English Studies

Linguistics Stream
M30/S5/ P2
Applied Linguistics
M. Ouahidi
 mentalist/ Innatist Theory

The behaviorist theory of language fails to account for the innovative and creative
nature of language use, a phenomenon that the mentalists claim they can account for.
Noam Chomsky published a criticism of the behaviorist theory in 1957. In addition to
some of the arguments listed above, he focused particularly on the impoverished
language Input children receive. Adults do not typically speak in grammatically
complete sentences. In addition, what the child hears is only a small sample of
language.
Children's minds are not blank slates to be filled in by imitating the language they hear
from the environment. Children are born with an innate capacity for language learning
which allows them to discover for themselves the rules underlying the language.
Chomsky concluded that children must have an inborn faculty for language
acquisition.
Main Principles of Innatist Theory
Language Acquisition Device (LAD) is a device proposed to account for the ability of
children to successfully acquire their first language (or languages) in a short period of
time. Children have the ability to distinguish between grammatical and
ungrammatical sentences despite two major factors: the syntax is too complex for them
to learn, and adults produce imperfect speech (false starts, slips of the tongue,
incomplete sentences). The LAD can be defined as an innate built in device that enables
children to acquire language through the use of innate capacities.
Universal Grammar (UG) is another linguistic concept devised by Noam Chomsky.
UG is proposed to explain how children, unconsciously and successfully, acquire the
properties of grammar that go beyond the input in various respects. In other words,
children have a capacity of acquiring the grammar of their first language without the
need to be formally and explicitly instructed about its properties. This natural
acquisition of grammar is universal since children from different parts of the world
share this ability of acquiring their first language grammar.
 a- The critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) by Lenneberg:
The hypothesis maintains that humans are genetically programmed to acquire
knowledge and skills at specific times of their life. After the critical period, it is either
impossible or extremely difficult to acquire those abilities. According to the
hypothesis, if children are not exposed to language before a certain time, they will
never acquire the language. Two famous cases are those of Victor from France and
Genie from California.
b- Competence vs performance:
According to Chomsky, speakers’ performance does not, and cannot, match their
competence since they often produce imperfect data. Speakers produce half-sentences,
phrases or words and their speech is marked by pauses, corrections and
ungrammaticality. Despite this imperfect production of speech, speakers can
understand one another; this is accounted for by supposing speakers have an
underlying competence of which performance is simply a surface representation.
Mentalists have never denied that the exposure to language is necessary. They simply
argue that the environment is not as important as the behaviorists claim. This seems
to apply to second language as well. But is there a concrete mentalist approach to
second language acquisition?
Comparison between Behaviourist and Mentalist Approaches.
BEHAVIOURISTS APPROACH MENTALIST APPROACH
1) Language acquisition is a stimulus- Language is an innate, in-born process.
response process.
2) Language is a conditioned behavior. Language is not a behavior like other
behaviors, but a specific mental process.
3) Children learn language by imitation Children learn language by application.
and analogy.
4) Language learning is based on Language learning is analytical,
practice. generative and creative.
5) The role of imitation, repetition, The role of exposure to language is quite
reinforcement and motivation is very vital.
significant in language learning.
 6) Language acquisition is the result of Language acquisition is the result of
nature. nurture.

Limitations of Chomsky's Theory

Chomsky's work on language was theoretical. He was interested in grammar and
much of his work consists of complex explanations of grammatical rules. He did not
study real children. The theory relies on children being exposed to language but takes
no account of the interaction between children and their caregivers, nor does it
recognize the reasons why a child might want to speak, the functions of language.
 Cognitive Theory

Cognitive psychology in contrast to behaviorism is interested in the way the human

mind thinks and learns. It is interested in the cognitive processes that are involved in
learning and how the learner is involved in the learning process.
Principles of Cognitivism
The Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget placed acquisition of language within the context
of a child's mental or cognitive development. He argued that a child has to understand
a concept before s/he can acquire the particular language form which expresses that
concept. A good example of this is seriation. There will be a point in a child's
intellectual development when s/he can compare objects with respect to size. This
means that if a child is given a number of sticks, s/he could arrange them in order of
size. Piaget suggested that a child who has not yet reached this stage will not be able
to learn and use comparative adjectives like "bigger" or "smaller". The learner is seen
as an active participant in the learning process using various kinds of mental strategies
in order to sort out the system of the language being learnt.

Cognitive theories look beyond behavior to explain brain-based learning. The learner
is seen as an active participant in the learning process using various kinds of mental
strategies in order to sort out the system of the language being learnt. Learning
happens as a result of knowledge transferred from short to long term memory. In
order for this to happen, new information must be linked to old information and
information and concepts must be logically organized. New ideas or concepts are
based upon the learners' current/past knowledge
Cognitivism and Language Teaching
Main principles of Cognitivist approaches to foreign language teaching.
Principle Description
Understanding When the language learner knows about the language (form, meaning
how language and use), s/he will be able to use it meaningfully in speech and writing.
works
 Learning is By working with language, coming into contact with texts and exercising
both inductive with particular elements of language to be taught and learnt (i.e.,
and deductive experiencing them), the learner comes to understand how it works and
may be asked to articulate that understanding or simply to exhibit the
knowledge acquired by putting it into practice. However, since
knowledge is linguistically mediated and is frequently passed on by
others, the learning process requires the transmission of knowledge about
how the language operates; therefore, rules of language use and/or usage
are explained, before or after language practice.
Sequential Since learning is often considered to be a linear process, teaching is
learning usually organized so as to move from easy to difficult; i.e., from that
which is linguistically and cognitively easier to understand, to that which
is considered harder. Spiral learning processes, however, are not
excluded.

§ The role of the teacher is to help learners organize new information for later
recall.
§ Learning is an active process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts
based upon their current/past knowledge.
§ Curriculum should be organized in a spiral manner so that the student
continually builds upon what they have already learned.
§ The learner selects and transforms information, constructs hypotheses, and
makes decisions, relying on a cognitive structure to do so.
§ As far as instruction is concerned, the instructor should try and encourage
students to discover principles by themselves.
§ The instructor and student should engage in an active dialog (i.e., Socratic
learning).
§ The task of the instructor is to translate information to be learned into a format
appropriate to the learner's current state of understanding
Limitations of the Cognitive Theory
Researchers during the 1960's and 1970's identified shortcomings in Piaget's theory.
First, critics argue that Piaget under estimated children's abilities. Researchers have
found that young children can succeed on simpler forms of tasks requiring the same
skills. Second, Piaget's theory predicts that thinking within a particular stage would
be similar across tasks. In other words, preschool children should perform at the
preoperational level in all cognitive tasks. Research has shown diversity in children's
thinking across cognitive tasks. Third, according to Piaget, efforts to teach children
developmentally advanced concepts would be unsuccessful. Researchers have found
that in some instances, children often learn more advanced concepts with relatively
brief instruction. Researchers now believe that children may be more competent than
Piaget originally thought, especially in their practical knowledge
 Input or Interactionist Theory

In contrast to the work of Chomsky, more recent theorists have stressed the
importance of the language input children receive from their care-givers. Language
exists for the purpose of communication and can only be learned in the context of
interaction with people. Language develops as a result of the interplay between the
child and the environment in which the child grows. Caretaker speech is modified to
suit the capability of the child. This modified language is a crucial element in the
language acquisition process.
Principles of Interactionism
Interactionists such as Jerome Bruner suggest that the language behavior of adults
when talking to children is referred to as child-directed speech or CDS. It is
specially adapted to support the acquisition process. This support is often
described as scaffolding for the child's language. Scaffolding is a term coined to
refer to the support and assistance given by adults, parents, and peers in relation
to a specific difficult task or action. Bruner also coined the term Language
Acquisition Support System or LASS in response to Chomsky's LAD. Brunner
agrees with Chomsky’s notion of LAD. However, Brunner asserts that Chomsky
gives too much importance to this aspect, noting that social context and the
behavior of parents have a significant impact on language development. LAD
cannot function alone and every LAD, therefore, needs a LASS (social interaction).

Lev Vygotsky's theory states that knowledge is co-constructed and that

individuals learn from one another. It is also called a social constructivist theory
because in Vygotsky's opinion the learner must be engaged in the learning process.
Learning happens with the assistance of other people, thus highlighting the social
aspect of the theory.
Interactionism and ELT
The main principles of Interactionist approaches to FL teaching
ü The teacher must try to create a classroom atmosphere which is conducive
to real communication.
ü Real communication involves learners who have a say in what is to be learnt
 (and how), in the classroom interaction to which they have the right to make
basic contributions.
ü In order for interactional modifications to occur in the classroom there must
be a two - way flow of information where both the teacher and the learner
have unknown information to exchange.
ü It is important to use activities that involve an information gap and have an
obvious communicative purpose so that learners feel the need to
communicate.
ü In order for learners to feel motivated to communicate they must be
involved and interested in what is being talked about, in the activities being
carried out. Furthermore, they should be given opportunities to initiate class
activities.
ü Teachers must utilize contributions made by the learners. This will create in
learners a feeling that their personality and what they have to say is
accepted.
Limitations of Input theory
These theories serve as a useful corrective to Chomsky's early position and it seems
likely that a child will learn more quickly with frequent interaction. However, it has
already been noted that children in all cultures pass through the same stages in
acquiring language. We have also seen that there are cultures in which adults do not
adopt special ways of talking to children, so CDS may be useful but seems not to be
essential.
As stated earlier, the various theories should not be seen simply as alternatives.
Rather, each of them offers a partial explanation of the process.
 Krashen’s Monitor Theory of SLA

Second language acquisition theory seeks to quantify how and by what processes
individuals acquire a second language. The predominant theory of second language
acquisition was developed by the University of Southern California’s Steven Krashen.
Krashen is a specialist in language development and acquisition, and his influential
theory is widely accepted in the language learning community.
Components of Second Language Acquisition Theory

There are five main components of Krashen’s theory (a five-part hypothesis). Each of
the components relates to a different aspect of the language learning process. The five
components are as follows:
The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
According to Krashen, there are two independent but related systems of second
language performance: 'the acquired system' and 'the learned system'.
The 'acquired system' or 'acquisition' is the product of an unconscious process very
similar to the process children undergo when they acquire their first language. It
requires meaningful interaction in the target language - natural communication - in
which speakers are concentrated not on the form of their utterances, but in the
communicative act. In this system, speakers are less concerned with the structure of
their utterances than with the act of communicating meaning.
The 'learned system' or 'learning' is the product of formal instruction where students
engage in formal study to acquire knowledge about the target language. For example,
studying the rules of syntax is part of the learned system. Formal teaching is necessary
for "learning" to occur, and correction of errors helps with the development of learned
rules. Learning, according to the theory, cannot lead to acquisition It comprises a
conscious process which results in conscious knowledge 'about' the language.
According to Krashen, 'learning' is less important than 'acquisition'.
The Monitor Hypothesis
Conscious learning can function only as a monitor or editor that checks and repairs
the output of the acquired system. The Monitor Hypothesis claims that learners may
call upon learned knowledge to correct themselves when they communicate. Those
learners who focus too much on using correct language forms may not be able to
acquire language readily because of their preoccupation with being correct. It is
incumbent upon the teacher to lessen the pressure of correctness by not focusing on
errors and allowing learners to speak freely even while committing those errors that
are an essential part of language acquisition. Therefore, the monitor should have only
a minor role in the process of gaining communicative competence. Three conditions
limit the successful use of the monitor:
1. Time: There must be sufficient time for a learner to choose and apply a learned rule.
2. Focus on form: The language user must be focused on correctness or on the form of
the output.
3. Knowledge of rules: The performer must know the rules. The monitor does best with
rules that are simple in two ways. They must be simple to describe and they must not
require complex movements and rearrangements.
The Natural Order Hypothesis
According to the Natural Order Hypothesis, the acquisition of grammatical structures
proceeds in a predictable order. Research has shown that certain grammatical
structures or morphemes are acquired before others in first language acquisition of
English, and a similar natural order is found in second language acquisition. Errors
are signs of naturalistic developmental processes, and during acquisition (but not
during learning), similar developmental errors occur in learners no matter what their
mother tongue is.
The Input Hypothesis
This hypothesis argues that learners progress along the natural order only when they
encounter second language input that is one step beyond their current level. Krashen
claims that people acquire language best by understanding input that is a little beyond
their present level of competence. Consequently, Krashen believes that
'comprehensible input' (that is, i + 1) should be provided. The 'input' should be
relevant and 'not grammatically sequenced'.

Comprehensible input, or i+1 is highly required so that a learner can understand what
is being said without being overwhelmed with too much new linguistic information.
The “i” in “i+1” represents what the learner already knows in the language and the
“+1” represents what is being taught. If too much new linguistic information is given
too quickly, i.e., “i+100” then there is little chance that language acquisition will take
place since the learner will be confused and overwhelmed.
The Affective Filter Hypothesis

This hypothesis describes external factors that can act as a filter that impedes
acquisition. These factors include motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety. A low
affective filter is desirable since it facilitates learning this necessary input. The
hypothesis is built on research in second language acquisition, which has identified
three kinds of affective or attitudinal variables related to second language acquisition.
1. Motivation. Learners with high motivation generally do better.
2. Self-confidence. Learners with self-confidence and a good self-image tend to be more
successful.
3. Anxiety. Low personal anxiety and low classroom anxiety are more conducive to
second language acquisition.

The Affective Filter Hypothesis states that acquirers with a low affective filter seek and
receive more input, interact with confidence, and are more receptive to the input they
receive. Anxious acquirers have a high affective filter, which prevents acquisition from
taking place.
Criticism was expressed by McLaughlin (1987). McLaughlin acknowledges Krashen's
attempt to develop an extensive and detailed theory of second language acquisition
but finds it inadequate in that some of its central assumptions and hypotheses are not
clearly defined and thus are not readily testable, e.g. the acquisition-learning
dichotomy is based on “subconscious” and “conscious” processes respectively, which
have not been clearly defined by Krashen although he operationalized them in his
studies. Other assumptions aiming to enhance the explanatory power of the Monitor
Theory are not based on well-established theories and research (e.g. the Natural Order
hypothesis). Furthermore, the role assigned to unconscious learning was found to be
overestimated and exaggerated. Instead subsequent studies drew attention to the role
of consciousness in second language learning and how much learners notice and what
they think as they learn second languages.
 Contrastive Analysis

Contrastive linguistics was used extensively in the field of Second Language

Acquisition (SLA) in the 1960s and early 1970s, as a method of explaining why some
features of a target language (TL) were more difficult to acquire than others. According
to the behaviorist theories prevailing at the time, language learning was a question of
habit formation, and this could be reinforced or impeded by existing habits. Therefore,
the difficulty in mastering certain structures in L2 depended on the difference between
the learners' mother language (L1) and the target language.
Lado was the first to provide a comprehensive theoretical treatment and to suggest a
systematic set of technical procedures for the contrastive study of languages. This
involved describing the languages (using structural linguistics), comparing them and
predicting learning difficulties. Contrastive analysis (CA) compares languages in
order to determine or account for errors.
Lado’s system of CA is based on a rigorous step-by-step comparison of L1 and L2. This
comparison covers the areas of phonology, grammar, writing system, and culture,
Although Lado (1957) included a comparison of culture, early contrastive studies
focused on what has been described as micro linguistic contrastive analysis (James
1980: 61), that is phonology, grammar, and lexis..
CA is based on a theory of language that claims that language is habit -The major
source of error in the production of the L2 is the L1. Errors can be explained by
considering differences between L1 and L2. -The greater the differences, the greater
the errors. This is what Robert Lado (1957) sums up: "we can predict and describe the
patterns that will cause difficulty in learning, and those that will not cause difficulty,
by comparing systematically the language and culture to be learned with the native
language and culture of the student".
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
It predicts areas of difficulties in learning a language. Whenever there are similarities
between the two languages, learning will be much easier, and whenever there are
differences, more difficulties are expected to emerge.
In brief, emerging in the 50s, contrastive analysis hypothesis CAH was rooted in
behavioristic and structural approaches. Its main claim was that the principle barrier
to SLA-second language acquisition-is interference of L1 system with the second
language system. Therefore, the scientific structural analysis of two languages would
yield a taxonomy of linguistics that contrasts between them, which would help the
linguist to predict areas of difficulties a learner would encounter.
The pedagogical materials that resulted from contrastive analysis were based on a
number of assumptions:
Basic Principles
ü One can account for errors by considering differences between the L1 and the
L2.
ü A corollary to the previous item is that the greater the differences, the more
errors will occur.
ü What one has to do in learning a second language is learn the differences.
Similarities can be safely ignored as no new learning is involved. In other
words, what is dissimilar between two languages is what must be learned.
ü Difficulty and ease in learning is determined respectively by differences and
similarities between the two languages in contrast.
ü Language is a habit and learning a second language is acquiring new habits.
ü The basic source of errors in second language learning is interference from the
first language (negative transfer/ interference).
Problems with the CAH
During the 1970s, the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis began to fall out as research
showed that many L2 “errors” were not the result of transfer. These errors either
looked like those that children learning the L1 would make (although we don’t really
call what children do “errors”), or their source was ambiguous (see error analysis). In
addition, research also found that similarities across languages led to errors that could
persist; that is, when the function of structures in two languages were similar but not
the same, learners showed evidence of transfer resulting in errors that persisted over
time. Finally, some of the errors predicted by the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis did
not occur in the speech analyzed by researchers.
 Error Analysis

Error analysis is a research tool characterized by a set of procedures for identifying,

describing, and explaining L2 learners’ errors. Error analysis emerged as a reaction to
the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis and the associated theory of behaviorism. Much
of the early work in error analysis focused on determining whether SLA was the result
of L1 transfer or creative construction.
In recent years, studies of second language acquisition have tended to focus on
learners’ errors since they allow for prediction of the difficulties involved in acquiring
a second language. In this way, teachers can be made aware of the difficult areas to be
encountered by their students and devote special care and emphasis to them. Error
Analysis (EA) is a type of linguistic analysis that focuses on the errors’ learners make.
Error analysis is useful in second language learning because it will reveal to teachers,
syllabus designers and textbook writers the problem areas. It can be used to design
remedial exercises and focus more attention on the trouble spots. Corder (1974, p.125)
stated that “The study of errors is part of the investigation of the process of language
learning.
Richards et al (1992) mentioned that the study of errors is used in order to (1) identify
strategies which learners use in language learning, (2) identify the causes of learners’
errors, and finally (3) obtain information on common difficulties in language learning
as an aid to teaching or in development of teaching materials ( cited in Khansir 2008)
A great deal of the work on error analysis was carried out within the context of the
classroom. The goal was clearly one of pedagogical remediation. There are a number
of steps in conducting error analysis.
Steps of Error Analysis
ü Collect data: Although this is typically done with written data, oral data can also
serve as a base.
ü Identify errors: What is the error (e.g., incorrect sequence of tenses, wrong verb
form, singular verb form with plural subject)?
ü Classify errors: Is it an error of agreement? Is it an error in irregular verbs?
ü Quantify errors: How many errors of agreement occur? How many irregular
verb form errors occur?
 ü Analyze source:
ü Remediate: Based on the kind and frequency of an error type, pedagogical
intervention is carried out.
Error analysis provides a broader range of possible explanations than contrastive
analysis (CA) for researchers/teachers to use to account for errors as the latter only
attributed errors to the native language. In comparison, there are two main error-types
within an error analysis framework: interlingual and intralingual. Interlingual errors
can be attributed to the native language (i.e., they involve cross-linguistic
comparisons). Intralingual errors are due to the language being learned, independent
of the native language.
Error analysis was not without its detractors. One of the major criticisms of error
analysis was directed at its total reliance on errors to the exclusion of other
information. That is, critics argued, one needs to consider non errors as well as errors
to get the entire picture of a learner’s linguistic behavior.
Difference between Error Analysis and Contrastive Analysis
Error analysis differs from contrastive analysis.
1. Contrastive analysis starts with a comparison of systems of two languages and
predicts only the areas of difficulty or error for the second language learner; whereas,
error analysis starts with errors in second language learning and studies them in the
broader framework of their sources and significance.
2. EA, unlike CA, provides data on actual attested problems and so it forms a more
efficient basis for designing pedagogical strategies.
3. EA provides feedback to the linguist, especially the psycho-linguist interested in the
process of second language learning in ascertaining:
a. Whether the process of acquisition of first language and second language learning
are similar or not?
b. Whether children and adults learn a second language in a similar manner or not?
5. EA provides evidence for a much more complex view of the learning process-one in
which the learner is seen as an active participant in the formation of and revision of
hypotheses regarding the rules of the target language
6. CA studies Interlingual errors (interference); whereas, EA studies intralingual errors
besides Interlingual.
In spite of the rejection of contrastive analysis by some second language acquisition
researchers, most teachers and researchers have remained convinced that learners
draw on their knowledge of other languages as they try to learn a new one. Current
research shows that L1 influence is a subtle and evolving aspect of L2 development.
Learners do not simply transfer all patterns from L1 to L2, and there are changes over
time, as learners come to know more about the L2 and thus to recognize similarities
between L1 and L2 that were not evident in earlier stages of L2 acquisition.
 Interlanguage

In the 1970's, a number of researchers began to call attention to the fact that, although
the language produced by L2 learners did not conform to the target language, the
`errors' that learners made were not random, but reflected a systematic, if incomplete,
knowledge of the L2 (Corder, 1967). The notion of 'interlanguage' has been central to
the development of the field of research on second language acquisition (SLA) and
continues to exert a strong influence on both the development of SLA theory and the
nature of the central issues in that field. The term interlanguage (1L) was introduced
by the American linguist Larry Selinker to refer to the linguistic system evidenced
when an adult second language learner attempts to express meanings in the target
language.
The interlanguage is viewed as a separate linguistic system, clearly different from
both the learner's 'native language' (NL) and the 'target language' (TL) being learned,
but linked to both NL and TL by interlingual identifications in the perception of the
learner. A central characteristic of any interlanguage is that it fossilizes — that is, it
ceases to develop at some point short of full identity with the target language. Thus,
the adult second-language learner never achieves a level of facility in the use of the
target language comparable to that achievable by any child acquiring the target as a
native language. There is, thus, a crucial and central psycholinguistic difference
between child NL acquisition and adult second language (L2) acquisition: children
always succeed in completely acquiring their native language, but adults only very
rarely succeed in completely acquiring a second language.
The central object of interlanguage research is to explain this difference — essentially,
to describe and explain the development of interlanguages and also to explain the
ultimate failure of interlanguages to reach a state of identity with the target language.
(Tarone, 2006, p. 747).
Interlanguage has other names by different linguists. Corder (1971) calls it
idiosyncratic dialect (each individual has his own dialect). He says that this dialect of
the learners is (I) regular, (2) systematic and (3) meaningful. William Nemser (1971)
termed it Approximative system'. (Approximation to IL) to identify a learner's
linguistic system which is distinct from his mother tongue and the target language
s/he is attempting to learn. By the term 'Approximative’, he means that the learner is
progressing towards the TL, and his system is developmental in nature. The term
system implies that he is using a set of rules and hence his language is not random.
Finally, J.C. Richards gives it the name 'Transitional competence' since it refers to the
learner's competence at a particular time.
 REFERENCES/FURTHER READING1

- Angelis P. (2001). The Roots of Applied Linguistics in North America. Colloquium

on the Roots of Applied Linguistics in Different Contexts. St Louis: AAAL
Bloomfield. L. (1933). Language. London: Allen and Unwin.
- Brumfit C. (1977). How Applied Linguistics is the same as any other Science.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1 ), pp.86-94.
- Davies, A. & Elder, C. (2006). The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.
- Davies, A. (2001). British Applied Linguistics. Colloquium on the Roots ofApplied
Linguistics in Different Contexts. St Louis: AAAL
- Grabe, W, (2002). Applied Linguistics: An Emerging Discipline for the Twenty-First
Century. in: B. Kapla (Ed.). Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Oxford
University Press.
- Grabe, W. (Ed.). (2000). Applied Linguistics as an Emerging Discipline. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics 2.
- Lewis, M. (2001). Looking Ahead in Applied Linguistics. Applied Linguistics
Association of Australia Newsletter, New Series 44t pp. 18-19.
- McNamara,. T. (2001). The Roots of Applied Linguistics in Australia. Colloquium on
the Roots of Applied Linguistics in Different Contexts. St Louis: AAAL
- Schmitt, N. & Celce - Murcia, M. (2002). "An Overview of Applied Linguistics." In:
N. Schmitt. (Ed.). An Introduction to Applied Linguistics. London: Arnold, pp. 1-
16.
Widdowson, H. (2000). On the Limitations of Linguistics Applied. Applied Linguistics,
21(1 pp.3-25

1
“Applied Linguistics” has been adopted and adapted from different sources; some of them
are mentioned above.