CLINICAL LINGUISTICS
Theoretical arguments
Let us look at two areas of theoretical argument which are important to clinical linguistics. The first is the linguistic theory on which the analysis of language, to which Crystal refers above (structural and functional), is based. The linguist involving him/herself in clinical linguistics is likely to choose a theoretical model that allows for the kinds of application necessary, in other words it is likely to be a model that takes account of both structure and function and is less concerned with current disputes of theoretical concern simply because they prevent the kind of full descriptive apparatus (they pose too many doubts) that the application will need. Such a linguist is therefore likely to make use of a more traditional-type grammar or a functional grammar, which may not be up to date but will serve the purposes of clinical work.
The second type of theoretical interest is that of the study of aphasia:
Two main and opposing approaches were evident in the late 1800s and early 1900s and are still evident now. Indeed, they form the basis of ongoing discussion which continues up to the present day. (Kerr 1993: 102)
The first was a physically based approach which held that different anatomical structures were responsible for particular language functions. These could, therefore, be selectively impaired by damage to discrete areas of the brain. The thrust of study was to determine where different language functions were located, in order to ‘map functions on to anatomical structures and thus be able to predict localization of lesion according to surface language symptomatology. Thus Broca (1865) and Wernicke (1874) mapped expressive and comprehension skills on to the third frontal convolution of the left hemisphere and the temporal convolution of the left hemisphere, respectively. (ibid)
The opposing approach viewed aphasia symptomatology as indicative of a single underlying disorder of language, manifested in different ways in different patients … The rationale was the belief that aphasia symptomatology, however diverse, was an outward sign of one underlying deficit, which could vary in severity and be further complicated by additional sensory, motor or other impairment. (ibid: 103)
Current theories of acquired language disorder include both traditional theories, and many remain strongly localizationalist. However, recently emerging disciplines such as cognitive neuropsychology and the study of functional communication attempt to enlarge our understanding of language impairment and its functional effects and show a move away from traditional theoretical frameworks. They reflect a rejection of the supremacy of neuroanatomy. (ibid: 104)
What is striking here is not that theoretical discussion of aphasia continues to develop: it would be surprising if it did not; what is striking is how far apart these two areas of theoretical concern are. The first is clearly central to the linguist’s professional interest; the second far removed. Indeed it is unlikely that the linguist will have much interest in aphasia unless he/she has already specialized in clinical linguistics. In practice it appears that some phoneticians have indeed done so but remarkably few grammarians. In other words those who do are already committed, in some sense, to an applied linguistic view of language.
For the applied linguist the situation is both more difficult and easier: more difficult because he/she may not have the linguistic theory at hand to apply; easier because for him/her both the linguistic and the aphasic must be understood but neither has priority over the other. The applied linguist therefore who gets involved in clinical linguistics is less likely than the linguist to be dominated in his/her thinking by any linguistic theory: theory then becomes the servant and not the master.
So if the linguist does make a linear approach to practice from theory, the applied linguist surveys the field from the position of practice and then takes account of any theory/description that has a bearing on language. This does not make applied linguistics non-theoretical but it does mean that it is not mono theoretical.
