In their “Webinar on the subject of English and applied linguistics”, Widdowson and Yazdi-Amirkhiz (Reference Widdowson and Yazdi-Amirkhiz2023) argues for the need to “rethink orthodox ideas about the relationship between applied linguistics and English language teaching that have been promoted in the past and still prevail” (p. 393). In the following commentary, I describe examples from my experiences as a language teacher and teacher trainer that address two of Widdowson's critiques: the supposed idealization of native-speaker competence in applied linguistics, and the impracticality of applied linguistics research.
According to Widdowson, “the first thing applied linguists need to do is to stop giving primacy to disciplinarity” (p. 395). An important manifestation of this disciplinarity, for Widdowson, is to make the ultimate aim of language teaching be competence, which is “a disciplinary abstraction conceived as what native speakers in a particular community know of their language” (p. 395). Widdowson contrasts this native speaker-centric model with “natural” language learning, whereby learners “reduce the foreignness [of an additional language] by relating it to their own language … learning to use the language as a communicative resource and so develop a general lingual capability” (p. 397). Therefore, for Widdowson, applied linguistics as an academic discipline is closely associated with having native-speaker competence as the goal of language instruction. In my own experience, however, English language teaching (ELT) contexts that are influenced by applied linguistics are, in fact, often less focused on native-speaker competence, and align more closely with Widdowson's description of “natural” language learning, compared with teaching contexts that are far removed from the discipline.
For example, I qualified for my first ELT positions, at South Korean hagwons, after-school tutoring businesses that had no direct influence from applied linguistics in terms of personnel or curriculum, solely due to my being a native English-speaking holder of a Western passport. In contrast, when I taught English at a Chinese university that required a Master's degree in applied linguistics or related discipline, students' use of Chinese-influenced English, outside of high-stakes assessment situations, was often viewed as a sign of a creative and intelligent speaker, and, far from idealizing native-speaker competence, my teaching colleagues pursued scholarship in global Englishes and translanguaging. Neither is native-speaker competence a focus in my current position at an American university, where I teach in a program that prepares future English educators, many of whom go on to work with children identified as English learners in government-funded school districts in Kentucky. For guidance on English-learner curriculum and assessment, these school districts rely largely on WIDA, a “consortium” of state-level departments of education headquartered at the University of Wisconsin (WIDA, 2024). WIDA policy and guidance draw heavily on applied linguistics as an academic discipline, while advocating for an educational philosophy that shares many similarities with Widdowson's “natural” language learning. For example, WIDA's flagship Standards Framework document includes references to dozens of articles in applied linguistics academic journals, and yet one of its “guiding principles” is that “multilingual learners use their full linguistic repertoire … to enrich their language development and learning” (WIDA, 2020, p. 12). In the same document, teachers are advised to support students' use of “initially ‘imperfect’ English” as a way of “overcoming the tendency to perceive multilingual learners as if they were failed native speakers” (p. 356). Rooted in applied linguistics, WIDA and its guidance for U.S. teachers do not make native-speaker competence the primary aim of language teaching.
Another reason, according to Widdowson, that applied linguistics has made “little, if any, contribution to improvements in language teaching” (p. 395) is that the discipline's research output is incompatible with teachers' practical concerns. More specifically, he is “skeptical about the practical relevance of SLA research” (p. 394). While he acknowledges that second language acquisition (SLA) is “generally accepted as squarely located within applied linguistics” (p. 394), he identifies the former with empirical research that seeks to build theory about the “underlying essential commonalities that define the language acquisition process” (p. 395). The findings of SLA research disseminated in academic conferences and journals, Widdowson writes, are “generally inaccessible to most language teachers in the real world”, and even if teachers were aware of the findings, the chances that they would be able to use them to improve their teaching are “remote” (p. 395). On this point, I agree in part: in my experience in teacher preparation programs, teachers-in-training are exposed to a diversity of applied linguistics research that varies widely in its accessibility and applicability. On the one hand, I have observed future teachers struggling to read journal articles about complex linguistic theories (e.g., universal grammar, markedness) and psychological theories (e.g., motivation, noticing) as explanations of language learning. To understand these is a daunting intellectual task that often leads to sparse conclusions for pedagogical applications. In my experience, teachers find little value in such theoretical exercises. That is not to say that theory cannot contribute to improvements in language teaching; I am of the belief that some SLA theory can be “translated”, so to speak, into pedagogically useful forms, such as teaching methods workshops and instructional materials. This theory-to-practice translation requires skilled individuals with one foot in the discipline and one foot in the classroom.
On the other hand, I have also seen groups of teachers-in-training read and understand applied linguistics research, identify potentially useful teaching strategies described therein, and comment on these perceived benefits. This was the case, for example, in one of my recent teacher preparation classes in which we read Kibler et al.'s (Reference Kibler, Salerno and Hardigree2014) study of an American bilingual education program. Follow-up discussions made it clear that the class understood the researchers' detailed description of the educational program being studied (including its overall organization, planned activities, and observed real-world implementation), empathized with language learners' comments about their experiences and attitudes towards the program and, crucially, identified teaching strategies they wanted to try (including a bilingual book-making activity and multilingual classroom signage). In my view, engaging with this kind of applied linguistics research allows teachers-in-training to learn about a real-life teaching context, including its benefits and disadvantages, through a depth of insight that would not otherwise be available to them. While the research described in the article was empirical and includes a “theoretical framework” (Kibler et al., Reference Kibler, Salerno and Hardigree2014, p. 254) concerning language and language learning, it was not “remote from the actual and local problems” (Widdowson & Yazdi-Amirkhiz, Reference Widdowson and Yazdi-Amirkhiz2023, p. 394) of language education in the specific context where it was conducted. The practicality of such research can be made more explicit by asking teachers-in-training questions such as “Would this work well in your own teaching context?” and “What would you change if you were to implement this program in your own teaching context?”. In thinking about these questions, teachers-in-training gain capacity to build theories, in Widdowson's sense of “abstraction from actuality” (p. 394). In my experience, opportunities to develop a personal, local understanding of how languages are learned are far more appealing, and are viewed as more practical, than being inducted into the “expert mysteries of SLA research” (p. 395). Research such as that described in Kibler et al. (Reference Kibler, Salerno and Hardigree2014) can, I believe, play an important role in the former.
To conclude, I agree with Widdowson that applied linguistics can have negligible or even detrimental effects on language teaching in the real world; however, I have observed many examples that are at odds with Widdowson's claims regarding the idealization of native-speaker competence and the inaccessibility and impracticality of research. Based on my experiences as a language teacher and teacher trainer over the past 20 years, I believe that the discipline has made substantial progress towards Widdowson's ideals.
You have
Access
In their “Webinar on the subject of English and applied linguistics”, Widdowson and Yazdi-Amirkhiz (Reference Widdowson and Yazdi-Amirkhiz2023) argues for the need to “rethink orthodox ideas about the relationship between applied linguistics and English language teaching that have been promoted in the past and still prevail” (p. 393). In the following commentary, I describe examples from my experiences as a language teacher and teacher trainer that address two of Widdowson's critiques: the supposed idealization of native-speaker competence in applied linguistics, and the impracticality of applied linguistics research.
According to Widdowson, “the first thing applied linguists need to do is to stop giving primacy to disciplinarity” (p. 395). An important manifestation of this disciplinarity, for Widdowson, is to make the ultimate aim of language teaching be competence, which is “a disciplinary abstraction conceived as what native speakers in a particular community know of their language” (p. 395). Widdowson contrasts this native speaker-centric model with “natural” language learning, whereby learners “reduce the foreignness [of an additional language] by relating it to their own language … learning to use the language as a communicative resource and so develop a general lingual capability” (p. 397). Therefore, for Widdowson, applied linguistics as an academic discipline is closely associated with having native-speaker competence as the goal of language instruction. In my own experience, however, English language teaching (ELT) contexts that are influenced by applied linguistics are, in fact, often less focused on native-speaker competence, and align more closely with Widdowson's description of “natural” language learning, compared with teaching contexts that are far removed from the discipline.
For example, I qualified for my first ELT positions, at South Korean hagwons, after-school tutoring businesses that had no direct influence from applied linguistics in terms of personnel or curriculum, solely due to my being a native English-speaking holder of a Western passport. In contrast, when I taught English at a Chinese university that required a Master's degree in applied linguistics or related discipline, students' use of Chinese-influenced English, outside of high-stakes assessment situations, was often viewed as a sign of a creative and intelligent speaker, and, far from idealizing native-speaker competence, my teaching colleagues pursued scholarship in global Englishes and translanguaging. Neither is native-speaker competence a focus in my current position at an American university, where I teach in a program that prepares future English educators, many of whom go on to work with children identified as English learners in government-funded school districts in Kentucky. For guidance on English-learner curriculum and assessment, these school districts rely largely on WIDA, a “consortium” of state-level departments of education headquartered at the University of Wisconsin (WIDA, 2024). WIDA policy and guidance draw heavily on applied linguistics as an academic discipline, while advocating for an educational philosophy that shares many similarities with Widdowson's “natural” language learning. For example, WIDA's flagship Standards Framework document includes references to dozens of articles in applied linguistics academic journals, and yet one of its “guiding principles” is that “multilingual learners use their full linguistic repertoire … to enrich their language development and learning” (WIDA, 2020, p. 12). In the same document, teachers are advised to support students' use of “initially ‘imperfect’ English” as a way of “overcoming the tendency to perceive multilingual learners as if they were failed native speakers” (p. 356). Rooted in applied linguistics, WIDA and its guidance for U.S. teachers do not make native-speaker competence the primary aim of language teaching.
Another reason, according to Widdowson, that applied linguistics has made “little, if any, contribution to improvements in language teaching” (p. 395) is that the discipline's research output is incompatible with teachers' practical concerns. More specifically, he is “skeptical about the practical relevance of SLA research” (p. 394). While he acknowledges that second language acquisition (SLA) is “generally accepted as squarely located within applied linguistics” (p. 394), he identifies the former with empirical research that seeks to build theory about the “underlying essential commonalities that define the language acquisition process” (p. 395). The findings of SLA research disseminated in academic conferences and journals, Widdowson writes, are “generally inaccessible to most language teachers in the real world”, and even if teachers were aware of the findings, the chances that they would be able to use them to improve their teaching are “remote” (p. 395). On this point, I agree in part: in my experience in teacher preparation programs, teachers-in-training are exposed to a diversity of applied linguistics research that varies widely in its accessibility and applicability. On the one hand, I have observed future teachers struggling to read journal articles about complex linguistic theories (e.g., universal grammar, markedness) and psychological theories (e.g., motivation, noticing) as explanations of language learning. To understand these is a daunting intellectual task that often leads to sparse conclusions for pedagogical applications. In my experience, teachers find little value in such theoretical exercises. That is not to say that theory cannot contribute to improvements in language teaching; I am of the belief that some SLA theory can be “translated”, so to speak, into pedagogically useful forms, such as teaching methods workshops and instructional materials. This theory-to-practice translation requires skilled individuals with one foot in the discipline and one foot in the classroom.
On the other hand, I have also seen groups of teachers-in-training read and understand applied linguistics research, identify potentially useful teaching strategies described therein, and comment on these perceived benefits. This was the case, for example, in one of my recent teacher preparation classes in which we read Kibler et al.'s (Reference Kibler, Salerno and Hardigree2014) study of an American bilingual education program. Follow-up discussions made it clear that the class understood the researchers' detailed description of the educational program being studied (including its overall organization, planned activities, and observed real-world implementation), empathized with language learners' comments about their experiences and attitudes towards the program and, crucially, identified teaching strategies they wanted to try (including a bilingual book-making activity and multilingual classroom signage). In my view, engaging with this kind of applied linguistics research allows teachers-in-training to learn about a real-life teaching context, including its benefits and disadvantages, through a depth of insight that would not otherwise be available to them. While the research described in the article was empirical and includes a “theoretical framework” (Kibler et al., Reference Kibler, Salerno and Hardigree2014, p. 254) concerning language and language learning, it was not “remote from the actual and local problems” (Widdowson & Yazdi-Amirkhiz, Reference Widdowson and Yazdi-Amirkhiz2023, p. 394) of language education in the specific context where it was conducted. The practicality of such research can be made more explicit by asking teachers-in-training questions such as “Would this work well in your own teaching context?” and “What would you change if you were to implement this program in your own teaching context?”. In thinking about these questions, teachers-in-training gain capacity to build theories, in Widdowson's sense of “abstraction from actuality” (p. 394). In my experience, opportunities to develop a personal, local understanding of how languages are learned are far more appealing, and are viewed as more practical, than being inducted into the “expert mysteries of SLA research” (p. 395). Research such as that described in Kibler et al. (Reference Kibler, Salerno and Hardigree2014) can, I believe, play an important role in the former.
To conclude, I agree with Widdowson that applied linguistics can have negligible or even detrimental effects on language teaching in the real world; however, I have observed many examples that are at odds with Widdowson's claims regarding the idealization of native-speaker competence and the inaccessibility and impracticality of research. Based on my experiences as a language teacher and teacher trainer over the past 20 years, I believe that the discipline has made substantial progress towards Widdowson's ideals.
Mark McAndrews is the coordinator of TESOL programs at Western Kentucky University, USA, where he also teaches courses in TESOL, English Language, and Linguistics. He previously taught English as an additional language in the Program in Intensive English at Northern Arizona University, USA, the English Language Center at Shantou University, China, and private language schools in South Korea. He holds a Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics from Northern Arizona University.