Talk:Applied linguistics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

WikiProject Linguistics / Applied Linguistics  (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.


It looks like it'd be more readable if it were a list. -Vexthesmol (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The Underbelly[edit]

The "academic" field of applied linguistics is greatly influenced by political forces. It is an important aspect that should be recognized.

  • I think I could settle for that! I had one applied linguistics prof, Gaies, who sometimes refered to it as the "underbelly" so It's kind of an endearing word to me but "controversy" is more appropriate.

Well now the "controversy" section has been deleted. It had a reference for US Information Agency agents as well. Well, like I said earlier, the "underbelly" as my applied linguistics prof Gaies called it, is a very significant aspect of this so-called academic field. An academic field that does not want to disclose its roots, is so ashamed that it is censored off of Wikipedia, is really outrageous. Of course, not all work for the USIA but a significant number do and it is their job to find international students who are friendly to US foreign policy in their respective countries. Applied linguistics programs have a very high percentage of international students enrolled. In my program about 40% were international students. Of course, the US military similarly enrolls a lot of officers into its Defense Language Institute (DLI) and one of the most influential in second language learning, the Drill and Kill Method, actually comes from DLI.

  • Fine, keep the section, I won't keep reverting it any more. Can you at least make it sound somewhat reasonable though? As in, perhaps a bit less on the excessive stuff, a little less general and resembling a conspiracy theory if you plan on keeping it at all? And get a real log-in?Dicaeopolis 08:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Okay, I will work on it.

External link removed[edit]

I removed a link to The domain is apparently owned by an actual linguist, but there is almost zero content on the site for the time being - simply pages of ads. Perhaps if the content is improved it is worth linking to again. [Also, this website is linked to on other linguistics pages. I'll be removing as many as I find.]Nposs 03:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There still are more advertisements on than content. This would suggest that the person who continues to externally link the site is using Wikipedia to generate traffic to create advertising revenue. (Please read: Wikipedia:External_links especially "Advertising and Conflicts of Interest"). For example: the links page - "There are no links right now." Other pages promise content but provide only an e-mail address. Only one page has a definition of Applied Linguistics - something which is already available here. Since there is something of a revert tug-of-war going on, I won't delete it for the moment. But the website really needs to be improved if it is going to be linked.Nposs 14:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Yay! We won the war!!! :)

Anyways, Joking apart, here is the thing Nposs. First of all, I will also not try to put it back any more even if you delete it again. But the thing is that this site will soon have huge content. Indeed, it did have a lot of content until recently; nowadays, it is just going through some changes. (Search Google, and you will see.) And the reason for its being on Wiki is not that it should generate traffic. But Wiki links does help with PR: Since Wiki is a high PR webpage, and since when a high PR webpage links to another webpage, that webpage's PR increases, this page's existence on Wiki helps this page a lot.

Thanks for explaining. I'm sorry that you felt like I was engaging in some sort of war. From my point of view, it looked like spam - especially when it was consistently relinked without comment. I believe that you will work to improve the website. At the same time, you are walking the fine line of "conflict of interest." I think the situation would be helped by removing the high level of advertisements on the site (which gives the impression that you are linking only to generate traffic.) You could also just remove it from the wiki and re-link it when it is ready. That said, I won't remove it again. Good luck with your work.Nposs 14:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions Nposs!! :)

The above comments and linking posting etc., are in no way made by anyone from, so their presence here is a clear violation of the site's rights. The site's administrator has said on many occasions that the site was purchased by them later from "translators." A quick Google search of the domain will show for sure that the domain was owned by translators before the recent purchase - since most of the links to the site are translation-related. And the comment above that was made on behalf of the site severely violates the site's legal rights. Linguist J 22:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Howdy Applied Linguisticians =[edit]

Can you please to be adding some lists of accomplishments in the area of applied linguistics? From this page all I can gather is that a)it's somewhat old, b)it's concerned with social issues, and c)it has oodles of publications. But what exactly does it "do"? Thanks! (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Lexicography is applied linguistics[edit]

Lexicography is a branch of applied linguistics.applied linguistics is applyin linguistics theories,insights into language related areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Detailed Improvement Suggestions[edit]

This article provides a brief and enlightening introduction about applied linguistics. It might be capable to give casual readers a basic understanding about what other disciplines applied linguistics interacts with, and how applied linguistics evolved in history. However, as it currently stands, this article is still not informative enough in terms of “what applied linguistics is, as a discipline”, or “what applied linguistics do, as an academic field”. To be specific, I noticed three section could be improved, according to the criteria provided by Wikipedia

1. The Lead Section[edit]

I noticed that the lead section described the practical features of applied linguistics as “identifies, investigates, and offers solutions to language-related real-life problems”. This might explain why this field is called “applied” linguistics, but from a reader’s point of view, this statement is relatively too general and abstract to be a definition of an academic field. Therefore, I would like to suggest adding some specific information about what applied linguistics actually studies and concerns to make this definition more concrete and more understandable.

Secondly, this lead section does not clearly provide a comprehensive framework of the structure of this article. I would like to suggest briefly summarizing the key points in the article to provide readers an outline about what they could expect in the following sections. This will also help to build a clearer structure for the whole article.

Most importantly, there is no reference provided in the lead section. Therefore, the reliability of content need to be determined. I will strongly suggest to revise it with some authorized reference. For instance, Cambridge University provides a comprehensive and insightful way of defining applied linguistics in What is Applied Linguistics? (link needs to be fixed).

2. Domain Section[edit]

It is essential to exclude a domain section to provide further description of the topics, but the domain section in this article is not clearly structured. Rather than enumerating all the branches in one chunk, I would consider grouping them into different categories according to their focus, and expanding these categories into sub-section under “domain” section. Some possible categories could be: language acquisition, language education, language in culture and society, language in information technology, language in literature, language in law, etc. Meanwhile, some brief description about each category will also be very helpful.

I also noticed there is some information about major journals mixed into this “domain” section. I will strongly suggest to start a new section after the “societies” section for introducing these journals.

Last but not least, same as the lead section, this section is lack of references as well. Adding more inline citation and revising the content with more reliable sources will be very helpful for the improvement in this section, too.

3. History Section[edit]

Comparing to other sections, history section is suitably referenced, and it seems better structured and well expanded. However, it also seems overly long in proportion to its importance. It could be reorganized into a more condensed version. For instance, Linguistic Society of America provides a sample of a good illustration of the history of applied linguistics.

Large parts in United Kingdom, Austrilia, and Japan sub-sections are redundant since they are mainly about applied linguistics societies, of which we have a separate section. Merging these contents with the societies section will be an effective solution for a clearer structure and a well balanced portion in the history section in this article.

Add examples[edit]

Add some real life examples of Applied linguistics in action. Jidanni (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Applied Linguistics Today[edit]

I have just a couple of suggestions for helping to clarify this article and make it a bit more accessible for readers.

The History section makes up the bulk of this article. While the section provides a fairly complete view of what applied linguistics used to be, as well as the shifts in focus that have occurred within the field, the most recent date mentioned in this section is 1977. Nothing wrong with that as it is the history section, but it highlights what the article lacks most as a whole. I'm afraid any reader coming in hoping to get an idea of the field today would quickly find this article not useful. The article as a whole needs a description of applied linguistics today. Critical studies on the impact of globalization, language in conflict, the mission of practically oriented non-profit organizations such as the Center for Applied Linguistics, Racio-linguistic encounters/conflicts in the classroom, etc. are all examples of current pursuits and fields of study for applied linguists and should be recognized in this article. The difficulty here won't be finding areas of applied linguistics to write about, rather, deciding how best to categorize and connect them.

The Associations section is useful, but incomplete. The British Association of Applied Linguistics, for example, should not be left out. Additionally, many of these associations have very useful websites with similar articles about applied linguistics that could be drawn on and cited from as sources to improve this article. The Linguistics Society of America has a very useful resource page on Applied Linguistics that could be used as a source and cited.

At the very least, the external links on the page could be expanded to include the sites for the associations mentioned in the article. PerfunktoryN (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Applied linguistics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)