3.1.5　Contributions of linguistics to foreign language teaching

The sudden ideological changes，coupled with the abstract formalism and frequent obscurities of writings on transformational generative grammar，reopened the entire question of the contribution of linguistics to foreign language teaching.The development of Transformational Generative Theory in the late sixties made it very clear that the Chomskyan evolution was not the end of the upheaval.Because of the continued agitation language teachers were urged by some linguists，including Chomsky himself（1966），but also by Bolinger（1968）and others，to adopt a position of independence vis-a-vis linguistic theory.

Two viewpoints emerged.One was to say that linguistics had been misapplied and that its importance had altogether been overrated.From playing no part at all in the interwar period，linguistics had risen to an exaggerated position of influence in language teaching theory.The disillusionment with linguistics was reflected in such article titles as‘The failure of the discipline of linguistics in language teaching’（Johnson，1969），or‘On the irrelevance of transformational grammar to second language pedagogy’（Lamendella，1969）.These two articles did not reject linguistics as such，but pointed to‘the dangers in too readily accepting the explanations of the linguists as the basis of a strategy of learning’（Johnson，1969：243）.Lamendella thought that it was‘a mistake to look to transformational grammar or any other theory of linguistic description to provide the theoretical basis for second language pedagogy.What is needed in the field of language teaching is not applied linguists but rather applied psychologists’（op.cit.；255）.

The other point of view that emerged was to recognize the general contribution of linguistics but with the proviso that language teaching is by no means bound to abide consistently by one theory.The perspective of language teaching is different from that of linguistics.The linguist may seek validity in a coherent and consistent linguistic theory，while a language teacher judges a theory for its usefulness in the design of materials，in curriculum development，or in instruction（Valdman，1966a）.Different linguistic theories may offer different perspectives on language，and they can be treated as equivalent resources，Ingenious examples were offered of a frankly eclectic application of several linguistic theories for different purposes in language teaching.Therefore，Levenston（1973）showed how the description of linguistic items，such as indirect object structures in English can be illuminated from different angles by deliberately changing from one theoretical position to another.‘No one school of linguistic analysis has a monopoly of truth in the description of the phenomena of speech...traditional school grammar，the matrix techniques of tagmemic theory，the rule-ordering of transformational generative description，the systemic choices of the scale-and-category grammar，all these and more can be shown to have their own particular relevance to the language teaching situation.’（Levenston，1973）Likewise，Allen（1973），in a revision course for learners of English as a second language in a university，devised practice materials based on two different linguistic models.In taxonomic model of different grammatical surfaces was appropriate for classroom practice，but only transformational generative grammar was able to relate different sentence patterns to each other：‘We have attempted to solve this dilemma by using a taxonomic surface-structure model for the basic presentation，but at the same time utilizing transformational insights whenever this can be done informally without incurring a large number of abstract rules’（Allen 1973：94）.In other words，a shift was taking place from‘applying’linguistics directly to treating linguistics as a resource to be drawn on for the benefit of pedagogy with complete independence of mind.

Another distinction was suggested by Spolsky‘Linguistics and Language Pedagogy：Applications or Implications？’He described the relations between linguistics and language teaching as dual：‘application and implications’.That is，the descriptions of language made by linguists can be‘applied’in the sense that they provide the data needed for writing teaching grammars，course books，and dictionaries.But the discussions that linguistics has initiated about the nature may provide new insights that in turn have implications for teaching of languages.

Thus，the Chomskyan notion that language is creative would imply that teaching techniques which make learners respond automatically or repeat mechanically are less appropriate than techniques which lead to‘creative language use’（Spolsky，1970：150）.Such implication that could be derived from insights about the nature of language was considered by some theorists to be the most valuable contribution that should be expected from linguistics，Corder（1973a：15）summed it up by stating that‘there can be no systemic improvement in language teaching without reference to the knowledge about language which linguistics gives us.’