The linguistic debate to have had the most marked impact upon educational discussion has undoubtedly been the one over 'linguistic deficit (or deprivation)'. The impact has been of both a theoretical and practical kind. If some children speak a language that is 'deficient', this must surely go some way towards explaining why those children have 'underachieved' in school. And, if so, then 'linguistic deficit' must prima facie, be something that teachers, as a matter of conscious policy, must try to eradicate if underachievement is to be ended. The thesis of 'linguistic deprivation' is indelibly associated with the name of Basil Bernstein, who argued in a series of articles that working-class and middle-class children speak according to two different codes-a 'restricted' and 'elaborated' one respectively; and that the former code, for a number of reasons, places its users under a disadvantage in the school system [1]. Bernstein frequently inserted passages disclaiming any value-judgements on the two codes, and insisting that we should not speak of one as 'superior' or 'inferior' to the other. But such disclaimers did little to weaken the apparent thrust of his writings. For one thing, middle-class speakers, in his own view, can employ both codes; so that there is no way of talking of which they are deprived in the way that working-class speakers, confined to the 'restricted' code, are. Second, Bernstein's descriptions of some of the features of the 'restricted' code make it difficult to see how these features could avoid negative judgement. A crucial feature, for example, is the way its speakers are tied, in what they say, to the actual context in which discussion is proceeding; something that is surely a disadvantage when, as we often do, we want to talk about things not present in context. At any rate, the reaction to Bernstein's work-and to similar ideas mooted in the USA and Germany-was that teachers and educational administrators should actively intervene in altering and improving the speech of working-class, or black, or dialect speakers, so that they would be better able to exploit their educational opportunities. The reaction to this thesis, when it came, was strong and impassioned. The name indelibly associated with this reaction is that of the American socio-linguist, William Labov. In his famous article, 'The logic of non-standard English' [2], he argued that the evidence for the 'deficit' thesis was thoroughly suspicious, and that both empirical and conceptual confusions infected its proponents' talk of grammaticality, rules of language, and the like. But most important, judged by its effects, was Labov's near-reversal of the usual judgements made on the merits or demerits of 'standard' and 'non-standard' speech. The 'elaborated' code, he argued, is mainly characterised by its 'verbosity', While NNE (Non-Standard Negro English) is distinguished by its clarity and conciseness, besides being free from any of the 'illogicality' attributed to it by some writers. It would be reasonable, I think, to regard Labov's position as the new orthodoxy on this issue. Many of the quotations 177
Read full abstract