Competing thoeries in applied linguistics

[Woravut]

One reflection from reading Sapiens is that from a historical perspective, there have always been 'competings' - e.g. competing empires, competing dogmas, competing religions and competing theories.
This makes me think of competing theories in applied linguistics. One clear example is a cognitivist theory and a behaviorist theory.


Are there any other competing theories in applied linguistics?

Is there any complemenary theory?

[Richard]

Since everyone understands things in their own way, I guess you could say that there are as many competing theories as there are theorists. This isn't a very useful viewpoint though. Some competing theories we've looked at already this semester:

Language as rule-governed v. language as pattern-based
Priority in language given to grammar (Chomsky) v. priority in language given to vocabulary (Sinclair)
Explicit v. implicit teaching of grammar (what Sheen examines in the article we use in RM)

The area where competing theories are really apparent is SLA. Long (2007) 'Problems in SLA' discusses this at length. A couple of nice examples of research conducted explicitly to compare the validity of competing theories as explanations for a phenomenon are:

Nassaji, H. 2007, Schema theory and knowledge-based processes in second language reading comprehension, Language Learning, vol. 57 supplement 1 (comparing schema theory and construction-integration model)
Hu, H.-C.M. and Nassaji, H. 2016, Effective vocabulary learning tasks, System, vol. 56 (comparing Involvement Load Hypothesis and Technique Feature Analysis)

Also, when I used to teach LSS to MA students, I would use a short passage from Scovel, T. (1998 Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 81-82) as the basis for teaching critical reading. This passage looks at 2 contrasting theories explaining stuttering. Interestingly, it also shows how proponents of both theories use exactly the same experimental data to support their theories.

[Woravut]

Thank you, Aj. Richard for your explanation.

(Just curious whether 'governed' and 'rule' in Language as rule-governed v. language as pattern-based has any connotation?)