The Handbook of Applied Linguistics is the latest in the Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics Series, which covers the major subdisciplines within linguistics. The previous 16 volumes have provided an extensive state-of-the-art overview of areas ranging from Child Language to Morphology, and from Contemporary Semantic Theory to Language and Gender. This latest volume collects 32 articles within the field of applied linguistics, adding to the list of recent major publications in applied linguistics (e.g., Cook 2003, Gass & Makoni 2004, Kaplan 2002, McCarthy 2001) that, with varying emphases, demonstrate the broad range of the discipline as well as indicating some of the different ways in which it can be conceptualized.

The editors have divided the Handbook into two parts: “Linguistics applied (L–A)” deals with the application of linguistics to real-world language data with the purpose of understanding language and evaluating linguistic theory; “Applied linguistics (A–L)” investigates real-world language with the goal of understanding language use and ameliorating social problems (pp. 11–13). Although the division provides some structure to the broad area of inquiry, such a division is not without its problems, because it goes to the heart of what applied linguistics is about – whether applied linguistics is indeed a discipline, and how applied linguistics practitioners and theorists view their work in relation to related fields and disciplines, in particular linguistics.

The questions of whether applied linguistics should be classified as a discipline, and what applied linguistics actually is, constitute one of the themes taken up by Alan Davies and Catherine Elder in the General Introduction (“Applied linguistics: Subject to discipline”). They argue that no definition of applied linguistics is straightforward because of the close relationship between applied linguistics and linguistics. They ask, “What is linguistics?” If applied linguistics is concerned with real-world problems or issues, what would such problems or issues look like? Is the distinction between linguistics and applied linguistics similar to the distinction between theory and data, as Kaplan 2002 proposes? Answers to such questions are not simple; they come up against the tension between researchers who predominantly do L-A through their application of linguistic theory to real world data, and A-L researchers who are predominantly interested in language education, language learning, and language teaching.

An additional difficulty is that decisions have to be made as to where different subdomains of applied linguistics should be placed. For example, does chap. 5, “Discourse analysis” (Hugh Trappes-Lomax), belong in L-A, when it could just as legitimately belong in the A-L section when applied to language learning and teaching? Does chap. 30, “Language planning as applied linguistics” (Jo Lo Bianco), belong in A-L when in fact it has very little to do with language education, learning, or teaching? Although the decision taken by the editors was that chapters predominantly to do with language were placed in Part 1 (L-A), whereas chapters predominantly to do with language learning and language teaching were placed in Part 2 (A-L), as they themselves point out (13), the distinction between L-A and A-L is not necessarily in terms of actual topics; rather, it is evident in the orientation of researchers themselves toward particular problems, and their approach to the collection of data. They argue that researchers tend to regard themselves either as linguists applying linguistics, or as applied linguists doing applied linguistics. In other words, they ask questions such as: Are they investigating something because they wish to validate a theory? Or are they investigating something because they wish to seek a practical answer to a language problem? The editors note in passing, however, that some researchers have “both interests at heart” (19).

However, tying applied linguistics so closely to linguistics is not a view shared by all the contributors. Kanavillil Rajagopalan, for example, in “The philosophy of applied linguistics,” takes a very different perspective. Rajagopalan argues that applied linguistics has moved away from its general linguistic origins to become an interdisciplinary field, involving disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, education, and cognitive science, although in the 1990s researchers became aware of the need to conceive of applied linguistics as a transdisciplinary field of inquiry. In other words, applied linguistics should be seen as traversing “conventional disciplinary boundaries in order to develop a brand new research agenda which, while freely drawing on a wide variety of disciplines, would obstinately seek to remain subaltern to none” (410). Such a view is clearly at odds with the overall tenet of the Handbook, which positions applied linguistics as tied to its theoretical linguistic origins. Joseph Lo Bianco, in “Language planning as applied linguistics,” similarly argues that applied linguistics is a coherent and distinctive academic discipline not dependent on formal linguistics. He demonstrates how language policy and planning research draws on knowledge far beyond linguistics and that “abstractions of descriptive linguistics … and further, the abstractions of those branches of sociolinguistics that derive conceptually from descriptive linguistics, lead to models for studying language planning that are weakly descriptive, a-social, and a-historical” (738). Clearly, not all contributors are comfortable with the division into L-A and A-L.

As for the audience for a volume such as this, the publisher's blurb calls it “a valuable resource for students and researchers in applied linguistics, language teaching, and second language acquisition.” At first glance this would seem a reasonable assessment. However, when reading the individual contributions, one is struck by the variety of approaches taken by different authors as they position themselves within the field of applied linguistics. Some of the authors clearly see their contribution as providing useful background information to applied linguists. For example, Anthony J. Liddicoat and Timothy J. Curnow, in “Language descriptions” (chap. 1), state the aim “to introduce applied linguists to the broad themes and general concepts within which linguists work in developing descriptive accounts of languages” (51). In contrast, other authors feel it necessary to show how their particular topic is relevant to applied linguistics – for example, Alan Kirkness's chapter “Lexicography.” There are, of course, authors who do not feel any need to justify their position within the field of applied linguistics – for example, David Birdsong's “Second language acquisition and ultimate attainment,” or most of the chapters in Part 2. Finally, certain chapters are seen as tools to aid applied linguists in their research, such as James Dean Brown's “Research methods for applied linguists.”

Such diversity of aims among the authors indicates that the volume is attempting to do a number of things for a variety of audiences. On the one hand, it is attempting to show students of applied linguistics what is, or should be, included in that field. This is an important aim, for students often grapple with understanding the relationship between linguistics and applied linguistics. However, the Handbook also plays an educative role for researchers who are already working within the field of applied linguistics but are interested in broadening their knowledge base to related areas of research. This is particularly useful for researchers who work within educational institutions and are required to cover all areas of applied linguistics in their teaching and supervisory roles, as well as for applied linguistics researchers who work within a limited subdomain of the field. In addition, the Handbook provides tools and additional background information for potential researchers who are less confident about research possibilities within applied linguistics. Although this aspect of the Handbook is not large, it is particularly useful for graduate students and early researchers who wish to develop their skills in this area.

As Alan Davies notes in his “Introduction to Part 1,” problems arise not only in determining whether topics should be L-A or A-L, but also in determining the order of individual contributions. The editors' decision to group chapters into sections on “a cline from closest to the linguistics of language to the more distant connection” (19) is not very helpful. Placing the more linguistic topics at the beginning of the volume subtly suggests the primacy of descriptive linguistics within applied linguistics. Furthermore, the topics within the sections do not always fit well together. For example, Section 3 includes chapters as diverse as “British Sign Language” (Rachael Sutton-Spence & Bencie Woll), “Assessing language attitudes” (Howard Giles & Andres C. Billings), “Language attrition” (Monika S. Schmid & Kees de Bot), “Language, thought and culture” (Claire Kramsch), and “Conversation analysis” (Rod Gardner). These topics might hold an increasingly distant connection to the linguistics of language (although I myself cannot see this); however, on other grounds they do not fit well together.

Finally, because the eleven sections have no titles, readers are left wondering what connection links particular topics to particular sections. This is where I think the editors could have grouped particular topics more carefully, or not have grouped topics at all within the two parts (L-A and A-L). For students of applied linguistics trying to come to terms with the range of disparate subdomains within the broad discipline, the editors have missed a useful opportunity for guidance on how they themselves see the overall structure of applied linguistics.

In this respect, Alan Davies's “Introduction to Part 1” is somewhat disappointing. There is minimal discussion of why topics were so grouped. There is also minimal overview of the topics as a whole and how they fit or link together. For example, there is no discussion of why chap. 10, “Conversation analysis” (Gardner), is grouped with the other topics in that section, nor is the reader even confident that Davies understands what conversation analysis is about when he states, “To what extent the systematic use of conversation should take account of ‘local design and quiddity of instances’ remains unclear” (22). When he does comment about the way topics are linked, the comments seem minimal. For example, he states that Susan Ehrlich's “Language and gender” presents “a relativist neo-Whorfian view and fits well with the Kramsch discussion above on language, thought and culture” (23). However, there is no discussion of why this might be so, and A-L applied linguists less confident within an L-A approach could be left thinking that approach may not have much to offer those interested in the practical aspects of language teaching, learning, and education. On a minor note, there are a number of typos in this chapter: chap. 6 (“British Sign Language”) is in Section 3, not 2 (21); closing brackets are missing (23); there are incomplete quotes (24); and full stops are used instead of commas (24).

Part 2 contains topics that would more traditionally be included in a volume on applied linguistics, such as “Second language learning” (William Littlewood), “Individual differences in second language learning” (Rod Ellis), “Social influences on language learning” (Gary Barkhuizen), “Literacy studies” (Eddie Williams), “Fashions in language learning” (Bob Adamson), “Computer aided language learning” (Paul Gruba), “Language teacher education” (Richard Johnstone), and “The practice of LSP” (Helen Basturkmen & Catherine Elder). This part also provides useful information for students and researchers alike on applied linguistics research. For example, James Dean Brown, in “Research methods in applied linguistics,” gives a clear overview of the nature of research, research methodologies within applied linguistics, the difference between quantitative and qualitative research, and ethical and professional responsibilities.

However, once again there is the problem of ordering of topics: Part 2 has also been set up “on a cline, in the opposite direction, starting from what we have classed ‘weak’ A-L (i.e., drawing on multiple disciplinary sources often including linguistics; concerned to some extent with practical issues but not ameliorative in its goals) and moving towards ‘strong’ A-L (again transdisciplinary, but concerned little if at all with linguistics and focused predominantly on corrective action or praxis) at the end” (423). As with Part 1 (L-A), I am not convinced by such an ordering, mainly because, once again, it places too much emphasis on the link between applied linguistics and linguistics, rather than allowing applied linguistics to stand alone as a discipline (or multidiscipline) in its own right.

In contrast, the final chapter in the Handbook, “Critical applied linguistics” by Alastair Pennycook, addresses issues of applied linguistics from quite a different angle. Pennycook argues that critical applied linguistics (CAL) is not simply a way of critiquing applied linguistics, nor is the concept “critical” just a way of emphasizing the political element in applied linguistics; rather, the role of CAL is to raise issues of identity, sexuality, power, and performativity within the discipline.

In spite of the reservations mentioned above – for example, the difficulties that result from drawing a L-A vs. A-L distinction, and the lack of agreement over whether there still exists a link between descriptive and applied linguistics – I find The Handbook of Applied Linguistics an important addition to the Blackwell Linguistics Series. It is comprehensive in its coverage of important topics and will certainly be useful for students and researchers alike (whether L-A or A-L) in understanding some of the wider issues within the discipline of applied linguistics.