13.1763, Disc: Review: Applied Ling: Hinkel (2002)

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-13-1763. Fri Jun 21 2002. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 13.1763, Disc: Review: Applied Ling: Hinkel (2002)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
	Simin Karimi, U. of Arizona
	Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Consulting Editor:
        Andrew Carnie, U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Editors (linguist at linguistlist.org):
	Karen Milligan, WSU 		Naomi Ogasawara, EMU
	James Yuells, EMU		Marie Klopfenstein, WSU
	Michael Appleby, EMU		Heather Taylor, EMU
	Ljuba Veselinova, Stockholm U.	Richard John Harvey, EMU
	Dina Kapetangianni, EMU		Renee Galvis, WSU
	Karolina Owczarzak, EMU

Software: John Remmers, E. Michigan U. <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
          Gayathri Sriram, E. Michigan U. <gayatri at linguistlist.org>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.



Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Fri, 21 Jun 2002 02:20:06 -0400
From:  "Ronald SHEEN (UQTR-Langues modernes)" <Ronald_Sheen at uqtr.uquebec.ca>
Subject:  Re: 13.1754, Disc: Review: Applied Ling: Hinkel (2002)

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Fri, 21 Jun 2002 02:20:06 -0400
From:  "Ronald SHEEN (UQTR-Langues modernes)" <Ronald_Sheen at uqtr.uquebec.ca>
Subject:  Re: 13.1754, Disc: Review: Applied Ling: Hinkel (2002)

Georgette Jabbour again implicitly refuses to provide any examples
that she reports Hinkel offers as support for her claims.  This is not
surprising, as the provision of such examples would oblige her to
explain how their integration into teaching texts would result in
improvement. Instead, she refers members to various texts in corpus
linguistics and discourse analysis, despite the fact that none of them
provides any empirical evidence to demonstrate that the application of
their findings to the classroom has resulted in any identifiable
improvement in what learners achieve.

I have no objection to applied linguists doing research in some
theoretical paradigm or other.  What I object to is their justifying
their work with claims of improvement in learning outcomes resulting
from the application of their findings to the classroom.  Many volumes
have been published based on such claims.  To my knowledge, not one
provided empirical evidence to support their claims based on the
trialling of the use of their findings in the classroom.

In a way, the situation is reminscent of that created by snake oil salesmen
of the Old West.  When the poor buyers had realised that the snake oil did
not work, the salemen were no longer to be seen just as applied linguists
seldom if ever manifest any accountability for the fact that their claims
were basically without empirical foundation and have proven to have brought
no improvement to classroom learning.



Ron Sheen  U of Quebec in Trois Rivieres, Canada.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-13-1763