Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-c654p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T15:01:35.179Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Applied Linguistics and the Psychology of Instruction – A Case for Transfusion?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

M. A. Sharwood Smith
M. A. Sharwood Smith
Affiliation:
Rijksuniversiteit, Utrecht
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , Spring 1979 , pp. 91 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adamczewski, H. 1974. “Be + ing Revisited”, in Corder, and Roulet, (eds. ).Google Scholar
Allwright, R. L. 1972. “Prescription and Description in the Training of Language Teachers”, in Qvistgaard, , Schwarz, and Spang-Hanssen, (eds.).Google Scholar
Ausubel, D. P. 1968. Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Bragina, T. B. 1972. Nekotorye Psychologiceskije Uslovija Formizovanija Reci na Innostrannom Jazijke, Moskva: Avtoreferat.Google Scholar
Bung, K. 1973. Towards a Theory of Programmed Language Instruction, The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpay, J. A. M. 1974. Onderwijs-Leerpsychologie en Leergang-Ontwikkeling in het Moderne Vreemde Talenonderwijs, Groningen: Tjeenk-Willink.Google Scholar
Carpay, J. A. M. 1976. “Impliciete en Expliciete Grammatika”, paper given at the ANELA-ABELA Conference,Tilburg,November 1976.Google Scholar
Chastain, K. 1971. The Development of Modern Language Skills: Theory to Practice, Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. 1965. “The Contributions of Psychological Theory and Educational Research to the Teaching of Foreign Languages”, in Modern Language Journal 49. 273–281.Google Scholar
Cole, L. R. 1976. “Picture-Language Relationships”, in IRAL 14. 339–350.Google Scholar
Cook, V. J. 1977. “Cognitive Processes in Foreign Language Learning”, in IRAL 15. 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corder, S. P. 1974. “Pedagogical Grammar or the Pedagogy of Grammar?”, in Corder and Roulet (eds.).Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. and Roulet, E. (eds.) 1974. Linguistic Insights in Applied Linguistics, Brussels: AIMAV and Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Di Pietro, R. 1971. Language Struature in Contrast, Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Dirven, R. 1976. “A Redefinition of Contrastive Linguistics”, in IRAL 14. 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresner, B. E. and Horstein, N. 1976. “On Some Supposed Contributions of Artificial Intelligence to the Scientific Study of Language”, in Cognition 4. 321–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engels, L. K. 1970. “The Function of Grammar in the Teaching of English as a Foreign Language”, in ITL 10. 11–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdelyi, M. H., Finkelstein, S., Herrell, N., Miller, B. and Thomas, J. 1976. “Coding Modality versus Input Modality in Hypermnesia: Is a Rose a Rose a Rose?”, in Cognition 4. 311–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisiak, J. (ed.) 1976. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, Poznań:Adam Mickiewicz University.Google Scholar
Gal'perin, P. 1970. “An Experimental Study in the Formation of Mental Actions”, in Stones (ed.).Google Scholar
Gol'din, Z. D. 1970. Metodika Obucenija Inostrancev Russkomu Skloneniju, Moskva: Avtoreferat.Google Scholar
Kabanova, O. J. 1971. Formorovanije Grammaticeskoj Struktury Vyskazivanija, Moskva: Avtoreferat.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. 1976. “Elicitation, Lateralization and Error Analysis”, in Interlanguage Studies Bulietin 1. 79–115.Google Scholar
Keuleers, A. 1974a. “The Use of Mediators in ‘Cognitive Drills’”, in ITL 23. 57–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keuleers, A. 1974b. Insight, Automatization and Creativity in Foreign Language Learning, Ph.D. dissertation, Leuven, Katolieke Universitiet.Google Scholar
Landa, L. N. 1970. “Algoritmen en Heuristiken in het Onderwijs en het Programmeren van de Denkaktiviteiten van Leerlingen” (transl. J. A. M. Carpay), in Pedagogisahen Studien, 47. 293–307.Google Scholar
Landa, L. N. 1975. “Some Problems of Algorithmization and Heuristics”, in Instructional Science 4. 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landa, L. N. 1976. “Algorithms in Foreign Language Teaching”, paper given at the English Department, Utrecht University, 12 1976.Google Scholar
Mey, M. de, Pinxton, R., Poriac, M. and Vandamme, F. (eds.) 1977. A Cognitive Viewpoint, Ghent: University of Ghent.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E. and Pribram, K. 1960. Plans and the Structure of Behavior, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JrOller, J. 1975. “An Evaluation of Steps Towards a Theory of Programmed Language Instruction” (a review of Bung 1973), in Foundations of Language 13. 449–456.Google Scholar
Papert, S. 1977. Untitled paper on the structure of knowledge given at the Ghent Conference on Communication and Cognition, A Cognitive Viewpoint, April 1977.Google Scholar
Qvistgaard, J., Schwarz, H. and Spang-Hanssen, H. (eds.) 1974. AILA, Third Congress, Copenhagen 1972, Proceedings Volume III, Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar
Sharwood, Smith M. A. 1974. Aspects of Future Reference in a Pedagogical Grammar of English, Ph.D. dissertation, Poznań, Adam Mickiewicz University.Google Scholar
Sharwood, Smith M. A. 1976. “Imperfective versus Perfective, Problems and Pedagogical Solutions”, in Fisiak (ed.).Google Scholar
Spoelders, M. 1972. “Reflexions on Mediators”, ITL 17. 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spoelders, M. 1977. “On Cognitive Foreign Language Learning Theory and its Application”, in Mey, Pinxton, Poriac and Vandamme (eds.).Google Scholar
Stones, E. (ed.) 1970. Readings in Educational Psychology, London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Talysina, N. F. 1970. “The Stage Theory in the Formation of Mental Operations”, in Stones (ed.).Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. A. 1973. Linguistics in Language Teaching, London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, G. 1969. “Integrierung und Transfer im neusprachlichen Unterricht”, in Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts 16. 245–260.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, G. 1971. Teacher's Manual for Passport to English (Junior Course) (German Edition), Wiesbaden: Hueber-Dicher.Google Scholar