Tennant (1981)

hypotheses. But the hypotheses must exist beforehand. Another class of applications of Computational Linguistics, those with more

elaborated programming techniques, inherited the theoretical background of computer science or logic2 Some linguistic problems indeed became interesting in the light of complexity theory, back-tracking, scheduling, formal languages etc. But only in very few research groups was this interest of computer science communicated to linguists and subjects to joint projects.

In neither of these two scientific fields (linguistics and computer science) did Computational Linguistics adopt the state-of-the art-methods 3. The "Classical" Paradigm of Computational Linguistics

In this section I will briefly sketch the results of Computational Linguistics in previous decades. Work was concentrated on the following areas:

- phonetic-phonological analysis - morphological segmentation and analysis - syntactic analysis - analysis of fiction (sorting and listing programs) - question-answering-systems - software for information and documentation processes - lexicological and lexicographical software - computer-aided translation All these activities have in common that their object is not the competent

speaker in a real environment but the visible symptoms of communicative linguistic competence. Or, in more general terms, Computational Linguistics so defined deals with texts rather than with linguistics.

I do not deny that the achievements of Computational Linguistics in the past are valuable. Every higher language processing3 needs morphological modules as well as sorting and manipulation algorithms as its base. However, even in this text-oriented paradigm Computational Linguistics failed to address many urgent practical linguistic problems in standard software. Let me list some obvious desiderata:

- field-dependent spelling correctors which also catch difficult misspellings of technical terms,

- field-dependent hyphenation lexica, - morphological generators for technical terms in innovatory fields There are two main reasons for this lack of reality: First, linguists (especially in English-speaking countries) did hardly any research

into technical language' ("LSP"4 ). Therefore linguists were not able to offer a "natural" model when asked by engineers how to integrate computers in linguistically defined job situations. Designers of natural language interfaces, natural language menus, or restricted n1 command languages are particularly concerned with such human factors

2 see Journal of Logic Programming (1986) 3 The first volume of Winograd (1983) demonstrates this position very clearly. See also the overview in

Grosz/Sparck Jones/Webber (1986) 4 Common abbrevation for : language for special purpose. *(see Falzon (1983) or v.Hahn (1983))

considerations. But neither linguistics nor Computational Linguistics has experience enough in

the structure and style of task-oriented language or perhaps even language in natural language computer interaction.

Secondly, Computational Linguistics restricted itself more or less to the task of preparing texts for linguistic investigation, instead of covering everything between language and computer. 4. Computational Linguistics Today

The effect of Artificial Intelligence research on Computational Linguistics was manifold. The following list highlights only some of the more obvious influences : (1) linguists developed new theories on the computer at the very start of their

work (e.g. LFG) (2) Computational Linguistics found Artificial Intelligence methods an inspiring

tool for linguistic research (e.g. reference semantics) (3) pragmatic theorems came increasingly into the focus of Computational

Linguistics (speech-act recognition, planning, referring, deixis) (4) Computational Linguistics was able to reflect procedural theories (5) Computational Linguistics was able to integrate linguistic behaviour into a

framework of cognitive abilities of speakers. The following paragraphs describe in more detail the tasks and the applications

of modern Computational Linguistics in this sense. The fact that Computational Linguistics included in its work the specific view of

Artificial Intelligence gave linguists for the first time the opportunity to use a natural language system as a testbed for linguistic mechanisms which cover the whole range of linguistic levels and surface phenomena.

Concerning pragmatics the new approach to language is a challenge to the concreteness of hypotheses. An elaborated natural language system is really able to act, at least in a symbolic world (you could even connect it to a robotic system). The algorithm has to control not only the correct analysis of input sentences (parsing, semantic analysis) but also the generation of adequate responses (linguistic answers and/or actions).

From now on, it should be taken seriously in Computational Linguistics that language (especially in computer processing) is always a means of communication between two (or more) cooperating partners5. Beyond linguistic horizons this position is the necessary starting point for joint research in the field of man-machine-interaction between linguistics and computer science.

Another advantage can be offered by a Computational Linguistics in the paradigm of Artificial Intelligence:

"Language as a cognitive process"6 can be investigated more easily in a system which really performs processes7.

Linguistics got involved in a very declarative paradigm from the days of

5 Summaries in Brady/Berwick (1983) and Joshi/Webber/Sag (1981) 6 as Winograd (1983) called his book on computational linguistics. 7 cf. the discussion following the paper of Dresher and Hornstein (1977ff) in the journals Cognition and Cognitive

Science

structuralism until post-generativism. Language was, in brief, the effect of a sound or graphics event, linguistic studies the discovery of the system of speech objects

However, in prestructural times there was already a research line which culminated in Wilhelm von Humboldt's theorem of language as energeia and not as ergon. This approach has obviously been since forgotten by modern linguistics.

A new procedural school of linguistics developing now in several universities8 has the following programme of research: "Language is a process in and around the speaker".

Linguistics correspondingly describes these processes producing speech signs as a symptom.

These general positions can be focussed in 4 basic theses for future work of Computational Linguistics: 4.1. Procedural Models

The execution of a computer science program should yield additional knowledge compared with only reading the algorithm or the program.

The linguistic idea is that procedural models cover more relevant features of the original process and that speaking is primary to language and is a cognitive process, convivial to other processes.

In the memorable discussion between Dresher/Hornstein and Computational Linguists9 the necessary procedural aspects of a theory of language was rightly and repeatedly emphasised.

It is no accident that only modem Computational Linguistics has newly discovered the field of language generation. For the first time in the history of linguistics concrete theories and procedural models about language production were proposed, from the description of situations to their phonetic realisation.

Out of these considerations a second thesis comes to light: 4.2. Cognitive Models

Computational Linguistics, using the methods of "Al", makes it possible to put natural language ability in context with other cognitive dimensions. These cognitive dimensions are primarily:

- interpretation of visual input, - interpretation of movement information and control, - organisation and processing of knowledge, or - inferencing Why do we specify the methods of Al as especially promising ? Because Al is

knowledge-based and by definition specializes in those "worlds", which are difficult to structure, vague, dynamic and complex. In particular the argument of complexity must be addressed by a modern Computational Linguistics. Correspondingly I will formulate a third thesis : 4.3. Complexity

Interesting tasks for future work are those in which a prediction of the sequence and interaction of large numbers of subprocesses by paper-and-

8 comprising extremely different ideas as Schnelle (1981) and Langacker (1986) 9 In Cognitive Science 1977

pencil work (i.e. an exclusively textual representation of the hypothesis) is no longer possible because of the complexity and the non-deterministic aspects of the program.

Let me give a typical example- Reference processes work on complex inferences with vague semantics and meta-inferences. Consider a referencing task:

CHAIR DESK

CHAIR CHAIR

Imagine an object "desk", whose position is to be unambiguously referenced by a noun phrase.

The basic situation , as described in the literature, is as follows: "In front of" and "behind" the desk are ambiguous even when the viewpoints of

the speaker and hearer respectively are defined. Only when the desk, as is usual, has a functional side of preference (e.g. marked by a drawer), are "in front of" and "behind" defined independent of speakers. "Left" and "right" of the desk refer to the speaker's point of view by default definition. "Next to" only refers to two sides, if the desk is rectangular. "Next to" itself is not infinitely transitive and must therefore be subject to a cutting operator. This does not hold for "left of" (in the given geometry).

That "linguistic space" is now further restricted by focussing and the degree of mention in previous turns of the dialogue. I.e. not each true geometrical relation is communicatively plausible.

Moreover, "natural" relations between objects of different size-classes are important to the decision how to reference an object.

At the same time, certain objects in a situation have a specific salience attached to them by particular functional expectancies (a chair behind the desk) or even, in contrast, by non-expectancies (a crocodile in the bedroom).

Different situations and roles of the speakers ( architects discussing the furniture, hostess inviting a guest, producer in a film studio) will again change the result.

The decision as to which verbalisation is correct and communicatively adequate correspondingly to all these conditions, is certainly not easy to reconstruct using traditional methods. Most informative to the whole problem area is the report about operational reference models by Marburger and Novak10, interestingly enough a report from a computer science institute.

10 Marburger/Novak (1981) and Marburger/Neumann/Novak (1981)

5. Use, Application, and Development

The figure below shows in which fields existing software from Computational Linguistics in general can be used by "end-users", in which fields it can be applied for new solutions, and in which (commercial) areas Computational Linguistics development is being performed.

Only boxes 4, 5 and 6 are of real scientific interest to Computational Linguistics in the above sense. Clearly all fields are sensitive to language problems which, in other environments, are subject to linguistic research (reading/writing ability, lexicographic theory etc.)

I would admit that the borderlines between the fields are not as clear as the scheme suggests. Especially in Machine Translation, nearly all recent developments exhibit the strong influence of Artificial Intelligence techniques and there is almost no pure use of MT programs (as in the boxes 1 and 3 ) without any application or development.

The fields in 2 and 4 are today a domain of the software industry, not of scientific research. On the other hand commercial companies will always consult linguists or Computational Linguistics researchers for specific design problems or human factor considerations

Within a few years commercial software will be available for all areas in boxes 1, 3 and even 5. In the same way that we buy today programs for salary payment, business graphics or data bases, in the near future all elementary language manipulation programs will be available on the market. Even now, for example, morphological segmentation is no longer worth scientific effort. Moreover, vertical migration had the effect, that basic string operations, which fifteen years ago had to be programmed with a lot of effort, are now commands in operating systems ("awk" in UNIX).

Another example : A quite acceptable natural language interface to a simple (one-relational) database is available in department stores. It is no longer a problem for scientific research. Remarkably enough it runs on a PC.

USE

OF

APPLICATION, DEVELOPMENT OF

representation of texts

1

text processing coding nl11 menus word indexes

2

text processing software nl denominators in interfaces

manipulation of texts

3

linguistic statistics lexicographic tools information s&r CAP13 MT14

4

software for MT, Inf.s&r12 ling. statistics etc.

generation of texts

5

'verification" of linguistic hypotheses

linguistic workbench

6

AI15 software knowledge engineering

interfaces, presentation of results

6. Fields of Research

In contrast with the previous chapter we summarize here those areas on which Computational Linguistics should concentrate future work.

Basic research: - computer aided investigations into language ability and universals by

computer models - language parameters in speech recognition - organization of memory (remembering, forgetting, storage) - task-oriented dialogues (language and action) - syntax and ontology (disambiguation by inference on world knowledge) - reference and deixis (in texts and on the screen) - linguistic workbench Systems: - higher question answering systems - access systems - systems for natural language presentation of results (vision systems,

11 natural language 13 computer aided publishing 14 machine translation 12 information storage and retrieval 15 Artificial Intelligence

- robotics, planning) - intelligent documentation systems, abstracting, summarizing /story

understanding - explanation components - knowledge based machine translation - computer aided publishing - knowledge engineering

7. Computational Linguistics and computer science

One prerequisite for further progress in Computational Linguistics is that this field starts a new and close cooperation with computer science. This is necessary for solving a number of difficulties typically arising in natural language programs. But it is also interesting for computer science because some of these questions imply theoretical considerations in computing theory in general. The following examples may serve as an illustration: 7.1. Parallel Processing

Speech/language processing and image understanding are fields in which the "real time barrier" of computer systems is so crucial that hardware specialists expect a remarkable progress only with parallel processing16. These architectures have another advantage: they might be more adequate for the simulation of natural information processing. 7.2. Representation Languages

Another example: More elaborate natural language systems normally use different heterogeneous knowledge bases and several layers of knowledge. The reason for this is the way humans store and process information which either stems from various input channels or is processed in different brain hemispheres. For a holistic control structure and a plausible overall performance of such a system it must be able to map different representations onto each other. This leads to another interesting question of computer science: Which is a useful and plausible software architecture of a cognitive (n1) system? 7.3. Software Architecture

I will briefly explain some details by discussing top-down and bottom-up strategies in lexical disambiguation.

Imagine an item "chase" is being hypothetically recognized by a speech front end of a natural language system. The two readings of this word are then being passed upwards from level to level and augmented by further possible interpretations. The decision whether the logical context is 'hunt' or rather 'metal' is still open and in the worst case a disambiguation is possible only after the last step, the analysis of possible referents in the situation given. This is the typical bottom-up strategy.

In the past the quality of a speech recognition system or parsing module has been correspondingly estimated by counting the number of reading/senses it can deliver. The more interpretations it presented at the end, the better the system.

16 see Waltz/Pollack (1985)

The paradigm of Artificial Intelligence shifted this rating. General world knowledge, once available in a system, could be utilized for much earlier rejection of interpretations which are irrelevant in the communicative situation. Therefore disambiguation is seen more and more as a permanent process guided on all levels by the world knowledge of the system. Every intermediate result is evaluated against the knowledge base and situation contexts. This strategy is "top-down" in the sense that the semantic/ pragmatic top-level knowledge is decisive for all processes below.

Johnson-Laird17 pointed out that in addition top-down processes are much more plausible from the cognitive point of view.

"Psycholinguists generally assume that in order to understand a sentence a listener has to establish its underlying grammatical structure (see e.g. Fodor et al., 1974). This 'deep structure' specifies the grammatical relations between the constituents of the sentence. Once these relations have been established, they can be used as instructions for combining the meaning of words in order to obtain the meaning of the sentence. In fact, however, there is no unequivocal evidence that deep structure, or any other such syntactic representation, plays any role in either comprehension or speaking." An advantage of these architectures is not only that they save analysis steps

for irrelevant material but also that they save time used in the endless back-tracking necessary to test all branches of the result tree. Another solution of the control problems which is of special interest for computer science is known as a blackboard architecture, as has been successfully demonstrated in the speech/language system HEARSAY18.

The general idea is as follows: Every component of the system passes its results to the blackboard. There all other components can check whether they can process these intermediate structures. The control structure is defined by the input definition of the modules.

Let me mention some other fields of joint interest for Computational Linguistics and computer science: 7.4. Man-Machine-Interaction and Human Factors

This area of research has been touched on already in section 3. Computational Linguistics is not only engaged in developing natural language interfaces, which of course require the expertise of excellent linguists and computer science. Moreover, all information about people's views of computers and their functioning, about their expectations and misconceptions in any case is linguistic material (user interviews, requests from naive users etc.) and needs to be interpreted carefully. But also on the computer's side natural language utterances are advantageous for the user:

Explanation facilities in natural language can also explain what has happened to novices. Even for specialists there are programs whose results are difficult to communicate. We think of, for example, image understanding systems. The fact that such a system successfully recognized an "event" (a car parking or passing another car, turning, an accident, etc.) can hardly be communicated by formal messages, because possible "events" are often

17 Johnson-Laird (1981) 18 cf. Reddy et al.(1976)

found by looking for equivalent existing natural language concepts which group physical changes of the world. It seems therefore quite natural that messages also use natural language. 8. Summary

Computational Linguistics in the next ten years can only have a place among the efficient and future-oriented sciences if it engages in the methods of Artificial Intelligence and keeps the general standards of computer science. The object of Computational Linguistics must be the analysis of language as a means of communication. The results of Computational Linguistics have to serve linguistics in order to formulate more elaborated hypotheses about language and computer science to develop better man-machine-interfaces. References Brady, M. / Berwick, R., Computer Models of Discourse. Cambridge (Mass.) 1983 Database Engineering. Special Issue on Natural Language. Dresher, B.E. / Hornstein, N., On Some Supposed Contributions of Artificial

Intelligence to the Scientific Study of Language. In: Cognition 4 (1976) 321 - 398. Replies in Cognition 5 (1977), 6 (1978), 7 (1979) and Cognitive Science 1 (1977), 2 (1978).

Falzon, P., Understanding a Technical Language. Report INRIA, Le Chesnay (France) Oct. 1983.

Grosz, B. / Sparck Jones, K. / Webber, B., Readings in Natural Language Processing. Los Altos 1986.

v.Hahn, W., Fachkommunikation. Berlin 1983. Johnson-Laird, P.M., Mental Models of Meaning. In: Joshi / Webber / Sag (1981) Joshi, A. / Webber, B. / Sag, I., Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge

(Mass.) 1981. Journal of Logic Programming. Special Issue on Natural Language and Logic

Programming. 3 (1986) 4. Langacker, R.. An Introduction to Cognitive Grammar. In: Cognitive Science

10 (1986) 1-40. Lehnert, W. / Ringle, M., Strategies for Natural Language Understanding. Hillsdale

1982. Marburger, H. / Neumann, B. / Novak, H.-J., Natural Language Dialogue about

Motion in an Automatically Analysed Traffic Scene. In: 7th IJCAI Vancouver 1981

Marburger, H. / Novak, H.-J., Auswertung von natürlichsprachlichen Entscheidungsfragen über Bewegungen in einer Strassenverkehrsszene. Diplomarbeit Fachbereich Informatik Hamburg. 1981.

Proceedings of the IEEE. Special Issue on Natural Language Processing. 74 (1986) 7.

Reddy, R. / Erman, L. / Fennell, R. / Neely,R., The HEARSAY Speech Understanding System. In: IEEE Transactions on computers C-25 1976.

Schnelle, H., Editorial to Linguistics 8 (1981) 1. Tennant, H., Natural Language Processing. An Introduction to an Emerging

Technology. New York 1981. Waltz, D.L, The State of the Art in Natural Language Understanding, in Lehnert /

Ringle(1982). Waltz, D.L / Pollack, J.B., Massively Parallel Parsing: A Strongly Interactive Model of

Natural Language Interpretation. In: Cognitive Science 9 (1985) 1. Winograd, T., Language as a Cognitive Process. Reading 1983.

CLINICAL LINGUISTICS Martin J. Ball The Polytechnic of Wales United Kingdom Introduction

As in any application of linguistic science to a related discipline, "clinical linguistics" as a term covers several important areas of language study. Indeed, the terms "clinical phonetics" and "clinical phonology" are encountered almost more often than "clinical linguistics" itself (Shriberg and Kent, 1982, Code and Ball, 1984; Grunwell, 1982). In this account, therefore, the most important separate areas of clinical linguistics will be considered in turn.

However, I will be concerned overall to describe the language and speech disorders that clinical linguistics applies to, the current theoretical approaches that have been adopted to cope with these, and those areas where future development seems necessary. These three topics will be examined in terms of the separate areas noted above.

Before we turn to the main discussion, I would like to give a brief account of the development of the clinical linguistics field. Initially, we need to stress that clinical linguistics is not another term for speech pathology/therapy. Whereas the latter is the analysis and treatment of disordered speech and language, clinical linguistics is concerned solely with the interrelation between disordered speech/language and language sciences. This may of course be a two-way process: insights from linguistics given to the analysis and treatment of disorders, or advances in linguistics theory gained from examining clinical data (though Crystal, 1984, feels that only the former definition should really constitute clinical linguistics; in this article I take the broader view despite the fact that most work to date has been concentrated in the first area).

There had long been a connection between the work of speech pathologists and phoneticians. Speech pathologists, for example, were trained in and made use of phonetic transcription systems for recording various types of disordered speech. However, the association between speech pathology and the wider areas of linguistics is more recent (for a fuller account see Ball and Kent, 1987). From the British viewpoint, the main impetus for the development of a clinical linguistics (as distinct from clinical phonetics) came from the work of David Crystal: firstly in his 1972 paper, 'The case for linguistics: a Prognosis', developed in further publications such as Crystal, Fletcher and Carman (1976), Crystal (1981, 1982, 1984). It was probably mainly due to the pioneering work of Crystal and his colleagues that linguistics became a compulsory subject on speech pathology courses validated by the College of Speech Therapists (London) in the mid-seventies. Phonetics, however, had been so for many years previously.

However, this period also saw an expansion of work in phonetics and phonology directly to the clinical situation. Books on 'clinical phonetics' (Shriberg and Kent. 1982, Code and Ball, 1984) and 'clinical phonology' (Grunwell, 1982, Elbert and Gierut, 1986) appeared with work on the design of extra phonetic symbols for disordered speech (PRDS Working Party, 1983). This culminated in the launch in 1987 of a journal devoted to this field of study: Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics (see Ball and Kent, 1987).

Crystal (1984) believes that "clinical linguistics is first and foremost a branch of applied linguistics" (p 31), but to what, exactly, does clinical linguistics apply: what are the characteristics of the various speech and language disorders in which the clinical linguist is interested? 1. The Data of Clinical Linguistics 1.1 Speech Disorders2

Traditionally, speech disorders have been viewed in two main ways: those connected with speech development in children (developmental disorders, though see Crystal's 1984 discussion of the term 'specific learning disability' in this context, p 73ff), and those that have arisen in other ways (acquired disorders). This distinction is, perhaps, a useful descriptive device, but does not claim any explanatory power. However, from the clinical linguist's (or clinical phonetician's) viewpoint, these divisions are not particularly helpful in terms of the effects these disorders have on normal speech. Therefore, clinical linguistics has for some time classified speech disorders as being phonetic or phonological according to whether the effect of the disorder can be described as a disruption of phonetic detail or phonological contrastivity. It should, however, be noted that the terms are also used in a similar, but not always identical sense, as to whether the disorder is deemed to originate in the 'phonetics component' or 'phonological component' of a model of speech production. (We will see below that this distinction, in whichever of the two senses just noted, needs to be expanded in order to characterise the data that clinical linguists have acquired). Crystal (1984, chapter 1) contains an interesting account of terminological problems in clinical linguistics, especially in relation to speech disorders.

These two classification systems unfortunately tend to cut across each other. For example, a developmental disorder such as the inability to articulate a particular sound and its substitution by a sound from outside the phonological system of the target language would be classified as phonetic, whereas a developmental disorder where a sound is substituted by a sound from within the target language thereby causing a loss of phonological contrast would clearly be classified as phonological. Likewise, an acquired disorder (such as aphasia) could also provide data which could have either phonetic or phonological consequences.

We have not room in this article to discuss in detail the whole range of speech and language disorders (a good introductory account from a linguistic viewpoint is found in Crystal, 1980), but I do intend to outline some of the more important ones for clinical linguistics. As noted above, speech disorders can be classified into developmental and acquired. Under the heading of developmental disorders are normally placed problems

encountered by the child in the normal acquisition and use of the phonetic/phonological system of the language(s) in question. These problems in turn may exhibit qualities of delay or of deviance (see Crystal, 1980. p 126). Delay occurs when the normal pattern of phonological development is interrupted, and the child retains characteristics of stages chronologically retarded from the child's age. Such patterns of delay in comparison with normal phonological developmental stages are described in detail in Ingram (1976) and Grunwell (1982). Delayed phonology itself can exhibit various patterns, including one where the child appears to have halted at a stage right across the board, the others where the delay is selective: certain early characteristics (or phonological processes, see Grunwell, 1982) are retained while other more advanced features do occur.

Deviant phonology is the term employed to characterise the data acquired from those children whose phonological development does not follow normal patterns. Very often these patient employ phonological substitution patterns that break constraints of phonological naturalness, or display of minimal contrastivity and maximum 'allophonic' variability, or major over-distribution of what have been termed 'favourite articulations' (see Grunwell, 1982, p 189), or of course combinations of these factors.

The most common acquired speech disorders are aphasia, dysarthria and apraxia. Being varieties of neurological acquired disorders, all may have considerable effect on the phonetic abilities of patients, and I will return to these below. However, there are other disorders that are difficult to classify in terms of developmental and acquired, and should be briefly noted. Among these are those derived from velo-pharyngeal (such as cleft palate patients), and disfluency (such as stuttering, cluttering and so on.). Accounts of the former type of disorders can be found in Morley (1970), Holdworth (1970) and Ross and Johnston (1972), and of the latter in Dalton and Hardcastle (1977) and Duckworth (forthcoming). Most (though not all, see Crystal, 1980, p 172ff) voice disorders would be classified as acquired (indeed, this is an area where hysterical causes are often encountered), and of course the phonetic effect of these is suprasegmental (see Greene, 1973, Luchsinger and Arnold, 1965, Moore, 1971, and Murphy, 1964); dysphonia, a voice disorder that is a variety of dysarthria, is described in Darley, Aronson and Brown (1975).

Returning to neurological disorders we can also address the debate about the usage of the labels 'phonetic' versus 'phonological' in clinical linguistic description. While all three of the disorders referred to above (aphasia, dysarthria and apraxia) may present surface outputs that show a phonological disorder (as pure phonetic effects are rare), it is also true that the origins of these disorders certainly appears to differ. Traditionally, dysarthria is viewed as a disorder at the phonetic level, because due to neuromuscular impairment, a patient is unable to access the correct motoric pathways to produce a particular sound or sounds. On the other hand, aphasia without dysarthria has been viewed as a disorder at the phono-logical level (affecting both segmental and suprasegmental aspects, and both system and structure; for the linguistic effects, see the section on language disorders below). Here, it is neuromuscular pathways that are impaired, but the higher conceptual organisation of the brain, causing a variety of problems, often concerned with sequencing and distribution of sound and so on.

A problem with this dichotomy arises when we examine apraxia of

speech (often occurring as part of the symptomology of Broca's aphasia). The problem here is unlike dysarthria in that there is no damage to neurological pathways (this can be shown in that patients are able to produce the affected articulations in other situations), nor is it the same as aphasia in that the patients are aware that what they attempted to say has gone wrong. Apraxia of speech, therefore, can be seen as an impairment at a level intermediate between conceptual planning and motor implementation: a cognitive motor speech control component. Code and Ball (forthcoming) discuss the particular problem of the classification of apraxia, and drawing on the work of Hewlett (1985) and of Tatham (1984) propose a three-way classification: phonological disorder (e.g. aphasia), cognitive phonetic disorder (e.g. apraxia) and articulatory phonetic disorder (e.g. dysarthria).

It is of course possible that this scheme could be extended to the other speech areas noted above. For example, whereas a cleft-palate patient would be classified as suffering from articulatory phonetic disorder, many fluency problems may indeed be of the cognitive phonetic variety. Developmental disorders might be divisible (as Hewlett suggests) into both phonological and cognitive phonetic types. At the moment, however, such a development in classification is probably premature, and more data is needed. Particularly with young children, it is extremely difficult to assess whether two problems with identical surface realisations have come from separate underlying causes; i.e. when a child says [t] for /s/ is this the result of a choice of a separate contrastive unit (an underlying /t/, or an attempt to make an underlying /s/ which gets distorted to [t]? The former would be a phonological error, the latter a cognitive one, or an impairment of the "learned skills of phonetic implementation" (Hewlett, 1985, p 161).

We have seen that the range of possible speech disorders is wide, and the classifications used are still a matter of debate. We turn later to how clinical linguistics has been applied to these problems, but I wish next to discuss some of the language disorders that confront the clinical linguist. 1.2 Language Disorders

As with speech disorders, language disorders can normally be divided into those associated with language development in children, and those acquired at a later stage. Also as noted above, classifications can be devised according to which component of language has been affected. In this latter form, clinical linguists may refer to syntactic or semantic disorders, and so on.

Crystal (1980) discusses in some detail the characteristics of those children who present with developmental language disorders. A large number of these can be categorised as mentally retarded or suffering from hearing loss but, perhaps more interesting for the clinical linguist, is the group of children outside these categories who yet have developmental language problems. Crystal notes that these children have been referred to as "developmentally dysphasic' (Crystal, 1980, p 161), although as a whole, this group of children is difficult to define adequately, except in terms of what they are not; i.e. they are not deaf, and display no psychiatric or neurological damage. Some of this group of patients do display problems of a psychological, social or educational kind. For example, some have memory

or perception problems, some have problems of rhythm (both in speech and in movement) or with play, some have highly disorganised patterns of behaviour (hyperactivity). All this suggests some kind of cognitive disorder, however, it is also the case that a large number of children with developmental language problems do not exhibit the characteristics noted above, and where the disorder is presumably restricted solely to the language component.

The various types of language disorder that can be encountered in this developmental category will become clearer below when I discuss the various assessment techniques that have been developed for these disorders. However, we can note briefly, that in terms of syntax, the commonest form of problem is a delay in the acquisition of the normal patterns of syntax for the language in question. As noted by Crystal, Fletcher and Garman (1976), research has suggested that syntax is normally acquired in a series of stages of ever-increasing complexity. With disordered syntax we usually find that a child has encountered a problem in progressing from one stage to another, or that progress is restricted to one aspect of the syntax (e.g. phrasal structures are progressing while clause patterns are still very limited). A common problem is encountered with recursion: the creation of multi-clause sentences, with difficulties encountered in using subordination and even coordination.

Developmental disorders may also occur at other linguistic levels, including morphology, lexis and semantics (see Crystal, 1982). Recently, clinical linguists have also begun to investigate disorders in other areas such as pragmatics (see Smith, forthcoming), and with bilingual children (see Miller, 1984, forthcoming, Taylor, 1986 a, b).

Acquired disorders at the language level are mostly associated with the results of brain damage, and central to these is aphasia (see Lesser, 1978, for a thorough review of the relations between linguistics and aphasia). The classification of aphasia types is a controversial area, and several competing systems exist. However, a definition of aphasia, which would probably gain general acceptance is that of Crystal (1980, p 140): "disorders of language... where the linguistic problems appear to be the result of organic pathology in specific centres of the brain ..., in which language is the primary or the only aspect of behaviour affected"3. As noted above, aphasia can affect speech as well as language, though in this section we will be considering the effects on language only.

Following Crystal (1980), we will here consider the main division of types of aphasia to be that between receptive and expressive. As these terms suggest, the receptive patient has problems in the comprehension of language (see the transcript illustrating this in Crystal, 1980, p 146), while the expressive patient has difficulties in the production of language. In this account I will concentrate on describing just some aspects of the language problems of expressive aphasics. fuller descriptions of the effects of the varying types of aphasia being available in Crystal (1980), Lesser (1978) and Luria (1970).

It should be noted that although the receptive-expressive dichotomy has had general acceptance, and is useful linguistic classification, it is not felt to be adequate by many researchers as, for example, considerable overlap appears to occur among the patients so classified in terms of their comprehension and production skills (Goodglass and Kaplan, 1972).

Among the language problems that can be encountered in the

expressive aphasic, we can find disorders at various levels: grammar, semantics, lexis and so on (also at the phonological level as noted above). In syntax, problems are often encountered in terms of the reduction of sentence length, a failure to complete utterances, omission of some function words and so forth (often termed agrammatism). At the semantic level unintelligible utterances are encountered, and these have been termed jargon aphasia. Also there are examples of circumlocution, that is talking around in a subject. Whether this is linked to a purely semantic disorder in that the patient is unable to conceptualise the topic is not always clear, however, for another very common problem at the lexical level is word finding difficulties. It may well be that circumlocution is a strategy adopted to overcome word finding difficulties. Some patients, however, exhibit a 'pure' word finding difficulty (anomia), using frequent pauses and repetitions while they search for the elusive item.

In this brief account of speech and language disorders I have concentrated on the more common disorders, and avoided detailed discussion on the many problems of diagnosis and description that arise (particularly in the area of neurological impairment). It is hoped, however, that sufficient background information has been provided to enable the reader to appreciate the main features of disordered speech and language, that is to say the area to which clinical linguistics actually applies. 2. The Application of Linguistics in the Clinic

In this section I wish to outline some of the more important contributions that

linguistics (including phonetics) has made to the study of disorders of speech and language. I will examine different levels of linguistic analysis in turn. 21. Phonetics

As noted above, phonetics has long been an essential component in the training of speech pathologists. The aspects of phonetics most necessary for the clinical situation are those concerned with phonetic description (i.e. applied phonetics), and it is in this area that clinical phonetics has made its contribution. The description of speech events, in readily accessible form for analysis, requires a form of transcription, that is a physical representation on paper or similar. Transcriptions, however, can be of two basic types: impressionistic or instrumental. In this section I wish to examine both these types, and look at developments aimed specifically at the speech pathologist: that is to say advances in clinical phonetics.

Impressionistic transcription relies on the abilities of a trained transcriber to capture speech events on paper through the use of a symbol system, in modern phonetics this is usually the International Phonetic Alphabet, or the variant of it employed in the United States. We need not discuss here the rationale behind the development and use of this alphabet, nor the problems of accuracy involved in what is essentially a subjective exercise. What does need to be remembered, however, is the fact that in the clinical situation, this sort of transcription may be all that is practicable to undertake. The IPA alphabet, if properly taught, can, therefore, be an extremely useful (if not essential tool) for the clinician wishing to analyse patients with speech

problems. There are two points that need exploring here, though. Firstly, the way in which the alphabet is used to transcribe, and secondly the problem of non-normal speech sounds.

Impressionistic transcription can be used to describe different levels of abstraction. A 'narrow' or strictly phonetic transcription aims to capture in symbol form the maximum of phonetic information that the transcriber is able to perceive, and for which he has symbols. A 'broad' transcription may be only phonemic, and includes the minimum of redundant information-precise phonetic detail being recoverable by rule. The use of a transcription implies that some kind of analysis of the phonetic facts has taken place: that the lect being transcribed has been subject to a phonemic analysis whereby the redundant phonetic detail can be recovered.

These points are important when examining the use of impressionistic transcription in speech pathology. By definition, a patient presenting with a speech disorder cannot be using (or using acceptably) a previously analysed phonemic system. Therefore, a strictly phonemic transcription of the speech is not possible, or if attempted will be misleading. Carney (9179) pointed to this problem: "There are however inherent dangers in using phonetic data which have been over-cooked by abstraction" (p 123).

Carney illustrates some of these dangers. The major problem involves 'distortions' of adult target phonemes, or 'substitutions' plus distortions. If an English child replaces target /k/ with [t], then phonemicising this as /t/ presents no problem. If however /k/ is replaced by [th], then using /t/ to show this will obscure what might well be important information about this change, information that might be important for treatment as well as for analysis.

If clinical phoneticians have stressed the importance of narrow phonetic transcriptions, what have they provided for the clinician to undertake the task with? The IPA alphabet, and other transcriptions based on normal speech, does not contain symbols for some of the sounds encountered in the clinic. Because of this a major attempt to expand symbolisation to cope with disordered speech was made by a group of British phoneticians and speech pathologists recently. This group was known as the Phonetic Representation of Disordered Speech Working Party, and was first convened in 1979. Their final report appeared in 1983. The aim of the group was to provide symbols additional to the IPA alphabet for those segmental and suprasegmental aspects of non-normal speech that were not already covered. For all other aspects, it was recommended that clinicians use the IPA alphabet. Among the areas where added symbolisation was felt to be needed were "lack of aspiration; nasal friction; weak, strong, silent and very short articulations; dental friction ...; a 'not sure' convention and many others" (PRDS Working Party, 1980, p 261). A number of unusual places of articulation are included, such as reverse labio-dental, bi-dental, and some unusual manners of articulation such as percussive.

The PRDS symbols are illustrated in the appendix to this article, and it was agreed among clinical phoneticians that they represent a considerable advance in the impressionistic transcription of disordered speech. For a fuller account of their development see PRDS Working Party (1983), and for a critical appraisal see Ball (forthcoming b).

The other area of phonetic description referred to above is that of instrumental phonetics. Phoneticians have been interested in experimental phonetic work since the end of the last century (see the review of x-ray techniques in Ball, 1984), and this work has been directed at articulatory,

acoustic and auditory phonetics. Whereas early work was mostly directed at the investigation of normal speech, the application of these techniques to clinical populations has been undertaken for a considerable time, and is reviewed fully in Code and Ball (1984). A briefer account of the instrumentation that has been used to examine the various aspects of speech production, transmission and reception is given in Ball (forthcoming b), but I list here the most important of these techniques.

In articulatory phonetic studies, suprasegmental aspects of speech can be investigated by the various types of laryngograph, segmental aspects by palatography. X-radiography can give a very good picture of articulation, and when coupled with video or cine techniques, clearly displays the dynamic aspects of speech production. Electromyography can be used to investigate muscular activity during speech. Aerometry investigates air-flow in and out of the oral and nasal cavities.

In acoustic studies the main instrument has been the sound spectrograph, now available in versions able to give real-time analyses. Other instruments, such as the Visipitch™, have been developed specifically to investigate prosodic features. Auditory phonetic studies concentrating on perception have used techniques such as delayed auditory feedback, dichotic listening and time-variated speech (these last three being developed mainly by clinical Phoneticians).

With some exceptions, most of these techniques have been applied to clinical populations at a stage after their general use with normal speakers. However, some of them were developed specifically by clinical phoneticians. Apart from those noted above, a recent development has been xeroradiography-electrolaryngography (XEL), described in Ball (1984, forthcoming b). This technique is a combination of low-dose x-radiography and an electrolaryngograph. This technique is especially useful for the investigation of voice disorders, and has been developed to be used easily in the clinical situation. 2.2 Phonology

In the field of clinical phonology there have been considerable advances in the last ten years or so. The traditional method of analysing pronunciation disorders was the articulation test, such as the E.A.T. (Anthony, Bogle, Ingram and Mclsaac, 1971) or the Goldman-Fristoe (Goldman and Fristoe, 1972). There are many reasons, however, why this traditional approach proved unsatisfactory, and these are discussed in length in, for example, Muller, Munro and Code (1981) and Grunwell (1982).

A number of theoretical phonological approaches have been applied to clinical data (distinctive feature theory, generative phonology, see discussion in Grunwell, 1982), but recently the main approach adopted has been that of natural phonology, as outlined in Stampe (1969, 1979), and as applied to clinical data in Ingram (1976, 1981) and in Grunwell (1977,1982). Natural phonology posits the existence of a set of natural phonological processes that operate within the sound systems of languages (e.g. the change from fricative to stop is 'natural', whereas the converse is not). Applied to phonological acquisition, it is seen how children use a set of these processes to simplify the target phonology, but as they acquire the sound system these processes are dropped in a particular order. The

processes are universal, but naturally each language retains different combinations of them.

In terms of clinical analysis, disordered speech can be examined to see which of these natural processes a patient retains. Not only does a process analysis provide a very neat and economical account of the relationship between the patient's phonology and that of the target, it also helps the clinical phonologist classify the patient in terms of delayed acquisition or, where non-natural processes occur, in terms of deviant phonology.

Naturally, other forms of analysis may also be of help, particularly in terms of examining the phonotactic possibilities of a patient, or in comparing vowel realisations. It is true to say, therefore, that many recent phonological assessments produced by clinical phonologists have adopted a polysystemic approach. For example, Crystal's (1982) Profile of Phonology (PROPH) is superficially an exercise in contrastive analysis, but contains extra sections, including one based on processes. The recent major advance in phonological assessment is that of Grunwell (1985), Phonological Assessment of Child Speech (PACS), which also contains a variety of approaches, but is perhaps more firmly based within the process approach. Other recent works of interest in this area are Elbert and Gierut (1986), Crary (1982) and Stoel-Gammon and Dunn (1985). These, and other works, are reviewed in Grunwell (1987).

Prosodic aspects of disordered phonology have not received a great deal of attention from clinical phonologists. Whether this is because disorders in this area are felt to be less common (though they are far from being uncommon), or whether description and analysis of such features is felt to be too difficult is unclear. The one important advance in this field is the work of Crystal (1982) in his development of the Prosodic Profile (PROP). Crystal notes that this profile allows the clinician to note down aspects of the prosodic features of a patient's speech, that is "the linguistic use of pitch, loudness, speed of speech, pause and rhythm" (p 114). He makes clear that "PROP is not intended for the description of phonetic abnormalities in the use of these variables" (p 114). Features such as voice quality do not find a place in this profile, as they do not affect the phonological characteristics of the patient's speech. 2.3 Grammar

In this and the following section on semantics, I have space only to examine one approach that clinical linguistics has taken: that of assessment, and in particular profiling. I noted above, in the discussion on phonology, that the notion of profiling has been used in this sphere, but it originated in the study of grammar, and in particular in the work of Crystal, FIetcher and Garman (1976).

Crystal (1982) defines a linguistic profile as "a principled description of just those features of a person's (or group's) use of language which will enable him to be identified for a specific purpose" (p 1). This is to be distinguished from language tests, for example, whereas tests provide a final score as a measure of a patient's abilities, profiles attempt a comprehensive picture of those aspects that a patient has mastered in comparison with those he has not. Crystal outlines two main goals for a linguistic profile:

(a) to identify the linguistic level P has achieved, in relation to the level he should be achieving;

(b) to suggest a remedial path, which will take him from where he is, to where he ought to be. [P=patient/pupil (Crystal, 1982, p 2)].

In terms of clinical application, a profile has to be short enough to display a

profile clearly, yet comprehensive enough to provide the information necessary to meet the goals noted above.

The first such profile was the Language Assessment, Remediation and Screening Procedure (LARSP), first described in Crystal, Fletcher and Garman (1976, revised 1981), summarised in Crystal (1982). The use of LARSP is described in Crystal (1979), and a critical evaluation is found in Connolly (1984, forthcoming).

LARSP is a grammatical profile designed for English (taking grammar here in its morphosyntactic sense) that requires as an input a representative sample of a patient's language (for example the transcribed version of half an hour's spontaneous and prompted speech). This is then analysed at various levels: sentence type (statement, question, command); clause level (subject-verb-object, subject-verb-adverbial, etc); phrase level (determiner-noun, auxiliary-auxiliary, etc); word level (inflectional morphology only). The LARSP (see appendix) is divided vertically into these levels of analysis. The method of grading the patient's language is shown by the horizontal divisions on the chart. These are seven stages that correspond to stages of normal syntactic development in the child. By utilising these stages as the grading of LARSP, the clinician is immediately aware of what level of syntactic development the patient has reached, and by having age ranges attached to these stages can immediately compare where the patient is with where the patient should be. This in turn has implications for remediation. If you know where a patient is in comparison with where they should be, you know which linguistic structures must be introduced to the patient, and further you know the order in which they should be introduced.

LARSP has proved popular with clinical linguists, so much so that versions have been prepared for several other languages (see review in Ball, forthcoming a). Apart from the grammatical aspects of this profile, it should be noted that an attempt has been made to incorporate some assessment of discourse characteristics (such as ellipsis). However, as Connolly (forthcoming) notes, areas such as discourse analysis, pragmatics, sociolinguistics and so forth have so far not received the amount of attention from clinical linguists that has been given to the more 'core' areas of linguistic research. 2.4. Semantics

Profiles have also been provided for semantics. This is, however, a very wide field, and the limitation of the profiles provided by Crystal (1982) is recognised: "any attempt at a semantic profile chart, given our limited theoretical and empirical knowledge of the way linguistic meaning is structured and acquired, is full of major pitfalls" (p 139). However, he also notes that semantic problems are significant in the clinical situation, and "some systematic way of focussing ... attention on the nature of these problems is urgently needed" (p 139).

Crystal, recognising the width of the field, provides two profiles which can be used to examine two areas of semantics where perhaps problems occur most often: the area of lexical semantics and that of grammatical semantics. Therefore Crystal's Profile in Semantics (PRISM) appears in a PRISM-L version, and a PRISM-G version.

AS with LARSP, PRISM requires as input a sample of the patient's speech (indeed the same sample could provide an input for all Crystal's profiles). With PRISM-L this is analysed into lexemes which in turn are separated into the categories of major lexeme (roughly equivalent to content and function words). Major lexemes are then categorised into fields (61, for example clothing, recreation, etc ), which in turn are subcategorised into a set of subfields. Minor lexemes are also categorised (relational, social, avoidance) and subcategorised (for example, response, connective).

The completion of the forms gives then an overview of the patient's lexical abilities, but further tables are provided to show where word meanings are over- or under-extended, or used incorrectly in adult terms. Also provided is space to show various paradigmatic or syntagmatic relationships (e.g. synonymy,idioms, etc).

PRISM-G is similar to LARSP in its assessment procedures, but whereas the latter records syntactic relationships in the sentence, PRISM-G records semantic ones. Instead of syntactic terms such as subject-verb-object, PRISM-G employs semantic terms such as actor-dynamic-goal. The elements used divide into two main types: functions and specifications. Functions are the semantic equivalents of the clause level units of a syntactic analysis. The elements employed in PRISM-G are: actor, experiencer, dynamic, static, goal, locative and temporal (see Crystal, 1982, p 173). Other approaches recognise further functions such as instrumental, benefactive, comitative, but these are all grouped together under an umbrella category of 'other'. Additionally, eight types of semantic relationship are recognised holding between clauses in complex sentences: addition, reformulation, contrast, temporal, cause, location, condition, purpose, and an 'other' category.

Crystal explains his category of 'specifications' as follows: when functions "consist of more than one word, the semantically most important item is seen as being specified in various ways, and the specifications are classified separately" (p 173). The basic set of specifications used in PRISM-G are: scope, attribute, definiteness, possessive, quantity, plus an 'other' category (see Crystal, 1982, p 173).

To exemplify the use of this profile we can illustrate the two level PRISM-G analysis of the following sentence, provided by Crystal (1982, p 184): two men turned the wheel slowly; functions - actor-dynamic-goal-other; specification - quantity (actor), definiteness (goal).

The PRISM-G form is also divided into stages of development, though Crystal notes that "in the absence of empirical research they cannot be clearly related to ages" (p 172). Nevertheless, the value of such a profile for planning remediation is clear; again, the clinician will know where the patient is, and how to advance their abilities in the area of 'grammatical semantics'.

3. Future Developments In Clinical Linguistics In this final section I wish to examine briefly just four areas where clinical

linguistic research is just beginning to develop. The first of these areas is the use of computers in assessment.

The most detailed attempt to date to apply computing techniques to assessment of speech and language disorders is found in Long (9187). This article describes a software package designed to be used with the profiles outlined in Crystal (1982), a phonological process analysis along the lines suggested by Grunwell (1982), and various other language assessments. Long points out that the major drawback with profiling, as opposed to other clinical assessment procedures, is the time it takes to learn the analytic framework and to undertake the analysis itself. Computerised profiling is an attempt to alleviate both these problems: learnability and analysing the data. He notes that the software that he has designed guides the user step-by-step through the profiling process, provides analytical support by offering tentative" analyses, and contains 'help files' to remind the user of procedural details. The software allows virtually all the sections of each profile to be completed (though the PROPH program does not cover the entire profile as described by Crystal, 1982, and only PRISM-L is included in the semantic section). However, Long insists that this software is not a substitute for linguistic knowledge or clinical skill, but should be seen as a tool for teaching the profiling method and for constructing profiles within a more clinically practicable time-span, and for improving the interpretation of results.

The development of speech recognition equipment, and text reading machines may eventually lead to further reduction in the time clinicians spend in transcribing recordings and entering text into such programs as that outlined by Long, but this is indeed a development of the future.

Another development just beginning in clinical linguistics is the examination of the links that exist between different levels of linguistic analysis, and the importance this has for the interpretation of clinical data. The first impetus to such a study is given in Crystal (1987). Crystal makes the point that clinical linguistics has established the importance of levels in analysis and treatment (syntax, Phonology, etc), but that little more than lip-service has been paid to the notion that interaction between levels may take place.

As an example of the interactions that may occur, Crystal uses clinical data that show interactions between various levels. These include syntax and prosodic phonology: as the patient attempted more advanced syntactic structures, his fluency decreased. Interactions between segmental phonology and syntax, syntax and semantics, and discourse and other levels are also discussed. I have not the space here to elaborate Crystal's argument or to include all his examples, but he clearly demonstrates that interaction between linguistic levels is an important aspect of language disorders, and an area where clinical linguistics needs to develop further.

As mentioned above, clinical linguistics is also beginning to move out from the 'core' linguistic areas of syntax, semantics and phonology to incorporate areas such as pragmatics and psycholinguistics. A major contribution to the former area is found in Smith (forthcoming). She points out that when attention is focussed on the forms of language rather than upon content and use, there is a tendency to disregard context in what is

taught and to steer the patient through a curriculum in a manner inducing passivity. To avoid this, clinicians could focus on the personal and communicative needs of patients, and communicative strategies taught as well as 'correct' linguistic forms. Her contribution contains a detailed review of the pragmatics literature and its relevance to clinical situations, and clearly points the way for developments in this area in the future.

The development of a 'clinical psycholinguistics' is first discussed in Crystal (1984, chapter 4). In this chapter, Crystal notes a definition of psycholinguistics as "study of the processes governing linguistic behaviour" (p 95), and of applied psycholinguistics as "study of the problems in learning and using language in the light of these processes" (p 95). It is quite straightforward therefore to extend these definitions to include clinical psycholinguistics: "study of breakdown in man's linguistic behaviour, and of the principles governing this breakdown..." (p 96). However, as Crystal points out, there exists very little literature in this area. The role of the subject could lie in attempting explanations of language disorders that can call on a wider explanatory power than can a purely linguistic account. For example, the explanation of a patient's handicap may lie wholly or partly outside linguistics: disordered short-term memory, emotional disturbance and so forth. What Crystal is suggesting, therefore, is that whereas clinical linguistics can describe disorders, it is clinical psycholinguistics that attempts to explain them. Once again, this is an area where more work could provide exciting results.

Finally, I would like to turn very briefly to the contribution clinical linguistics can make to general linguistic theory. Some of the papers in Ball (forthcoming c) make a contribution to this growing area of interest, but I would like to refer here only to Grodzinsky (forthcoming). He points out that modern linguists are interested in studying the grammatical principles that are mentally represented for humans, i.e. the study of grammatical systems is now the study of psychological systems. Clinical linguists have generally, as we have seen, approached disordered language from a different angle, and in his chapter, Grodzinsky attempts to reconcile these two approaches. His particular area of interest is agrammatism, and his particular theoretical framework is government and binding theory (Chomsky, 1981). Using data from agrammatic patients, Grodzinsky resolves a problem in modem grammatical theory as to the status of the passive. He concludes that the interaction between linguistic theory and clinical linguistics is indeed bidirectional: on the one hand theories are used as descriptive frameworks of language deficits, on the other, breakdown patterns can be used to motivate constraints on theories of grammatical representation. As he notes, he has given one such; many others are probably waiting out there to be discovered.

Acknowledgment: I would like to thank Chris Code for reading an earlier version of this article. Any faults remaining are my sole responsibility. Notes 1. It has always been a matter of debate as to whether phonetics is

independent of, or subsumed in, the term 'linguistics'. Within the clinical application of language science, it seems best to take the latter view, particularly as it is often difficult to separate satisfactorily 'phonetic' and 'phonological' disorders (see Hewlett, 1985, Ball, forthcoming b, Code an

Ball, forthcoming, and discussion below). In this context, 'speech disorders' (as opposed to language disorders) in this article can be taken to cover both phonetic and phonological possibilities.

2. The division of this section into 'speech disorders' and 'language disorders' is not intended to suggest that this is a clearly accepted clinical separation. Indeed, some disorders (such as aphasia) may well have implications in both areas. Crystal (1980) rightly points out that there are several ways in which divisions of disorders could be made: production vs. reception, organic vs. functional, speech vs. language, deviance vs. delay, normal vs. abnormal. All these have both advantages and disadvantages (see Crystal, 1980, p 122ff), but the present division has been adopted as fitting in best to the linguistic basis of this account.

3. Crystal (1980) notes that apart from aphasia, there is another group of language disorders originating in the central nervous system. These he terms psychopathological disorders, stating that "the linguistic problem is plainly a reflex of an underlying psychological disturbance of unclear etiology" (p 140).

References Anthony, A., Bogle, D. , Ingram, T.T.S. and Mclsaac, M.W. (1971) Edinburgh

Articulation Test. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. Ball, M.J. (1984), X-ray techniques. In Code, C. and Ball, M.J. (Eds), Experimental

Clinical Phonetics. London: Croom Helm. Ball, M.J. (forthcoming a), LARSP to LLARSP: the design of a grammatical profile for

Welsh. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics. Ball, M.J. (forthcoming b), The contribution of speech pathology to the

development of phonetic description. In Ball, M.J. (Ed), Theoretical Linguistics and Disordered Language. London: Croom Helm.

Ball, M.J. (Ed) (forthcoming c), Theoretical Linguistics and Disordered Language. London: Croom Helm.

Ball, M.J. and Kent, R.D. (1987), Editorial. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 1,1-5. Carney, E. (1979), Inappropriate abstraction in speech-assessment procedures.

British journal of Disorders of Communication, 14, 123-35. Chomsky, N. (1981), Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Code, C. and Bail, M.J. (Eds) (1984), Experimental Clinical Phonetics. London: Croom

Helm. Code, C. and Ball, M.J. (forthcoming), Apraxia of speech: the case for a cognitive

phonetics. In Ball, M.J. (Ed), Theoretical Linguistics and Disordered Language. London: Croom Helm.

Connolly, J. (1984), A commentary on the LARSP procedure. British Journal of Disorders of Communication, 19, 63-71.

Connolly, J. (forthcoming), Theoretical linguistics and clinical assessment. In Ball, M.J. (Ed), Theoretical Linguistics and Disordered Language. London: Croom Helm.

Crary, M. (Ed)(1982), Phonological Intervention: concepts and procedures. San Diego: College Hill.

Crystal, D. (1972), The case for linguistics: a prognosis. British Journal of Disorders of Communication,?, 3-16.

Crystal, D. (1979), Working with LARSP. London: Arnold. Crystal, D. (1980.) An Introduction to Language Pathology. London: Arnold.

Crystal, D. (1981), Clinical Linguistics. Vienna: Springer. Crystal, D. (1982), Profiling Linguistic Disability. London: Arnold. Crystal, D. (1984), Linguistic Encounters with Language Handicap. Oxford:

Blackwell. Crystal, D. (1987), Towards a 'bucket' theory of language disability: taking account

of interaction between linguistic levels. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 1, 6-22.

Crystal, D., Fletcher, P. and Garman, M. (1976), The Grammatical Analysis of Language Disability. London: Arnold.

Crystal, D., Fletcher, P. and Garman, M. (1981), The Grammatical Analysis of Language Disability. London: Arnold. Revised edition.

Dalton, P. and Hardcastle, W.J. (1977), Disorders of Fluency. London: Arnold. Darley, F.L, Aronson, A.E. and Brown, J.R. (1975), Motor Speech Disorders.

Philadelphia: Saunders. Duckworth, M. (forthcoming),Stuttering and linguistics. In Ball, M.J. (Ed),

Theoretical Linguistics and Disordered Language. London: Croom Helm. Elbert, M. and Gierut, J. (1986), Handbook of Clinical Phonology. London: Taylor and

Francis. Goldman, R. and Fristoe, M. (1972), Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation.

Minnesota: AGS Inc. Goodglass, H. and Kaplan, E. (1972), The Assessment of Aphasia and Related

Disorders. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger. Greene, M.C.L. (1973), The Voice and its Disorders. London: Pitman (2nd Ed). Grodzinsky, Y. (forthcoming), Unifying the various language related sciences:

aphasic syndromes and grammatical theory. In Ball, M.J. (ED), Theoretical Linguistics and Disordered Language. London: Croom Helm.

Grunwell, P. (1977), The Analysis of Phonological Disability in Children. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Reading.

Grunwell, P. (1981), The Nature of Phonological Disability in Children. London: Academic Press.

Grunwell, P. (1982), Clinical Phonology. London: Croom Helm. Grunwell, P. (1985), Phonological Assessment of Child Speech. Windsor: NFER

Nelson. Grunwell, P. (1987), Evaluation and explanation of developmental phonological

disorders. Read at First International Symposium on Specific Speech and Language Disorders in Children, University of Reading.

Hewlett, N. (1985), Phonological versus phonetic disorders: some suggested modifications to the current use of the distinction. British Journal of Disorders of Communication, 20,155-64.

Holdsworth, W.G. (1970), Cleft Lip and Palate. London: Heinemann. Ingram, D. (1976), Phonological Disability in Children. London: Arnold. Ingram, D. (1981), Procedures for the Phonological Analysis of Children's Language.

Baltimore: University Park Press. Lesser, R. (1978). Linguistic Investigations of Aphasia. London: Arnold. Long, S.H. (1987), 'Computerized profiling' of clinical language samples. Clinical

Linguistics and Phonetics, 1 Luchsinger, R. and Arnold, G.E. (1965), Voice-Speech-Language. London:

Constable. Luria, A.R. (1970), Traumatic Aphasia. The Hague: Mouton. Müller, D., Munro, S. and Code, C. (1981), Language Assissment for Hemediation.

London: Croom Helm. PRDS Working Party (1980), Progress report. British Journal of Disorders of

Communication, 15,215-20. PRDS Working Party (1983), The Phonetic Representation of Disordered Speech.

London: The King's Fund. Miller, N. (Ed) (1984), Bilingualism and Language Disability. London: Croom Helm. Miller, N. (forthcoming), Language dominance in bilingual children: problems for

assessment and remediation. In Ball, M.J. (Ed), Theoretical Linguistics and Disordered Language. London: Croom Helm.

Moore, G.P. (1971), Organic Voice Disorders. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Morley, M.E. (1970), Cleft Palate and Speech . London: Churchill Living-stone, 7th

Ed. Murphy, A. (1964), Functional Voice Disorders. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Ross, R.B. and Johnston, M.C. (1972) Cleft Lip and Palate. Baltimore: Williams and

Wilkins. Shriberg, L and Kent. R.D, (1982), Clinical Phonetics. San Diego: College Hill. Smith, R. (forthcoming), Pragmatics and speech pathology. In Ball, M.J. (Ed),

Theoretical Linguistics and Disordered Language . London: Croom Helm. Stampe, D. (1969), The acquisition of phonetic representation. Papers from Vth

Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society, 443-54. Stampe, D. (1979), A Dissertation on Natural Phonology. Edited by I. Hankamer.

New York: Garland. Stoel-Gammon, C. and Dunn, C. (1985), Normal and Disordered Phonology in

Children. Baltimore: University Park Press. Taylor. 0. (1986a), Nature of Communication Disorders in Culturally and

Linguistically Diverse Populations. San Diego: College Hill. Taylor, 0. (1986b), Treatment of Communication Disorders in Culturally and

Linguistically Diverse Populations. San Diego: College Hill. Tatham, M.A.A. (1984), Towards a cognitive phonetics. Journal of Phonetics, 12,

37-47.

THE (APPLIED) LINGUIST'S CONCERN IN MULTILINGUALISM Melanie Mikes University of Novl Sad Yugoslavia

During the past fourteen years I have been discussing and analysing many issues

in multilingualism, but I was not quite sure that I was always doing the job a linguist should do. I did most of my investigations because I was interested in their results, and because I believed they might be of some interest for the practice and theory of multilingualism, having in mind, first of all, the multilingual setting of Vojvodina (a province in the north-east of Yugoslavia), a European case of language contacts (Mikes, forthcoming).

In this paper, by summarizing and pointing to some results of investigations in Yugoslavia, I shall try to answer the question: what is the (applied) linguist's concern in multilingualism ? More precisely, I intend to circumscribe the field where the research of a linguist is indispensable. Instead of citing a motto, I am pointing to a counter-illustration for the answer I am looking for, a paper entitled "Who wants to change what and why -conflicting paradigms in minority education research" by Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (1986). In this interesting and informative paper operating with reliable data, the author's main concern is the affirmation of certain ideological principles. It goes without saying that I do not object to her fighting for human rights, but I believe that a sociolinguistic paper is not the proper place for it.

The complexity of multilingual issues is well-known. If reduced to the framework of sociolinguistics, each issue may be approached from the linguistic, societal or psychological standpoints, or from all of them at the same time. The researchers who approach a multilingual issue from one of the three mentioned standpoints must be acquainted with the other two standpoints. This is a sine qua non condition for the research work in this field. Whether the researchers of multilingualism have in mind the application of the results of their investigations or not, a large field of social practice, comprising, among others, law, education and language planning, may use or misuse them. Therefore the researchers have to find out what happens when the results of their investigations have been applied. Even earlier, at the beginning and in the course of their work they must show an interest in what is going on in the practice their investigations are intended for, and then continue their work by integrating this feedback into their approach.

If the approach is denoted by symbol A and the social practice by symbol B, the interaction between theory and practice in multilingual research may be presented graphically as in figure 1:

figure 1 If A stands for linguistic approach - where " linguistic" means "sociolinguistic" in

the sense Dell Hymes defines linguistic as sociolinguistics ( Hymes , 1974 ) - and B for education , the curves starting with A, A1, A2, etc. indicate the dynamics of the investigations in early multilingual communication, the investigations of learning the language(s) of the multilingual environment, and other similar investigations where the (applied) linguists may pay attention to the issues of the speakers' communicative competence and speech activity (1.).

The same curves may indicate the interaction between the speech activities in multilingual settings and the contacts of languages as code systems. In this kind of investigation the diachronic dimension has to be included, too, but in order to remain inside the research field of applied linguistics the diachronic dimension should be reduced to its explanatory function of the present phenomena. Supposing that B stands for language planning, the above mentioned curves indicate the course of investigations in the standardisation of languages in multilingual settings, the investigations of divergencies between languages in contact, and other similar investigations (2).

If A stands for sociolinguistic approach - where "sociolinguistic" is associated with the sociology of language, and is used in the sense Fishman defines sociolinguistics ( Fishman, 1972 ) - and B for education, the curves starting with A, A1, A2, etc. and ending with B, B1, B2, etc. indicate investigations of the patterns of language use by bilingual pupils, comprising both their inter- and infra-group communication, the investigations of the congruence and incongruity between the types of language instruction policies , the children's microenvironment and the institutional factors in the multilingual community, and other similar research work where

the societal aspects of language use are in the focus (3). When B stands for a complex of social practice comprising language instruction

and language planning policy, as well as the legal provisions for minority language rights, the curves starting with A, A1, A2, etc. and ending with B, B1, B2, etc. represent investigations of the interactions between theory and practice, which may lead to setting up models or typologies (4).

All the above mentioned kinds of investigations concerning the Yugoslav context have been mentioned in a survey of types and methods of multilingual research in Yugoslavia ( Bugarski, Mikes, 1985 ). Although its classification is based on criteria which differ from those in this paper, the reader interested in this kind of information may find it there. In the present paper the Yugoslav context only presents a source of practical examples.

1. In this section I am going to illustrate the functioning of the multiple

interaction between theory and practice presented in Figure 1 with examples taken from my own experience.

The facts that I have lived in a multilingual micro- and macroenvironment, that I became bilingual (German-Serbocroat) in the third year of my life, that at the university I got a linguistic education which also included diachronic studies in language contacts, have been decisive for my interest in the acquisition of two languages ( Serbocroat and Hungarian ) in early childhood. I started this kind of research work in multilingualism before becoming a professional researcher. I did not enter into the discussions concerning the advantages and disadvantages of early bilingualism. My opinion has always been that early bilingualism is a phenomenon whose existence cannot be denied in multilingual settings. The only thing which matters is to shed more light on this phenomenon. So the speech activities of bilingual children have to be analysed.

Jakobson's theory of phonological oppositions (Jakobson,1940-1942), Martinet's assumption that the more integrated phonemes are acquired before the less integrated ones (Martinet,1955) and Weinreich's classical work on languages in contact (Weinreich, 1953) where at my point A. Unlike the consonants, the vowels of the Hungarian language differ very much from those of the Serbocroat language. This is why the interference between these two vowel systems interested me especially. The results of my analysis have shown that the phenomena of interference are transitory and minor in quantity when compared to the quantity of vowel changes in child language, in general (Mikes,1974). As to the interference between the two language systems, the same statement of its temporary character is valid for the acquisition of grammatical categories by early bilinguals. But these findings also pointed to the impact of the microenvironment on the more or less balanced acquisition of the two languages ( Mikes, Vlahovic, 1967).

So my point A1 was enlarged by some psycho- and sociolinguistic aspects. In order to check the A1 presuppositions, the point B, primarily reduced to one type of microenvironment and to the first three years of life, had to be changed into B1, comprising a larger scale of Hungarian-Serbocroat Bilingualism, and including the kindergarten age, too (Mikes, 1982). When checked at point B1, the results of my investigations have shown that this issue requires a sociolinguistically more sophisticated approach, which may be represented by point A2. This kind of investigation, when checked at point B2, shows the importance of the role the family and school have in developing individual bilingualism. For instance, an

investigation has been concerned with children brought up in ethno-linguistically mixed families in Vojvodina (Mikes, 1980-1981). One parent of about one tenth of all pupils attending schools in this region is Hungarian, Slovak, Rumanian or Ruthenian, the other belonging to one of the Serbocroat speaking nations of Yugoslavia. According to the constitution of the Socialist Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, five languages -Serbocroat, Hungarian, Slovak, Rumanian and Ruthenian - enjoy equal rights, and primary and secondary education is available to all of them. It is up to parents to choose the language they want their children to be educated in. However, they may choose only one of the five languages, and no combination of two languages of instruction is possible. This fact causes dilemmas when ethnolinguistically mixed families are concerned. By viewing bilingualism in correlation with the interaction of micro- and macro-environmental factors, and by pointing to the possibility of some negative effects, I have not yet done my job of a linguist, but I have got some feedback to enrich my theoretical approach, which may be presented by point A3, including parameters, such as children's knowledge of L2 before attending lessons at school, structural differences between pupils' L1 and the ethnolinguistic structure of the environment (Mikes, 1986).

2. Not every category of my investigations in multilingualism can serve as an

illustration for the multiple interaction between theory and practice, graphically presented in Figure 1. Some of them are examples of only one segment of this multiple interaction.

For instance, I have only sketched the issues of the standardisation of languages in Vojvodina, presenting a diachronic survey of their standardisation, too, and paying special attention to the norming of terminology in sociopolitical and juridical practice ( Mikes, 1985 ).

However, descriptions of differences between the regional variants of Hungarian, Slovak and Rumanian and their standard variants used in Hungary, Rumania and Slovakia have already their place on some of the curves starting with A, A1 or A2 and ending with B, B1 or B2 (Mikes, Seli, Medesi, 1985; Magdu, 1980; Dudok, 1980). While the language norming in the corresponding countries, the Ruthenian standard language has been developing in Yugoslavia. Ruthenian belongs to the Slavic languages, but there is no unanimity among the linguists when discussing its origin. Elements of languages which have been in contact with Ruthenian can be found in its structure, but there is no doubt that Serbocroat has the strongest influence nowadays (Medesi, 1985).

In the multilingual communities of Yugoslavia Serbocroat is often acquired and used as a second language. Having in mind its polycentric standardisation, one of the important issues is: Which standard of Serbocroat should be taught to non-native speakers of Serbocroat ? When choosing such a standard one has to keep in mind the nature of linguistic features, the functional styles, the formal and informal use of language, the scope and frequency of the polarisation of variants and the length of their occurrence (Vasic, 1986).

3. Although a linguist by formation and by profession, I have devoted a lot of

time to the investigations in the sociology of language. The multilingual settings in Yugoslavia have been offering plenty of research material for which our sociologists have not shown much interest. However, the interest

in issues in the sociology of language has been growing among Yugoslav applied linguists, multilingualism being one of their favourite subjects. I would like to refer to the results presented at the conference " Language and Society " ( Belgrade, 1975 ), "Language Contacts in Yugoslavia" (Ohrid, 1982) "Bilingualism: Individual and Societal Issues" (Ljubljana, 1984), and those in the sections on multilingualism at the four congresses of the Association of Yugoslav Societies of Applied Linguistics ( Belgrade,1977 ; Zagreb, 1980 ; Sarajevo, 1983 and Herceg-Novi, 1986).

The investigations of this kind have been primarily concerned with looking for patterns of Hungarian-Serbocroat, Hungarian-Slovenian, Slovak-Serbocroat, Rumanian-Serbocroat and Ruthenian-Serbocroat bilin-gualism of secondary school pupils. From the linguist's point of view, these investigations represent only the framework for a further analysis of the speech material to be obtained by interviewing and testing these pupils. The way on the curve starting with point A and ending with point B has been traversed, but the course of the multiple interaction between theory and practice has to be continued. From the standpoint of a sociologist of language, the course of the multiple interaction between theory and practice has been continued, resulting in typologies (which are going to be presented in section 4). These typologies contributed to a more sophisticated theoretical approach to the investigations of patterns of language use, which may be denoted as point A1.

On the way between point A and point B, three outlines for the investigation of bilingualism in secondary school pupils have been made, the basis criteria being: nationality (N), social environment (SE) and language (L). These outlines are presented in Figure 2.

constants

variables

OUTLINE 1 OUTLINE 2 OUTLINE 3

N L

SE

SE and L SE and N N and L

figure 2 The first outline provides the framework for analysing the pupils attitude

towards the use of L1 and L2. The second outline may be used to analyse language in its double function: as L1 and L2. The third outline makes it possible to grasp the features of inter-ethnic communication in a multilingual community (Mikes, Junger, 1981).

In approaching the patterns of language use from point A1, I have used the typology of bilingualism in the educational system of Vojvodina. The inter- and infra-group verbal interactions (at school, in party and in public) outside the family have been analysed in 13 patterns of language use. In general, the data show that in the language choice the informants pay more or less attention to the bilingual competence of their interlocutors. In interactions with 12 interlocutors this criterium is always relevant, while in the interactions with L1 interlocutors this criterion is relevant to all informants of Rumanian nationality and to some Hungarian and Ruthenian informants. The analysis of the data also shows that language choice depends on the criterion relating to the differentiation inside one's own ethnolinguistic

community. Namely, the informants take into consideration whether the interlocutor-pupils are attending the sections where the instruction is given in their L1 or not. This criterion is relevant to the informants of Hungarian nationality, and, to a lesser degree, to the informants of Rumanian nationality (Mikes, forthcoming).

The responses of eleven groups of informants have been analysed in five domains of language use: in family , at school, in party, in public and in intimate life. Several sociolinguistic factors have been identified as being relevant to the language choice, such as: the language of instruction, the rate of native speakers of the language spoken in a given environment, the bilingual competence of the interlocutors, role relationships, etc. (Mikes.1986/a).

The same methods have been used in investigations carried out in Prekmurje, a region in the Socialistic Republic of Slovenia, where Hungarians and Slovenes live together. Unlike in Vojvodina, their children are instructed in both languages, which is a relevant sociolinguistic factor when patterns of language use are concerned. The instruction in primary schools is based on an internal differentiation between languages, and the pupils may freely choose the language in which they wish to reproduce the acquired knowledge; as a rule only that knowledge is graded which is reproduced in L1. Hungarian is an optional subject in secondary schools in Prekmurje ( Necak-Lük.1983).

The research work in Prekmurje is also concerned with the question of continuity in the process of developing bilingualism in nationally mixed areas. This question is discussed from the viewpoint of the individual's competence, and also in the light of the possibility of using two languages in "the individual spheres of social life and work. It has been stated that due attention should be paid to the connection between the social structure of an ethnic community and the possibility of developing highly structured speech networks, because it conditions both the quality and the extent of bilingual communication in a multilingual setting (Necak-Lük, 1984).

4. In the research field of the sociology of language typologies may be regarded

as products achieved on the curves starting with point B1 or B2 and ending with A2 or A3.

The typology of bilingualism in the educational system of Vojvodina has been based on Mackey's typology of bilingual education (Mackey,1970), but elaborated so as to fit the system and practice in Vojvodina (Mikes, 1974/a). The patterns I have set up compromise three criteria. The first criterion is the language of instruction (ED), which may be the pupil's L1 or L2. Each of the five languages (Serbocroat,Hungarian, Slovak, Rumanian and Ruthenian) may be the language of instruction L1, while the language of L2 is practically Serbocroat (with some exceptions). The second criterion is the language spoken by at least two thirds of the population of the respective locality (LOG). With regard to a group of pupils, this language may be L1 or L2. If none of the languages are spoken by two thirds of the population, the languages spoken by at least one third of the population are the languages of the locality. The third criterion is the language spoken by at least two thirds of the population of the respective municipality ( MUN ). As in the case of locality, this language may be the pupils' L1 or L2. There are bilingual and trilingual municipalities, too. When the instruction is given in L1, L2 is optionally taught as a school subject /L2/. When the instruction is given in

L2, L1 is optionally taught as a school subject /L1/, too. For instance:

(1) ED: L1+/L2/ Serbocroat + /Hungarian/ LOC: L2 Hungarian MUN: L2 Hungarian (2)

ED: L1+/L2/ Serbocroat + /Slovak/ LOC: L2 Slovak MUN: L1 Serbocroat (3)

ED: L1+/L2/ Serbocroat + /Hungarian/ LOC: L1 Serbocroat MUN: L2 Hungarian (4)

ED: L1+/L2/ Slovak + /Serbocroat/ LOC: L1 Slovak MUN: L1 Slovak (5)

ED: L1+/L2/ Ruthenian + /Serbocroat/ LOC: L1+L2 Ruthenian + Serbocroat MUN: L2 Serbocroat (6)

ED: L1+/L2/ Serbocroat + /Rumanian/ LOC: L2 Rumanian MUN: L1+L2 Serbocroat + Rumanian (7)

ED: L1+/L2/ Serbocroat + /Rumanian/ LOC: L1+L2 Serbocroat + Rumanian MUN: L1+L2 Serbocroat + Rumanian (8)

ED: L1+/L2/ Hungarian + /Serbocroat/ LOC: L1+L2 Hungarian + Serbocroat MUN: L1 Hungarian (9)

ED: L1+/L2/ Rumanian + /Serbocroat/ LOC: L1 Rumanian MUN: L1+L2 Rumanian + Serbocroat (10)

ED: L2+/L1/ Serbocroat + /Hungarian/ LOC: L2 Serbocroat MUN: L2 Serbocroat

(11) ED: L2+/L1/ Serbocroat + /Hungarian/ LOC: L1+L2 Hungarian + Serbocroat MUN: L1+L2 Hungarian + Serbocroat (12)

ED: L2+/L2/ Serbocroat + /Ruthenian/ LOC: L1+L2 Ruthenian+ Serbocroat MUN: L2 Serbocroat

If the reader is interested to learn more about the instruction in the mother

tongues and the teaching of minority languages in Yugoslavia, he/she may consult my papers concerned with these issues ( Mikes, 1984 and Mikes, 1986/b).

In a recently published sketch of a typology of languages of instruction in multilingual societies I have proposed a more elaborated, generalised and abstract model, when compared to the before mentioned typology of bilingual in the educational system of Vojvodina (Mikes, 1986/c). In this model the pupil (belonging to an ethnolinguistic minority group) may be seen as the center of a network of factors, the outer segment of which are the community bound factors. The type of language use in the educational systems forms a middle layer, intervening between the child's microenvironment and the community bound factors.

COMMUNITY BOUND FACTORS

TYPES OF LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION POLICY

THE CHILD'S MICROENVIRONMENT

figure 3 It seems to me that a useful typology should permit us to determine whether

language policy and use in a given educational system at a given point in time and space are congruent with the micro-environmental and macro-environmental factors identified by the model. Therefore I have segmented the sketch presented in Figure 3 so as to get nine segments, denoting them as types. The letters stand for different types of language use in the educational systems (A = transitional programme, B = language shelter, C = immersion programme), the different types of the child's micro-environment (Al = monolingual, B = bilingual and fostering early bilin-gualism, Cl = bilingual but directed towards monolingualism), and the different types of the social macroenvironment (A2 = monolingual system, B2 = pluralistic system, C2 = selective pluralistic system). The segments denoted by the same letter but differently indexed are congruent. (For more details see op. cit, pp.20-22).

figure 4 When a problem is situated in the middle layer of figure 3, the analysis of the

respective segments of the two other layers is a precondition for the study of this problem. Keeping in mind this principle and the different problems the teachers of Serbocroat as L2 must cope with, I have tried to sketch a typology the linguistic point of view, and it is based on the following criteria:

A The age in which the pupils started to acquire Serbocroat, and to which degree they had mastered it before they began to learn it at school. In Figure 5 the pupils who used to communicate in Serbocroat before learning it at school are marked by +, those who did not use Serbocroat before learning it as a school subject are marked by -. B The structural differences between the Serbocroat language and the pupils' L1. In Figure 5 the difference is marked by 1, if the pupils' L1 is Slovak, Ruthenian, Czech or Bulgarian. It is marked by 2, if the pupils' L1 is Albanian, Italian or Rumanian, and by 3, if the pupils' L1 is Hungarian or Turkish. C The ethnolinguistic structure of the community where the pupils live. In Figure 5 the dominant use of Serbocroat is marked by SC, the equal use of the Serbocroat and the pupils' L1 by BL, and the dominant use of pupils' L1 by BL. When these criteria have been applied, eighteen different situations of

Serbocroat as L2 may be distinguished.

C B A A B C

1 SC 1 + - 1 SC 10 2 BL 1 + - 1 BL 11 3 LI

1 + - 1 LI 12

4 SC 2 + - 2 SC 13 5 BL 2 + - 2 BL 14 6 LI 2 + - 2 LI 15

7 SC 3 + - 3 SC 16 8 BL 3 + - 3 BL 17 9 LI 3 + - 3 LI 18

Figure 5 Some situations are more typical and more frequent than others. So, for

instance, it is quite typical that the pupils who live in environments where the use of Serbocroat is dominant acquire Serbocroat before reaching the school age, while the pupils who live in environments where the use of their L1 is dominant begin to acquire Serbocroat by learning it in the kindergarten or at school. The differences between the situations may be minor or greater. For instance, there is a great difference between the situations 1. and 18., and a minor one between the situations 4. and 5. Concluding comments

In this paper I have tried to give an idea of the multiple interaction between

theory and practice in the research field of multilingualism, and to present some of my workshop problems and their solutions. I have done it with the aim of answering the question: What is the (applied) linguist's concern in multilingualism ? However, I am not willing to sum up the conclusions I have made myself, because, perhaps, the reader (supposingly an applied linguist) may do it better than me. What I have to say is that the linguist should not get lost in the vast research field of multilingualism. The (applied) linguist may and often must do the job of another expert, if it is necessary for linguistic research. Finally, I would like to add that it is one of the applied linguists' obligations to discuss matters of social practice by giving arguments based on the results of their investigations in multilingualism. References Bugarski, R., Mikes,M. (1985). Types and methods of multilingual research in

Yugoslavia, In P.H. Nelde (ed.) Methods in Contact Linguistic Research. (pp. 145-154). Dummler- Bonn.

Dudok, D. (1980). Jezik Slovaka u SFRJ i njegovo proucavanje.ln Zbornik radova I simpozijuma "Kontrastivna jezicka istrazivanja". (pp.215-224).Novi Sad, Universzitet u Novom Sadu, Filozofski fakultet.

Fishman, J.A. (1972). The Sociology of Language. Newbury House Publishers, Rowley, Mass., U. S. A.

Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Jakobson, R. (1940-42). Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze. In Recueil des travaux publics par I'université d'Uppsala. Uppsala-Leipzig

Mackey, W.F. (1970). A Typology of Bilingual Education. Foreign Language Annals, Volume 3, Number 4.

Magdu, L. (1980). Influente sîrbocroate în limba româna din Voivodina. In Zbornik radova I simpozijuma "Kontrastivna jezicka istrazi-vania"(pp.247- 252). Novi Sad, Univerzitet u Novom Sadu, Filozofski

fakultet. Martinet, A. (1955). Economie des changements phonetiques. Berne Medesi, H. (1985). Rusinsko-srpskohrvatski bilingvizam i problem interferencije.

(Unpublished master thesis). Beograd, Univerzitet u Beogradu, Filoloski fakultet Mikes, M. Vlahovic,P. (1967). Acquisition des categories grammaticales dans Ie

langage de I'enfant. Enfance, 3-4. (pp.289-298). Paris. Mikes, M. (1974). Glasovni razvoj govora dvojezicne dece. Novi Sad Mikes, M. (1974/a). Tipologija dvojezicnosti u vaspitno-obrazovnom sistemu

Vojvodine. Kultura, 25. (pp. 147-167). Beograd. Mikes, M., Junger, F. (1981). Some pattern of bilingualism. Sixth International

Congress of Applied Linguistics. (Unpublished paper). Lund. Mikes, M. (1982). Microsociolinguistics of Hungarian-Serbocroatian Bilingualism. In

Robert L. Cooper (ed.), Language Spread: Studies in Diffusion and Social Change. Bloomington: Indiana University Press (pp.337-352)

Mikes, M. (1984). Instruction in the mother tongues in Yugoslavia. Prospects Vol. XIV, No. 1.(pp. 121-131). Unesco, Paris.

Mikes, M. (1985). Standardizacija jezika narodnosti Vojvodine. Kultura, 71. (pp. 26-38). Beograd.

Mikes, M., Seli, I., Tir, M., Medesi, H. (1985). Pregled razvoja lingvisticke hungaristike, slovakistike i rusinistike u Jugoslaviji. Lingvistika i lingvisticke aktivnosti u Jugoslaviji. (Paper presented at a conference organized by the Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Hercegovina, in Sarajevo, March 29-31, 1985).

Mikes, M. (1986). Psiholingvisticki i sociolingvisticki aspekti nastave srpskohrvatskog kao jezika sredine. In Nastava srpskohrvatskog kao stranog. (pp. 150-154). Beograd, Institut za strane jezike i Zavod za unapredivanje vaspitanja i obrazovanja.

Mikes, M. (1986/a). Upotreba maternjeg i srpskohrvatskog jezika kod srednjoskolske ornladine madarske, slovacke, rumunske i rusinske narodnosti u Vojvodini. Migracijske teme, 1. (pp. 5-16). Zagreb.

Mikes, M. (1986/b). L'enseignement des langues minoritaires en Yougoslavie. Languages and education in Europe. (paper presented at a conference by ICE Universitat de Barcelona, June 10-13, 1986).

Sitges. Mikes, M. (1986/c). Towards a typology of languages of instruction in multilingual societies. In B. Spolsky (ed.), Languages and Education in Multilingual Settings. (pp.16-22). Multilingual Matters 25.

Mikes, M. (forthcoming). Language contacts in multilingual Vojvodina. In M. Radovanovic (ed.), Yugoslav General Linguistics, Benjamin.

Necak-Luk, A. (1983). Druzbene razseznosti dvojezicnosti na narodnostno mesanem obmocju Prekmurja. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation), University of Ljubljana.

Necak-Luk, A. (1984). Od dvojezicnosti v soli do dvojezicnosti v zivljenju in ob delu. In A. Necak-Luk and I. Strukelj (eds.), Drojezicnost: individualne in druzbene razseznosti. (pp.33-38). Ljubljana.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1986). Who wants to change what and why - conflicting paradigms in minority education research. In B. Spolsky (ed.),Languages and Education in Multilingual Settings. (pp. 153-181). Multilingual Matters. 25.

Vasic, V. (1986). Srpskohrvatski kao strani jezik: problem varijantnog raslojavanja. In Nastava srpskohrvatskog kao stranog. (pp. 13-17).Beograd, Institut za strane jezike i Zavod za unapredivanje vaspitanja i obrazovanja grada Beograda.

Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in Contact.. New York.