Apa Hakikat Linguistik sebagai Ilmu Bahasa?

 

Apa Hakikat Linguistik sebagai Ilmu Bahasa?

 

Manusia yang selalu berkomunikasi menggunakan bahasa sebagai alat komunikasi tentunya akan dihadapkan dengan masalah-masalah linguistik. Ketika kita memiliki pemahaman yang memadai terhadap linguistik, maka kita akan mendapati kemudahan dalam melaksanakan tugas sebagai manusia yang melakukan komunikasi menggunakan suatu bahasa. Karena hakikat linguistik akan memberikan pemahaman kepada kita mengenai hakikat dan seluk beluk bahasa sebagai satu-satunya alat komunikasi terbaik yang hanya dimiliki manusia, serta bagaimana bahasa itu menjalankan peranannya dalam kehidupan manusia bermasyarakat (Chaer, 2014:1).

Apa Hakikat Linguistik sebagai Ilmu Bahasa?

Hakikat linguistik mengambil bahasa sebagai objek kajiannya. kita sering mendengarkan bahwa orang-orang mengatakan bahwa linguistik adalah ilmu tentang bahasa atau lebih tepat lagi seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Martinet (1987: 19), bahwa linguistik merupakan telaah ilmiah mengenai bahasa manusia. Di dalam buku yang dituliskan oleh Chaer (2014: 2) kata linguistik (berpadan dengan linguistics dalam bahasa Inggris, linguistiques dalam bahasa prancis, dan linguistiek dalam bahasa Belanda) diturunkan dari kata bahasa Latin Lingua yang berarti "bahasa". Dan orang yang ahli dalam ilmu linguistik atau pakar linguistik disebut linguis.

Apa Hakikat Linguistik sebagai Ilmu Bahasa?

Dari uraian di atas, dapat ditarik sebuah kesimpulan bahwa hakikat linguistik adalah suatu ilmu yang menjadikan bahasa sebagai objek kajiannya atau bisa dikatakan juga sebagai telaah ilmiah terhadap bahasa manusia. 

 

REFERENSI

Chaer, Abdul. 2014. Linguistik Umum. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Martinet, Andre. 1987. Ilmu Bahasa: Pengantar (terjemahan Rahayu Hidayat). Yogyakarta: Kanisius.

Corpus Analysis and Linguistics Theory by Charles F. Meyer. (2004)

When the first computer corpus, the Brown Corpus, was being created in the early 1960s, generative grammar dominated linguistics, and there was little tolerance for approaches to linguistic study that did not adhere to what generative grammarians deemed acceptable linguistic practice. As a consequence, even though the creators of the Brown Corpus, W. Nelson Francis and Henry Kuˇcera, are now regarded as pioneers and visionaries in the corpus linguistics community, in the 1960s their efforts to create a machine-readable corpus of English were not warmly accepted by many members of the linguistic community. 

W. Nelson Francis (1992: 28) tells the story of a leading generative grammarian of the time characterizing the creation of the Brown Corpus as “a useless and foolhardy enterprise” because “the only legitimate source of grammatical knowledge” about a language was the intuitions of the native speaker, which could not be obtained from a corpus. Although some linguists still hold to this belief, linguists of all persuasions are now far more open to the idea of using linguistic corpora for both descriptive and theoretical studies of language. 

Moreover, the division and divisiveness that has characterized the relationship between the corpus linguist and the generative grammarian rests on a false assumption: that all corpus linguists are descriptivists, interested only in counting and categorizing constructions occurring in a corpus, and that all generative grammarians are theoreticians unconcerned with the data on which their theories are based. Many corpus linguists are actively engaged in issues of language theory, and many generative grammarians have shown an increasing concern for the data upon which their theories are based, even though data collection remains at best a marginal concern in modern generative theory.

sussy_corpus linguistics

To explain why corpus linguistics and generative grammar have had such an uneasy relationship, and to explore the role of corpus analysis in linguistic theory, this chapter first discusses the goals of generative grammar and the three types of adequacy (observational, descriptive, and explanatory) that Chomsky claims linguistic descriptions can meet. Investigating these three types of adequacy reveals the source of the conflict between the generative grammarian and the corpus linguist: while the generative grammarian strives for explanatory adequacy (the highest level of adequacy, according to Chomsky), the corpus linguist aims for descriptive adequacy (a lower level of adequacy), and it is arguable whether explanatory adequacy is even achievable through corpus analysis. 

However, even though generative grammarians and corpus linguists have different goals, it is wrong to assume that the analysis of corpora has nothing to contribute to linguistic theory: corpora can be invaluable resources for testing out linguistic hypotheses based on more functionally based theories of grammar, i.e. theories of language more interested in exploring language as a tool of communication. And the diversity of text types in modern corpora makes such investigations quite possible, a point illustrated in the middle section of the chapter, where a functional analysis of coordination ellipsis is presented that is based on various genres of the Brown Corpus and the International Corpus of English. Although corpora are ideal for functionally based analyses of language, they have other uses as well, and the final section of the chapter provides a general survey of the types of linguistic analyses that corpora can help the linguist conduct and the corpora available to carry out these analyses. (P. 1 – 2)

REFERENCE
Charles F. Meyer. (2004). English Corpus Linguistics An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Linguistics Theory and Description by Charles F. Meyer. (2004)

Chomsky has stated in a number of sources that there are three levels of “adequacy” upon which grammatical descriptions and linguistic theories can be evaluated: observational adequacy, descriptive adequacy, and explanatory adequacy.

sussy_Linguistics Theory

If a theory or description achieves observational adequacy, it is able to describe which sentences in a language are grammatically well formed. Such a description would note that in English while a sentence such as He studied for the exam is grammatical, a sentence such as *studied for the exam is not. To achieve descriptive adequacy (a higher level of adequacy), the description or theory must not only describe whether individual sentences are well formed but in addition specify the abstract grammatical properties making the sentences well formed. Applied to the previous sentences, a description at this level would note that sentences in English require an explicit subject. Hence, *studied for the exam is ungrammatical and He studied for the exam is grammatical. The highest level of adequacy is explanatory adequacy, which is achieved when the description or theory not only reaches descriptive adequacy but does so using abstract principles which can be applied beyond the language being considered and become a part of “Universal Grammar.” At this level of adequacy, one would describe the inability of English to omit subject pronouns as a consequence of the fact that, unlike Spanish or Japanese, English is not a language which permits “pro-drop,” i.e. the omission of a subject pronoun that is recoverable from the context or deducible from inflections on the verb marking the case, gender, or number of the subject.

Within Chomsky’s theory of principles and parameters, pro-drop is a consequence of the “null-subject parameter” (Haegeman 1991: 17–20). This parameter is one of many which make up universal grammar, and as speakers acquire a language, the manner in which they set the parameters of universal grammar is determined by the norms of the language they are acquiring. Speakers acquiring English would set the null-subject parameter to negative, since English does not permit pro-drop; speakers of Italian, on the other hand, would set the parameter to positive, since Italian permits pro-drop (Haegeman 1991: 18). 

Because generative grammar has placed so much emphasis on universal grammar, explanatory adequacy has always been a high priority in generative grammar, often at the expense of descriptive adequacy: there has never been much emphasis in generative grammar in ensuring that the data upon which analyses are based are representative of the language being discussed, and with the notion of the ideal speaker/hearer firmly entrenched in generative grammar, there has been little concern for variation in a language, which traditionally has been given no consideration in the construction of generative theories of language. This trend has become especially evident in the most recent theory of generative grammar: minimalist theory.

In minimalist theory, a distinction is made between those elements of a language that are part of the “core” and those that are part of the “periphery.” The core is comprised of “pure instantiations of UG” and the periphery “marked exceptions” that are a consequence of “historical accident, dialect mixture, personal idiosyncracies, and the like” (Chomsky 1995: 19–20). Because “variation is limited to nonsubstantive elements of the lexicon and general properties of lexical items” (Chomsky 1995: 170), those elements belonging to the periphery of a language are not considered in minimalist theory; only those elements that are part of the core are deemed relevant for purposes of theory construction. This idealized view of language is taken because the goal of minimalist theory is “a theory of the initial state,” that is, a theory of what humans know about language “in advance of experience” (Chomsky 1995: 4) before they encounter the real world of the language they are acquiring and the complexity of structure that it will undoubtedly exhibit.

This complexity of structure, however, is precisely what the corpus linguist is interested in studying. Unlike generative grammarians, corpus linguists see complexity and variation as inherent in language, and in their discussions of language, they place a very high priority on descriptive adequacy, not explanatory adequacy. Consequently, corpus linguists are very skeptical of the highly abstract and decontextualized discussions of language promoted by generative grammarians, largely because such discussions are too far removed from actual language usage. Chafe (1994: 21) sums up the disillusionment that corpus linguists have with purely formalist approaches to language study, noting that they “exclude observations rather than . . . embrace ever more of them” and that they rely too heavily on “notational devices designed to account for only those aspects of reality that fall within their purview, ignoring the remaining richness which also cries out for understanding.” The corpus linguist embraces complexity; the generative grammarian pushes it aside, seeking an ever more restrictive view of language.

Because the generative grammarian and corpus linguist have such very different views of what constitutes an adequate linguistic description, it is clear why these two groups of linguists have had such a difficult time communicating and valuing each other’s work. As Fillmore (1992: 35) jokes, when the corpus linguist asks the theoretician (or “armchair linguist”) “Why should I think that what you tell me is true?”, the generative grammarian replies back “Why should I think that what you tell me is interesting?” (emphasis added). Of primary concern to the corpus linguist is an accurate description of language; of importance to the generative grammarian is a theoretical discussion of language that advances our knowledge of universal grammar.

Even though the corpus linguist places a high priority on descriptive adequacy, it is a mistake to assume that the analysis of corpora has nothing to offer to generative theory in particular or to theorizing about language in general. The main argument against the use of corpora in generative grammar, Leech (1992) observes, is that the information they yield is biased more towards performance than competence and is overly descriptive rather than theoretical. However, Leech (1992: 108) argues that this characterization is overstated: the distinction between competence and performance is not as great as is often claimed, “since the latter is the product of the former.” Consequently, what one discovers in a corpus can be used as the basis for whatever theoretical issue one is exploring. In addition, all of the criteria applied to scientific endeavors can be satisfied in a corpus study, since corpora are excellent sources for verifying the falsifiability, completeness, simplicity, strength, and objectivity of any linguistic hypothesis (Leech 1992: 112–13).

Despite Leech’s claims, it is unlikely that corpora will ever be used very widely by generative grammarians, even though some generative discussions of language have been based on corpora and have demonstrated their potential for advancing generative theory. Working within the framework of government and binding theory (the theory of generative grammar preceding minimalist theory), Aarts (1992) used sections of the corpus housed at the Survey of English Usage at University College London to analyze “small clauses” in English, constructions like her happy in the sentence I wanted her happy that can be expanded into a clausal unit (She is happy). By using the London Corpus, Aarts (1992)was not only able to provide a complete description of small clauses in English but to resolve certain controversies regarding small clauses, such as establishing the fact that they are independent syntactic units rather than simply two phrases, the first functioning as direct object and the second as complement of the object.

Haegeman (1987) employed government and binding theory to analyze empty categories (i.e. positions in a clausewhere some element is missing) in a specific genre of English: recipe language. While Haegeman’s investigation is not based on data from any currently available corpus, her analysis uses the type of data quite commonly found in corpora. Haegeman (1987) makes the very interesting claim that parametric variation (such as whether or not a language exhibits pro-drop) does not simply distinguish individual languages from one another but can be used to characterize regional, social, or register variation within a particular language. She looks specifically at examples from the genre (or register) of recipe language that contain missing objects (marked by the letters [a], [b], etc. in the example below):

(1) Skin and bone chicken, and cut [a] into thin slices. Place [b] in bowl with mushrooms. Pur´ee remaining ingredients in blender, and pour [c] over chicken and mushrooms. Combine [d] and chill [e] well before serving. (Haegeman 1987: 236–7)

Government and binding theory, Haegeman (1987: 238) observes, recognizes four types of empty categories, and after analyzing a variety of different examples of recipe language, Haegeman concludes that this genre contains one type of empty category, wh-traces, not found in the core grammar of English (i.e. in other genres or regional and social varieties of English).

What distinguishes Haegeman’s (1987) study from most other work in generative grammar is that she demonstrates that theoretical insights into universal grammar can be obtained by investigating the periphery of a language as well as the core. And since many corpora contain samples of various genres within a language, they are very well suited to the type of analysis that Haegeman (1987) has conducted. Unfortunately, given the emphasis in generative grammar on investigations of the core of a language (especially as reflected in Chomsky’s recent workin minimalism), corpora will probably never have much of a role in generative grammar. For this reason, corpora are much better suited to functional analyses of language: analyses that are focused not simply on providing a formal description of language but on describing the use of language as a communicative tool. (P. 2 – 5)

REFERENCE   
Charles F. Meyer. (2004). English Corpus Linguistics An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   

Developmental Linguistics in Language

Readers familiar with small children will know that they generally produce their first recognizable word (e.g. Dada or Mama) round about their first birthday; from then until the age of about one year, six months, children’s speech consists largely of single words spoken in isolation (e.g. a child wanting an apple will typically say ‘Apple’). At this point, children start to form elementary phrases and sentences, so that a child wanting an apple at this stage might say “Want apple”. From then on, we see a rapid growth in children’s grammatical development, so that by the age of two years, six months, most children are able to produce adult-like sentences such as “Can I have an apple?”

sussy_linguistics

From this rough characterization of development, a number of tasks emerge for the developmental linguist. Firstly, it is necessary to describe the child’s development in terms of a sequence of grammars. After all, we know that children become adults, and we are supposing that, as adults, they are native speakers who have access to a mentally represented grammar. The natural assumption is that they move towards this grammar through a sequence of “incomplete” or “immature” grammars. Secondly, it is important to try to explain how it is that after a period of a year and a half in which there is no obvious sign of children being able to form sentences, between one-and-a-half and two-and-a-half years of age there is a ‘spurt’ as children start to form more and more complex sentences, and a phenomenal growth in children’s grammatical development. This uniformity and (once the ‘spurt’ has started) rapidity in the pattern of children’s linguistic development are central facts which a theory of language acquisition must seek to explain. But how?

Chomsky maintains that the most plausible explanation for the uniformity and rapidity of first language acquisition is to posit that the course of acquisition is determined by a biologically endowed innate language faculty (or language acquisition program, to borrow a computer software metaphor) within the human brain. This provides children with a genetically transmitted set of procedures for developing a grammar which enables them to produce and understand sentences in the language they are acquiring on the basis of their linguistic experience (i.e. on the basis of the speech input they receive). 

Children acquiring a language will observe people around them using the language, and the set of expressions in the language which the child hears (and the contexts in which they are used) in the course of acquiring the language constitute the child’s linguistic experience of the language. This experience serves as input to the child’s language faculty, which provides the child with a set of procedures for analyzing the experience in such a way as to devise a grammar of the language being acquired. Chomsky’s hypothesis that the course of language acquisition is determined by an innate language faculty is known popularly as the innateness hypothesis. 

Invocation of an innate language faculty becoming available to the child only at some genetically determined point may constitute a plausible approach to the questions of uniformity and rapidity, but there is an additional observation which suggests that some version of the innateness hypothesis must be correct. This is that the knowledge of a language represented by an adult grammar appears to go beyond anything supplied by the child’s linguistic experience. A simple demonstration of this is provided by the fact that adult native speakers are not only capable of combining words and phrases in acceptable ways but also of recognizing unacceptable combinations. The interesting question this raises is: where does this ability come from? An obvious answer to this question is: that the child’s linguistic experience provides information on unacceptable combinations of words and phrases. But this is incorrect. Why do we assert this with such confidence?

Obviously, when people speak, they do make mistakes (although research has shown that language addressed to children is almost completely free of such mistakes). However, when this happens, there is no clear signal to the child indicating that an adult utterance contains a mistake, that is, as far as the child is concerned, an utterance containing a mistake is just another piece of linguistic experience to be treated on a par with error-free utterances. Furthermore, it has been shown that adults’ ‘corrections’ of children’s own speech do not take systematic account of whether children are producing syntactically acceptable or unacceptable combinations of words and phrases; parents do ‘correct’ their children, but when they do this, it is to ensure that children speak truthfully; grammatical correctness is not their target. Overall, there is compelling evidence that children do not receive systematic exposure to information about unacceptable sequences, and it follows that in this respect the child’s linguistic experience is not sufficient to justify the adult grammar. From this poverty of the stimulus argument it follows that something must supplement linguistic experience and the innate language faculty fulfils this role.

Now, it is important to underline the fact that children have the ability to acquire any natural language, given appropriate experience of the language: for example, a British child born of monolingual English-speaking parents and brought up by monolingual Japanese-speaking parents in a Japanese-speaking community will acquire Japanese as a native language. From this it follows that the contents of the language faculty must not be specific to any one human language: if the language faculty accounts for the uniformity and rapidity of the acquisition of English, it must also account for the uniformity and rapidity of the acquisition of Japanese, Russian, Swahili, etc.; and if the language faculty makes up for the insufficiency of a child’s experience of English in acquiring a grammar of English, it must also make up for the insufficiency of a child’s experience of Japanese in acquiring a grammar of Japanese, for the insufficiency of a child’s experience of Russian in acquiring a grammar of Russian, for the insufficiency of a child’s experience of Swahili in acquiring a grammar of Swahili, etc. This entails, then, that the language faculty must incorporate a set of UG principles (i.e. principles of Universal Grammar) which enable the child to form and interpret sentences in any natural language. Thus, we see an important convergence of the interests of the linguist and the developmental linguist, with the former seeking to formulate UG principles on the basis of the detailed study of the grammars of adult languages and the latter aiming to uncover such principles by examining children’s grammars and the conditions under which they emerge.

In the previous paragraph, we have preceded ‘language’ with the modifier “human”, and genetic transmission suggests that a similar modifier is appropriate for ‘language faculty’. The language faculty is species-specific and the ability to develop a grammar of a language is unique to human beings. This ability distinguishes us from even our nearest primate cousins, the great apes such as chimpanzees and gorillas, and in studying it we are therefore focusing attention on one of the defining characteristics of what it means to be a human being. There have been numerous attempts to teach language to other species, and success in this area would seriously challenge the assertion we have just made. Indeed, it has proved possible to teach chimpanzees a number of signs similar to those employed in the Sign Languages used as native languages by the deaf, and it has been reported that pigmy chimpanzees can understand some words of spoken English, and even follow a number of simple commands. Such research arouses strong emotions, and, of course, we are not in a position to assert that it will never produce dramatic results. At the moment, however, we can maintain that all attempts, however intensive, to teach grammatical knowledge to apes have been spectacular failures when the apes’ accomplishments are set alongside those of a normal three-year-old child. As things stand, the evidence is firmly in favors of the species-specificity of the language faculty.  (Page. 6 - 9)   

REFERENCES

Andrew radford, Martin atkinson, David britain, Harald clahsen and Andrew spencer. (2009). Linguistics an Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.

What Kind of Linguistics

Some descriptive linguists define basic linguistic documentation as reflecting the very essence of the discipline of linguistics, which they regard as taking precedence over all other areas of linguistic activity: 

sussy_What Kind of Linguistics

The ideal apprenticeship (for a linguist) is to undertake fieldwork on some previously undescribed (or scarcely described) language-recording, transcribing and analyzing texts; observing how people use the language in the daily round; writing a grammar and phonology; compiling a dictionary; and publishing a volume of annotated texts. (Dixon 2001)

There are probably as many different ways of describing the phonology, morphology, and syntax of a language as there are linguists, though different approaches can often be gathered roughly under a variety of different theoretical labels. Linguistic descriptions that are rigidly bound to particular theoretical constructs do not tend successfully to outlast the theories which spawned them. Grammars that are written, for example, according to the strict structuralize formulae that were in vogue up to the early 1960s, or according to the transformational model which became all the rage immediately after this, are often extremely difficult for people to read today. Similarly, descriptions that are expressed exclusively in terms that derive from some of today’s theoretical traditions are often equally unreadable to those who hail from other traditions. 

The most readable and arguably, therefore, the most valuable-accounts of languages seem to be those which are relatively open to theoretical eclecticism. By this, I mean that a linguistic description should set out to allow the linguistic data to govern the form of the description, rather than requiring a single theoretical model rigidly to dictate the shape of the entire grammar. Some would argue that there is a single theory-neutral model for grammatical description which can be used for any language, as implied by Dixon’s (1997: 128–38) use of the expression

 Basic Linguistic Theory. While it would perhaps be nice if this were the case, any linguistic description is in reality going to exhibit certain kinds of theoretical biases, many of which may be implicit. The most important consideration in producing a good linguistic description is that the writer’s particular theoretical assumptions should be clearly recognizable to the reader, that any terminological conventions should be clearly explained, and that the grammar should be richly exemplified with natural data so that readers coming from other theoretical persuasions are able to make sense of your discussion. With new technological tools it is possible to create rich contextual data in a media corpus for which your analysis provides a gateway (e.g. Thieberger 2004) and which allows others to confirm and extend your analysis.

Linguistics is a hugely diverse discipline, and Weld linguists can contribute to our knowledge in a wide variety of ways. While most linguists are primarily interested in matters of phonology, morphology, and syntax, the ways in which language is used ‘in the daily round’ noted by Dixon seldom receive more than passing mention. Only a minority of linguists-better, perhaps, linguistic anthropologists-have shown themselves to be interested in documenting how language functions as a ‘mode of social interaction [which] provides the material out of which a group of people recognize themselves as a community’ (Duranti 1997: 99). Such accounts cannot be based on the traditional direct ‘elicitation’ of language data from ‘informants’; rather, the fieldworker must become a long-term participant observer, recording extensive collections of both audio and video data of natural language use between different individuals within the community.

At the same time, it is clear that Duranti’s (1994) discussion of the ways in which grammatical constructions in Samoan are used to achieve socio-political goals depends crucially on a prior analysis of the language in a traditional descriptive account such as that of Mosel and Hovdhaugen (1992). Even the title of Duranti’s linguistic anthropological field account-From Grammar to Politics-implies this priority. Similarly, Schieffelin and Ochs (1986) show how language acquisition by children is related to socialization into different cultures using the same kinds of basic linguistic information. Traditional descriptive accounts, then, should be promoted as an essential stepping stone for bigger-and some would no doubt argue, better-things.

The goals of fieldwork can sometimes be much more limited than a full published grammar or dictionary, or a detailed ethnographic account of the communicative strategies that are used by people in a particular society. Sometimes, previously published materials may spark the interest of specialists who return to somebody else’s previous Weld site in order to analyze some particular features of the language in more detail. For instance, in some of the languages of Vanuatu, there are phonemically contrastive linguo-labial consonants in which nasals, stops, and fricatives are produced with the tip of the tongue touching the upper lips. Ian Maddieson undertook a fieldtrip from the United States to Vanuatu in the 1980s simply to study these speech sounds in detail in a number of languages in which they are found. A guide that is specifically geared towards instrumental phonetics is beyond the scope of this volume, though Ladefoged (2003) andMaddieson (2001) provide a great deal of very readable material.

Published grammars concentrate for the most part on regular patterns, resulting in a lack of attention devoted to the study of patterns of variable data. There is absolutely no reason why the kinds of corpus-based statistical studies that have been carried out extensively on different varieties of English could not be carried out in other languages as well, e.g. Dorian’s (2001) work on Gaelic. However, in order to do this, a linguist would need to pay close attention to a much wider range of sampling and data gathering issues than is commonly done in order to ensure that statistically representative samples of different categories of speakers have been recorded. While I have also decided to exclude sociolinguistic studies from the scope of this volume, readers who are interested in an up-to-date guide to data-gathering of this kind could consult Milroy (1987).

REFERENCE
Terry Crowley. (2007). Field Linguistics; A Beginner’s Guide. New York: Oxford University Press.

Applied Linguistics and Educational Linguistics

The term 'applied linguistics' refers to a broad range of activities which involve solving some languagerelated problem or addressing some language-related concern. And The Educational Linguistics strand encompasses a wide range of topics related to language (in) education, generally with a focus on and/or implications for practice and/or policy.  The unifying element is attention to education, whether formal or informal, rather than any particular theoretical or methodological perspective. 

APPLIED LINGUISTICS:

• Vivian Cook : Applied linguistics means many things to many people (2006, 56).
• Spolsky :  ....Applied linguistics (is now) a cover term for a sizeable group of semi-autonomous disciplines, each dividing its parentage and allegiances between the formal study of language and other relevant fields and each working to develop its own methodologies and priciples (2005:36).
• Guy Cook : Applied linguistics as “the academic discipline concerned with the relation of knowledge about language to desicion making in the real world. The scope of applied linguistics remains rather vague’ but attempts to delimit its main ideas of concern as consisting on language and education; language, work and law; and language information and effect (2003:7-8).
• Corder : the target of applied linguistics: Language teaching, widely interpreted and therefore including for example: speech therapy, translation and language planning (1973)
• Brumfit : “A working definition of applied linguistics will then be the theoretical and empirical investigation of real-world problem in which language is a central issue (1977:93).
• Cumming : Encourage the submission of more manuscripts from (a) diverse disciplines, including applications of methods and theories from linguistics, psycholinguistics, cognitive science, ethnography, ethnomethodology, sociolinguistics, sosiology, semiotics, educational inquiry and cultural or historical studies, to address; (b) fundamental issues in language learning, such as multilingualism, language acquisition, second and foreign language education, literacy, culture, cognition, pragmatics and intergroup relation (1993:1-2).

EDUCATIONAL LINGUISTICS

Spolsky,  (1999)  and  in  university  programs  and  courses.  With  the growing significance of language education as a result of decolonization and globalization, more and more educational systems are appreciating the need to train teachers and administrators in those aspects of linguistics that are relevant to education and in the various subfields that have grown up within educational linguistics itself.

That linguistics is often relevant to education, the relation is seldom direct. Educational linguistics as a sub-field of linguistics, much like educational psychology and educational sociology are subfields of their disciplines proper, that would specifically address the broad range of issues related to language and education (1978:5)

Educational linguistics is an area of study that integrates the research tools of linguistics and other related disciplines of the social sciences in order to investigate holistically the broad range of issues related to language and education (Hornberger, 2001; Spolsky, 1978) in Spolsky, (2008:10)

The Similarities of Applied and Educational Linguistics :

1.    Study of  language
2.    Must be synthesized in a complementary manner with the approaches of other disciplines in order to comprehend fully any specific problem (viz. issue or theme) related to language and education.
 

The Differencies of Applied and Educational Linguistics :

Educational Linguistics:
1.    The holistic study of specific issues – that educational linguistics emerged as problem-oriented and interdisciplinary.
2.    In educational linguistics, a researcher begins with a problem, issue or theme, related to language and education and then synthesizes the research tools in her/his intellectual repertoire to investigate or explore it.
3.    Concerned  with the study of all the factors that influence language use as it relates to education.

The objective of  Educational Linguistics is advancing educational issues ranging from language acquisition to language planning.

Applied Linguistics:
1.    ‘trans-disciplinary’ rather than ‘inter-’ or ‘multidisciplinary’
2.    Relevant other fields and each working to develop its own methodologies and principles.
3.    The theoretical and empirical investigation of real-world problem in which language is a central issue.
4.    The process or activity of applied linguistics is carried out by taking the known research and theory of linguistics and applying a linguistic analysis to specific contexts outside linguistics proper (e.g., language teaching, interpreting and  translating, or  lexicography).

References:

Cook, Guy. (2003). Applied linguistisc. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cook, Vivian. (2006). ‘What is applied linguistics?’ in Vivian Cook: Obscure Writing.

Corder, S. Pit. (1973). Introducing applied linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Cumming, Alister. (1993). ‘Editor’s Preface’, Language Learning, 43 (1):1-2.

Spolsky, Bernard (1978). Educational Linguistics: An Introduction. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Spolsky,   Bernard   (ed.)   (1999).   Concise   Encyclopedia   of   Educational   Linguistics. Amsterdam /New  York: Elsevier.

Spolsky, Bernard. (2005). ‘Is language policy applied linguistics?’ in P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. G.

Egginton. W. Grabe and V. Ramanathan (eds). Direction in applied linguistics, Clevedon Multilingual Matters.

Spolsky, Bernard. (2005). The handbook of educational linguistics. USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Pengertian Psikologi, Linguistik dan Psikolinguistik

Pembelajaran bahasa, sebagai salah satu masalah kompleks manusia, selain berkenan dengan masalah kegiatan berbahasa. Sedangkan kegiatan berbahasa itu bukan hanya berlangsung secara mekanistik, tetapi juga berlangsung secara mentalistik. Artinya, kegiatan berbahasa itu berkaitan juga dengan proses atau kegiatan mental (otak). Oleh karena itu, dalam kaitannya dengan pembelajaran bahasa, studi linguistik perlu dilengkapi antardisiplin antar linguistik dan psikologi, yang lazim disebut psikolinguistik. Untuk memahami dengan lebih baik apa psikolinguistik itu terlebih dahulu perlu dibicarakan apa studi psikologi dan apa studi linguistik itu meskipun secara singkat.

PSIKOLOGI

Secara etimologi kata psikologi berasal dari bahasa Yunani Kuno psyche dan logos. kata Psyche berarti ‘jiwa, roh, atau sukma”, sedangkan kata logos berarti “ilmu”. Jadi, psikologi, secara harfiah berarti “ilmu jiwa’, atau ilmu yang objek kajiannya dalah jiwa. Dalam perkembangannya, psikologi telah terbagi menjadi beberapa aliran sesuai dengan paham filsafat yang dianut. Karena itulah dikenal adanya psikologi yang mentalistik, yang behavioristik, dan yang kognitifistik.

Psikolinguistik  Mentalistik

Aliran ini melahirkan aliran yang disebut psikologi kesadaran. Tujuan utama psikologi kesadaran adalah mencoba mencoba mengkaji psoses-proses akal manusia dengan cara mengintropeksi atau mengkaji diri. Oleh karena itu, psikologi kesadaran lazim juga disebut sebagai psikologi intropeksionisme. Psikologi ini merupakan suatu proses akal dengan cara melihat ke dalam diri sendiri setelah suatu rangsangan terjadi.

Psikologi Behavioristik

Aliran ini merupakan aliran yang disebut psikologi prilaku. Tujuan utamanya adalah mencoba mengkaji prilaku manusia yang berupa reaksi apabila suatu rangasangan terjadi, dan selanjutnya bagaimana mengawasi dan mengontrol prilaku itu. Para pakar psikologi prilaku ini tidak mengkaji ide-ide, pengertian, kemauan, keinginan, maksud, pengaharapan, dan segala mekanisme fisiologi, yang dikaji hanyalah peristiwa-peristiwa yang dapat diamati, yang nyata dan konkret, yaitu kelakuan atau tingkah laku manusia.

Psikologi Kognifistik

Aliran ini juga lazim disebut psikologi kognitif mencoba mencoba mengkaji proses-proses kognitif manusia secara ilmiah. Yang dimaksud dengan proses kognitif adalah proses-proses akal (pikiran, berpikir) manusia yang bertanggung jawab mengatur pengalaman dan prilaku manusia. Hal yang utama dikaji oleh psikologi kognitif adalah bagaimana manusia memperoleh, menafsirkan, mengatur, menyimpan, mengeluarkan, dan menggunakan pengetahuannya, termasuk perkembangan dan penggunaan bahasa. 

LINGUISTIK

Secara umum linguistik lazim diartikan sebagai ilmu bahasa atau ilmu yang mengambil bahasa sebai objek kajiannya. Pakar linguistik disebut linguis. Namun perlu dicatat kata linguis dalam bahasa inggris juga berarti ‘orang yang mahir menggunakan beberapa bahasa”, selain bermakna “pakar linguistik”. Seorang linguis mempelajari bahasa bukan dengan tujuan utama untuk mahir menggunakan bahasa itu, melainkan untuk mengetahui kaidah-kaidah struktur bahasa, beserta dengan berbagai aspek dan segi yang menyangkut bahasa itu. Dan seseorang yang mahir dan lancar beberapa bahasa, belum tentu dia seorang linguis kalau dia tidak mendalami teori tentang bahasa. Orang yang seperti ini lebih tepat disebut seorang poligot ‘berbahasa banyak” sebagai dokotomi dari monoglot “berbahasa satu”.

Linguistik bisa kita lihat dengan berbagai cabang linguistik yang dibuat berdasarkan berbagai kriteria atau pandangan. Secara umum pembidangan linguistik itu adalah sebagai berikut:

Pertama, menurut objek kajiannya, linguistik dapat dibagi atas dua cabang besar, yaitu linguistik mikro dan makro. Objek kajian mikro adalah struktur internal bahasa itu sendiri, mencakup struktur fonologi, morfologi, sintaksis, dan leksikon. Sedangkan objek kajian linguistic makro adalah bahasa dalam hubungannya dengan faktor-faktor diluar bahasa seperti faktor sosiologis, psikologis, antropologi, dan neurologi.

Kedua, menurut tujuan kajiannya, linguistik dapat dibedakan atas dua bidang besar yaitu linguistik teoritis dan linguistik terapan. Kajian teoritis hanya ditunjukan untuk mencari atau menemukan teori-teori linguistik belaka. Hanya untuk membuat kaidah-kaidah linguistik secara deskriptif. Sedangkan kajian terapan ditujukan untuk menerapkan kaidah-kaidah linguistik dalam kegiatan praktis, seperti dalam pengajaran bahasa, penerjemahan, penyusunan kamus, dan sebagainya.

Ketiga, adanya yang disebut lingustik sejarah dan sejarah linguistik. Linguistik sejarah mengkaji perkembangan dan perubahan suatu bahasa atau sejumlah bahasa, baik dengan diperbandingkan maupun tidak. Sementara sejarah linguistik mengkaji perkembangan ilmu lingustik, baik mengenai tokoh-tokoh, aliran-aliran teorinya, maupun hasil-hasil kerjanya.

PSIKOLINGUISTIK

Secara etimologi sudah disinggung bahwa kata psikolinguistik terbentuk dari kata psikologi dan kata linguistik, yakni dua bidang ilmu yang berbeda, yang masing-masing berdiri sendiri, dengan prosedur dan metode yang berlainan. Namun, keduanya sama-sama meneliti bahasa sebagai objek formalnya. Hanya objek materinya yang berbeda, linguistik mengkaji struktur bahasa, sedangkan psikologi mengkaji prilaku berbahasa berbahasa atau proses berbahasa.

Psikolinguistik mencoba menguraikan proses-proses psikologi yang berlangsung jika seorang mengucapkan kalimat-kalimat yang didengarkannya pada waktu berkomunikasi, dan bagaimana kemampuan berbahasa itu diperoleh oleh manusia (Slobin, 1974; meller, 1964; Slama cazahu, 1973). Maka secara teoretis tujuan utama psikolingustik adalah mencari satu teori bahasa yang secara linguistic bisa diterima dan secara psikologi dapat menerangkan hakikat bahasa dan pemerolehannya. Dengan kata lain psikolinguitik mencoba menerangkan hakikat struktur bahasa, dan bagaimana struktur ini diperoleh, digunakan pada waktu bertutur, dan pada waktu memahami kalimat-kalimat dalam pertuturan itu.

 DAFTAR PUSTAKA

Linguistik dalam kajian Teori Pmebelajaran Psikolinguistik http://susiati-abas.blogspot.co.id/