Humanities

How much empirical evidence is there for the frequently expressed
opinion that the academic literacy levels of first year students at South
African universities are steadily deteriorating? Rather than a decrease of academic
literacy, the analyses in this study have shown that the tests themselves have increased in difficulty. Item response theory (IRT) modelling is a useful tool to get a better understanding of the difficulty of tests and test items.

The argument of the paper is that different historical understandings of applied linguistic work point to the relativity of the discipline, and prevent its practitioners from entertaining the belief that, because they are doing 'applied science', their designed solution to a language problem will be sufficient. Definitions of applied linguistics can come from both ends of the spectrum of applied linguistic work, i.e. the philosophical and the practical or pedagogical.

AUTHOR'S NOTE:  We currently distinguish seven generations of applied linguistics . For an updated history, see my 2014 article, "Applied linguistics beyond postmodernism", available at: https://albertweideman.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/applied_linguistics_beyond_postmodernism_by_albert_weideman.pdf

A number of recent discussions reveal a renewed unease within applied linguistics with how the field should be defined, which direction it should take, what the legitimate focuses are for work in the discipline, what themes should engage applied linguists, and which methodologies they should employ. This paper focuses on how the currently ascendant, late-postmodern paradigm within applied linguistics is dealing with, or ignoring, the challenges it faces from within postmodernism, and beyond. In its response, it is evident that the view of applied linguistics as dealing with language issues or practices makes it difficult to distinguish from linguistics, even where, often contradictorily, its supposed multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary character is invoked. It is essential to distinguish the influence that other disciplines may themselves exert on applied linguistics from the philosophical paradigms operative in those disciplines. Paradigm alignment may therefore well be mistaken for interdisciplinary influence and understandings. Given a current uneasiness with postmodernist approaches, and an expressed desire to move beyond its relativism and political agendas, poststructuralism indeed presents an important theoretical defence of late postmodernism. One problem with that defence is its often strident dismissal of other postmodernist approaches, while implying that it is the purest form of that. So the ascendancy of poststructuralism comes at a cost: the rejection of potential allies. While it may yet contribute to more responsible applied linguistic designs, its emphasis on the political and especially ethical dimensions of applied linguistic work will probably be its enduring contribution.

******

'n Aantal onlangse besprekings gee blyke van hernieude ongemak in die toegepaste taalkunde met betrekking tot hoe die veld gedefinieer behoort te word, watter rigting dit moet inslaan, watter fokusse legitiem is vir sy dissiplinêre werk, watter temas aangespreek moet word, en welke metodologieë aangewend moet word. Hierdie bydrae fokus op die wyse waarop die huidig toonaangewende, laat-postmodernistiese paradigma in die toegepaste taalkunde die uitdagings wat afkomstig is vanuit die postmodernisme self, maar ook van buite die postmodernisme, hanteer of ignoreer. Uit die reaksie daarop is dit duidelik dat die siening van die toegepaste taalkunde as die hantering van taalkwessies of –praktyke dit moelik maak om dit te onderskei van die linguistiek, selfs waar die toegepaste taalkunde ietwat kontradiktories homself tegelyk beroem op sy multi-of interdissiplinêre aard. Dit is verder noodsaaklik om te onderskei tussen die invloed van ander dissiplines op die toegepaste taalkunde en die filosofiese paradigmas wat werksaam is in daardie ander dissiplines. Die belyning van paradigmas oor vakgrense heen kan maklik aangesien word vir interdissiplinêre invloed, wat dit nie is nie. Gegewe die huidige ongemak met 'n postmodernistiese aanpak, asook die versugting om aan te beweeg, weg van sy relativisme en politieke agendas, is dit verstaanbaar dat die poststrukturalisme 'n besondere teoretiese regverdiging mag bied vir die laat-postmodernisme. Die een probleem met daardie verweer is die telkens robuuste afwysing van ander postmodernistiese aanpakke, tesame met die implikasie dat die poststrukturalisme die suiwerste vorm daarvan is. Die invloedrykheid van die poststrukturalisme kom dit dus duur te staan: dit beteken dat potensiële bondgenote verwerp word. Terwyl dit nog kan bydra tot die meer verantwoordelike ontwerp van toegepaste taalkundige intervensies, bly die meer duursame bydrae wat dit kan maak steeds die klem te wees wat dit plaas op veral die politiese en etiese dimensies van toegepaste taalkundige werk.

The newly introduced Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) contains a plethora of genres and writing tasks, aimed at helping learners develop dexterity in written communication. Accordingly, writing also features as a dominant construct in the Grade 12 school-leaving examination, with an entire language paper (Paper 3) being devoted to the assessment of this ability. There are a number of material concerns with the writing component of the national curriculum, particularly in relation to the testing of this ability in a timed examination setting. The kinds of examination tasks do not provide a valid or reliable basis for measuring proficiency in written communication. Moreover, the separation of skills reflected in both the curriculum and Grade 12 language papers may serve to inhibit rather than advance writing proficiency. This paper problematises the nature of the writing tasks, on the basis of the accepted principles of validity, reliability and fairness in language testing. Data gleaned from an analysis of Home Language papers reveal a disturbing lack of comparability of standard, as well as the prejudicial treatment of some learners. A more responsible approach to the measurement of writing ability is advocated.

The way we conceptualise lingual phenomena enables us to capture theoretically lingual states and events in a way that makes our experience of language cohe -rent, consistent and intelligible. Now a new paradigm, a complex systems ap - proach, has arisen that makes change the essence of what we survey. The ap - proach itself, however, even in characterising language change and development in novel ways, must, like those paradigms that preceded it, seek a stabletheoretical framework for itself. In that it is remarkably similar to those paradigmsthat went before: structuralism, generativism, cognitive linguistics, and even thesocial semiotic framework underlying systemic functional grammar, and conversation analysis. It can be demonstrated that each of these, and the para -digms they represent, isolated one or more dimensions of what might be called thelingual mode of reality, and in their focus on these distinguished their framework from competing ones. What makes a complex systems approach unique is not that it takes a singular (organic) view of language change, but that it bundles together a more than usual number of such aspects when dealing with truly complex linguistic ideas. It nonetheless will reveal its own theoretical blind spots as time passes, and should be treated with the same critical circumspection as thoselinguistic paradigms it will soon replace. We do not yet have, and are unlikely toacquire soon, a comprehensive theoretical framework that unites all of linguistics,that makes our theoretical vision of lingual phenomena coherent. To accomplishthat, we need much more meta-analytical discussion and debate.

The organisation of poetic language as discourse type and as text is worth considering in its own right. What do poets bring to expression through their organisation of language, and how do they do it, if they employ language skilfully in order to support the main discursive threads of their work? This contribution demonstrates that poets may choose to organise language around discursive threads in order to ensure the integrity or wholeness of their texts. We might also label this wholeness the aesthetic coherence of the poetry that is produced. The article discusses two examples of how poets ensure coherence by organising their language in highly specific and inventive ways.

Applied linguistics clearly has modernist roots, which have steadily been eroded by postmodernist views. Opposites, such as quantitative and qualitative, or positivist and postpositivist, are often used to characterise this intellectual conflict. The current ascendancy of a potentially modernist paradigm, a dynamic or complex systems approach, will be noteworthy for drawing our attention to at least two complex linguistic ideas that have not adequately been analysed in linguistic theory. A foundational, philosophical analysis of such trends, as attempted in this article, should adopt a fittingly humble stance. That kind of humility, however, also applies across paradigms: the arrival of a new paradigm in the field is a timely reminder that enduring domination of a single paradigm in any discipline remains unlikely.

The organisation of a university into sub-institutional entities like departments, schools, or faculties is the outcome of complex historical and other conditions and forces, that do not necessarily reflect the academic foundations on which disciplines may be identified. So language departments sometimes erroneously refer to themselves as ‘disciplines’. Yet even a superficial analysis will reveal that they often harbour more than one academic field and may, across departments, house the same disciplines. A foundational analysis demonstrates that a language department may straddle three disciplines: linguistics; aesthetics, and applied linguistics (Weideman, 2011b). This paper looks at just one of the three, linguistics. How does one define its focus? The central thesis of this paper will be that the most responsible way of defining disciplines is by employing a number of foundational distinctions. These define academic disciplines as studying not concrete objects, such as language, but rather all manner of phenomena operating within a unique dimension of reality. Thus linguistics is best defined as the study of phenomena from the vantage point of the lingual aspect of experience, a definition that is wholly in line with some of the most noteworthy conceptualisations of reformational philosophy. What is often forgotten, though, is that the modal focus of a discipline also defines the concrete entities or objects that are stamped by it, as well as the functionally Tydskrif vir Christelike Wetenskap - 2013 (4de Kwartaal) 95 characterised behaviour of human subjects within such a sphere. A responsible definition will attend to both the modal horizon and that which embraces the functioning of entities.

The contestation of paradigms within the discipline of applied linguistics  may broadly be categorised as a conflict of modernist versus postmodernist  approaches. While postmodernism has been in the ascendancy in  applied linguistics since the last decade of the previous century, it is  both divided and currently being challenged by paradigms that hark back  to modernism. This paper will discuss a variant of one still influential  applied linguistic paradigm, ethnography, as a potential growth point for  postmodernist views, and one that may well serve to resist the modernist  challenge presented by dynamic systems theory. In acknowledging  subjectivity and human agency, this variant, autoethnography, recognises  that science is not neutral, and shows how scholars working within the  mainstream may be able to present their beliefs and commitments in  a way that opens these up for consideration and discussion. In doing  that, autoethnography may have wider application than in its initial target  domains, the social sciences and the humanities. The contestation  that it presents within applied linguistics, however, is as unlikely to be  conclusive as in any other paradigm conflict. For the present, the greater  contribution of autoethnography lies in making it possible to articulate  and open for discussion the ways in which belief and commitment are  presented in scholarly work

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour precipitated the active entry of the USA into the Second World War. It had effects on more than just the war, however. It provided the stimulus not only for America's nuclear programme, the Manhattan Project, but also stirred the patriotism of its linguists. In their efforts to make the languages especially of the Pacific Rim more readily available to American troops, applied linguistics was born. A specific kind of language instruction, the audio-lingual method, was the outcome of American linguists 'applying' linguistic and psychological insights to the design of a language intervention - a planned way of providing the military personnel involved with a means of communicating in those other languages.

A central conceptual issue in language assessment in general, and in the work of Alan Davies in particular, is never fully resolved. How is responsible language test design related to ethicality? This unfinished business goes back to the unresolved debate about validity and validation, that has resulted in a loss of conceptual clarity about sound language assessment. The contradictions inherent in first declaring validity to be the overarching concept, and then attempting to expand it by promoting other ideas to be the prime considerations, further confuse the issue. This contribution argues that such expansion is unhelpful. A way out is to look at language test design as being responsive to certain typical and general conditions. In that relationship, between the (subjective) making of the test as an artefact that presents us with a response to certain design principles, and the designed object, the actual test itself, lies a potential way out of the impasse.

In historical perspective applied linguistics is a fairly recent discipline, which may explain some of the contestation that still surrounds its definition. There is in fact a multiplicity ofways in which it is conceptualised: each of at least seven different traditions of working in the field defines applied linguistics differently. Today, multi-, inter- and even trans-disciplinarity are once again fashionable terms in applied linguistics. It is surprising, then, tofind views ofapplied linguistics that tie it closely and sometimes exclusively to linguistics, as at its inception 60 or more years ago. A discipline cannot claim to have both a singular and a multi-source base. In fact, viewing applied linguistics as part of linguistics or positing linguistics as its "mother discipline" has clearly modernist roots, as was acknowledged as far back as 1985, when it became evident that the exclusive link between linguistics and applied linguistics was untenable.
In a recent (2015) volume of the journal Applied Linguistics (36[4]) seven specialists and their editor bring together a number of conceptualisations of the field under the theme of "Definitions for applied linguistics". In assessing these contributions, as well as other recent attempts to conceptualise the field, the paper employs a systematic argument that refutes the notion that there is a conceptual continuity between linguistics and applied linguistics. The argument utilises the philosophical idea that disciplines are best defined with reference not to concrete entities, such as "language ", but rather by referring to theoretically distinguishable modalities or aspects of experience that function as conceptual entry points or angles. These modalities may be identified respectively as the lingual or semiotic aspect, which circumscribes linguistic conceptualisation, and the technical dimension of experience, that is at the centre of applied linguistic concept formation.
What reasons can then be found for the contradictory and sometimes self-contradictory current definitions of applied linguistics? One is that at its inception the name chosen for the field suggested, in keeping with its then modernist approach, that there were linguistic subdisciplines and insights that might readily be "applied" in the design of language teaching. This perspective did not endure, however, but the modernist pretence that "science" would show the way to the ultimate solution to language teaching design did. The current definition offered by the international applied linguistics organisation (AILA), for example, does nothing to dispel this pretence. There is a second historical reason for the continuing linkage of linguistics and applied linguistics. This is that some linguists, especially those working on sociolinguistic themes and interests, at one stage felt uncomfortable within the confines of linguistics, and so opted to work rather as "applied linguists". The historically dominant linguistic paradigm of the end of the 20th century, transformational-generative grammar (TGG), defined linguistics in such a way that their work was unwelcome in that discipline. However, while it may explain the organisational or institutional choice of another disciplinary locality, such discomfort does not warrant the suspension of conceptual clarity as to the character or the theoretical focus of both disciplines.
A third reason for the lack of conceptual clarity about the disciplinary focus of applied linguistics lies in the vagueness that accompanies current callsfor multi- or inter-disciplinarity. In fact, one of the dissenting opinions among those being reviewed contains an observation that those who urge applied linguists to embrace an inter-disciplinary base are merely attempting to persuade them to use philosophically inspired postmodernist paradigms that are already operative in otherfields, such as anthropology and sociology. Embracing the same methodology or paradigm acrossfields is a trans-disciplinary rather than a multi-disciplinary endeavour. The fact is that inter- or multi-disciplinarity, when left undefined, gives no clear conceptual understanding or guide to how one should or might legitimately or even appropriately proceed as applied linguist.
The question might be asked why one would in the first instance want to have a clear idea of the disciplinary boundaries of a field. Might working in an undefined manner not perhaps be more exciting, creative or productive? The renewed current attempts to define applied linguistics imply, however, that its practitioners do seek clarity, and do in fact value it. Moreover, if one s conceptualisation of a field is not clear, then naïve, unsophisticated or intuitive interpretations of what its work comprises may continue to flourish to the detriment of the quality ofwhat it can deliver. The paper will conclude with a consideration of why disciplinary definitions matter, and of how modernist and postmodernist conceptualisations of linguistics and of applied linguistics have effects on the work being done under their respective umbrellas. Paradigm choice and disciplinary awareness are central in avoiding becoming a victim of intellectual fashion, or of naïve interpretations of the nature of one's work.

Reflection on the nature of a discipline minimizes the risk for those who practise it. Applied linguistics is a design discipline that helps us devise plans to overcome language problems. How to design responsibly should therefore be uppermost in the minds of those who devise the solutions. The intuitive, currently fashionable or ‘scientific’ solution is seldom the best design. Applied linguistics is faced with a choice between a technocratic and a revolutionary direction in its design of language interventions. That choice matters, both for historical and for professional reasons.

The post-1994 South African constitution proudly affirms the language diversity of the country, as do subsequent laws, while ministerial policies, both at further and higher education level, similarly promote the use of all 11 official languages in education. However, such recognition of diversity presents several challenges to accommodate potential variation. In language education at secondary school, which is nationally assessed, the variety being promoted immediately raises issues of fairness and equivalence. The final high-stakes examination of learners’ ability in home language at the exit level of their pre-tertiary education is currently contentious in South Africa. It is known, for example, that in certain indigenous languages, the exit level assessments barely discriminate among learners with different abilities, while in other languages they do. For that reason, the Council for Quality Assurance in General and Further Education, Umalusi, has commissioned several reports to attempt to understand the nature of the problem. This article will deal with a discussion of a fourth attempt by Umalusi to solve the problem. That attempt, undertaken by a consortium of four universities, has already delivered six interim reports to this statutory body, and the article will consider some of their content and methodology. In their reconceptualisation of the problem, the applied linguists involved first sought to identify the theoretical roots of the current curriculum in order to articulate more sharply the construct being assessed. That provides the basis for a theoretical justification of the several solutions being proposed, as well as for the preliminary designs of modifications to current, and the introduction of new assessments. The impact of equivalence of measurement as a design requirement will be specifically discussed, with reference to the empirical analyses of results of a number of pilots of equivalent tests in different languages.