Article published in:
Pedagogical Linguistics
Vol. 1:1 (2020) ► pp. 34–43

Linguistics, language teaching objectives and the language learning process

| University of Vienna
Linguistics has always been taken as the authoritative frame of reference for how language is represented as a pedagogic subject, and as approaches to linguistic description have changed so accordingly have approaches to language teaching. But the purposes that determine what aspects of language are to be abstracted as relevant for linguistic description do not correspond with those of language pedagogy. What linguistics provides are ways of specifying what is to be taught as the eventual learning objective in relative disregard of the learning process, a process that it is the essential purpose of pedagogy to promote. An alternative to this customary objective driven approach, would be to focus not on acquiring competence in a particular and separate L2 but on extending the general capability for using language as a communicative resource that learners have already acquired in their L1. Such an approach effectively makes the primary objective of pedagogy the development of the learning process itself.
Keywords: linguistics, pedagogic relevance, teaching objective, learning process, competence, capability


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 17 February 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.19014.wid

Full-text

Linguistics, language teaching objectives and the language learning process
References

References

Chomsky, N.
(1966/71) Linguistic theory. In R. G. Mead (Ed.), Language teaching: Broader contexts. Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Modern Languages: Reports of the working committees. New York: MLA Materials Center. Reprinted 1971 in J. P. B. Allen & P. van Buren (Eds.), Chomsky: Selected readings. (pp. 152–159). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2003) Task based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2015) Understanding second language acquisition (2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garcia, O., & Li Wei
(2014) Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. London. Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, P., & Cots, J.
(Eds.) (2017) Routledge handbook of language awareness. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., McIntosh, A., & Strevens, P.
(1964) The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F.
(Eds.) (2009) Complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) in second language acquisition research [Special issue]. Applied Linguistics, 30(4).Google Scholar
Howatt, A., with Widdowson, H.
(2004) A history of English language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 43 ]
Hymes, D. H.
(1972) On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Labov, W.
(1970) The study of language in its social context. Studium Generale, Vol. 23. Reprinted in Labov, W. (1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N.
(2013) How languages are learned (4th edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J.
(1991) Shared knowledge In J. Alatis (Ed.), Linguistics and language pedagogy: The state of the art (pp. 11–24). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
(1997) Corpus evidence in language description. In A. Wichmann, S. Fligelstone, T. McEnery & G. Knowles (Eds.), Teaching and language corpora. (pp. 27–39). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H.
(1997) The pedagogic relevance of language awareness. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen, 26, 33–43.Google Scholar
(2003) Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2020) On the subject of English: The linguistics of language use and learning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar