Among my friends and colleagues in my current master’s program I am the only person planning to pursue doctoral studies in applied linguistics. One of those friends enjoys questioning me about why I would consider other approaches to language study besides rhetoric. His probing about what applied linguistics “does” always boil down to a single trope: “How is that not rhetoric?” While his teasing me about my choice to move to applied linguistics from rhetoric and composition is (mostly) in good humor, it has led me to further reflect on the exact reasons why I plan on shifting disciplines. Initially, I had difficulty providing my friend with an answer. However, now, as I finish my MA thesis, in which I draw from both applied linguistic and rhetoric and composition, I feel better able to provide an answer to myself as to why I feel more at home within the field of applied linguistics.

This essay is therefore a reflection upon disciplines, language, and my own decisions. I touch on what I think are important differences and similarities between the disciplines of rhetoric and composition and applied linguistics and also explain why I’ve decided to move fromrhetoric and composition to applied linguistics.

First, a bit of background is necessary. I am currently finishing my master’s degree in rhetoric and composition. I have been teaching second-language (L2) writing and focusing the final year of my coursework on preparing for a PhD in applied linguistics. My university does not have an applied linguistics or TESOL graduate program. It does, however, have an applied linguist in the English Department, and she teaches a theory and pedagogy course on L2 writing. This is important, as this is the seminar where I first realized that applied linguistics is the proper discipline for me. I did not know it at the time, but as I was exposed to methodology and theory from applied linguistics and L2 writing scholars, I slowly became aware of my own personal struggles with the field of rhetoric and composition. At first, I was unable to put my finger on precisely what it was that drew me to applied linguistics, but I knew that working within frameworks and scholarship attributed to applied linguistics certainly felt right.

While rhetoric and composition and applied linguistics both focus on language, it is the stance that each discipline takes toward language that I would first like to focus on. The field of rhetoric is thousands of years old and deals with spoken and written discourse, while the field of composition has more recently emerged from Harvard’s introduction of its first freshman composition course in the late 19th century. Thus, rhetoric and composition are primarily concerned with writing and composing, including current trends in new media and multimodal composition. However, rhetoric and composition are also concerned with much larger political and ideological issues. Silva and Leki (2004) provided a succinct description, characterizing rhetoric and composition as “overtly political” and as a discipline that looks “seriously into issues such as race, class, and gender” (p. 4).

In an article discussing differences and similarities between L1 and L2 composition, Costino and Hyon (2011) also drew upon Silva and Leki’s (2004) article by pointing to the description of composition as politically leftist, whereas applied linguistics is described as “cautious” and “apolitical” (p. 25). I believe these descriptions of L1 and L2 composition also stand in for the larger fields of rhetoric and composition and applied linguistics. So, onepossible way of envisioning the differences between the two fields is the political stance. Rhetoric and composition are overtly political, dealing with large and important issues and how language is involved. Applied linguistics, on the other hand, is supposedly neutral or pragmatic in its focus on language. We shall see, however, that these characteristics are not absolute.

These themes are seen in other scholarship as well. Widdowson (2003) described applied linguists as mediators that suggest or point out language-related problems from the sidelines without actually solving problems. Berlin (2003) argued that the composition classroom should work toward training “democratic citizens” (p. 109), while other rhetoric and composition scholars who focus on critical pedagogy argue for classrooms that critique power differences between students, teachers, and institutions. These stances have an impact on the composition classroom, and this impact is the largest reason why I have felt more comfortable working with applied linguistics pedagogy.

Though confronting issues of race, ideology, and power is a very important and noteworthy enterprise, I do feel that rhetoric and composition can tend toward overshadowing the teaching of writing when focusing on these concepts. Much as Pennycook (1997) critiqued EAP L2 pedagogy for its “vulgar pragmatism” (p. 256) that put in place the conditions for language teachers to become dangerously noncritical; I believe that rhetoric and composition can put in place the conditions for a composition instructor to become too critical in their teaching of writing. This problem is magnified when novice instructors attempt to theme their L1 composition courses around issues of race or power, as they may become more concerned about students’ positions on these issues, rather than how language is involved in these issues.

Despite the differences I related above, both disciplines are concerned with similar things. Critical discourse analysis, for example, seeks to explore how discourse contains political, racial, and ideological themes (Fairclough, 2001). On the other hand, Graff and Birkenstein’s (2010) textbook for L1 composition, They Say I Say, focuses heavily on language use and demystifying academic discourse for students by using a method very similar to English for specific purposes, which comes from applied linguistics.

Another way to consider these fields is by exploring the metaphors of mediation and praxis. Though both words mean essentially the same thing in this context (i.e., the negotiation between theory and practice), I believe subtle differences exist that help me explain my feelings. Widdowson (2003) described applied linguistics as a mediating discipline, one that tries to break down animosity or distrust between theory (linguistics) and practice (language teachers). Rhetoric and composition, on the other hand, is primarily a field where scholars who “do” theory also “do” practice. Hence, the and joins theory and practice into a field: the intersection of theory and practice, or praxis.

Applied linguistics as mediating between theory and practice preserves the separation between the two. Moreover, as its own discipline, applied linguistics is in a third space, apart from the two areas it attempts to mediate. Rhetoric and composition, on the other hand, represents a somewhat fuzzierintersection betweentheory and practice. Rhetoric and composition is always both rhetoric and composition, retaining and surrendering individuality of theory and practice concurrently. Thus, there is not such a clear-cut separation between theory and practice in rhetoric and composition as there is between linguistics and language teaching. This, I think, is at the root of the struggle that I’ve had with rhetoric and composition.

I believe that applied linguistics provides me with the stance to apply the theory that I’ve studied in ways that rhetoric and composition tends to be less clear about. Just as Widdowson (2003) explained that applied linguistics mediates the differences between linguistic theory and language teaching practice, applied linguistics has allowed me to partially reconcile the fuzzier boundaries between rhetoric and composition. By remaining focused on language, I’ve constructed an interdisciplinary framework from both disciplines that strengthens my ability to teach writing. For me, applied linguistics injects some pragmatic focus into the overtly political stance of rhetoric and composition, creating a balance between critical and pragmatic that I then bring into my L2 composition pedagogy.

Perhaps any investigation of language is, as my friend calls it, “just doing rhetoric.” However, that still leaves plenty of room for individuals to decide how they approach language. Just because rhetoric has a history with the analysis and use of language does not mean it is the only approach to studying language. My work with genre and L2 writing has shown me that an interdisciplinary approach that combines rhetoric, composition, and applied linguistics provides multiple ways to approach and analyze language. It is that approach I will bring with me in my future studies as an applied linguist.

REFERENCES

Berlin, J. A. (2003). Rhetorics, poetics, and cultures: Refiguring college English studies. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.

Costino, K. A., & Hyon, S. (2011). Sidestepping our “scare words”: Genre as a possible bridge between L1 and L2 compositionists. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 24-44.

Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.

Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2010). They say I say: The moves that matter in academic writing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Norton.

Pennycook, A. (1997). Vulgar pragmatism, critical pragmatism, and EAP. English for specific purposes, 16(4), 253-269.

Silva, T., & Leki, I. (2004). Family matters: The influence of applied linguistics and composition studies on second language writing studies—past, present, and future. The Modern Language Journal, 80(1), 1-13.

Widdowson, H. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.