Language Diversity in the Classroom - ymerleksi - home

96 Language Diversity in the Classroomand seven). In terms of complexity of utterance, analysis revealed thatclass differences were minimal: although there was some tendency forlower-class children to use simpler sentences (i.e. fewer phrase andclausal constructions), it was not the case that they never used morecomplex expressions. One could not deduce, then, that lower-classchildren were unable to produce certain forms, only that they madeless use of them than did their middle-class counterparts; similarconclusions can be drawn from a longitudinal study reported by Loban(1963). The general point here again, something to which we shallreturn revolves around the difficulty of inferring linguistic competencefrom linguistic performance. After all, even if a child used a subordinateclause only once in a hundred utterances, some basic capability could beinferred. (In fact, as Dittmar [1976: 49] pointed out, even if no sententialcomplexity at all is produced, one cannot be certain of underlyingcompetences: perhaps some can easily understand clausal complexitiesbut lack ‘a disposition towards producing them’.) An important questionremains, of course why does habitual performance take the form itdoes? but this is somewhat different from talking about basic linguisticabilities and disabilities.Basil Bernstein and his followersMost relevant here, however, is the work of the late Basil Bernstein inthe 1950s. Influential in sociological and educational circles, his reports ofworking-class and middle-class language appeared to support a deficitposition, even though he later claimed that this was not the case. In theintroduction to his 1971 book, for instance, Bernstein acknowledges earlyweaknesses and ambiguities (but see Tony Edwards, 1974). Considerhere what Rosen (1972: 34), one of Bernstein’s fiercest but most carefulcritics, had to say:Bernstein protests that his work has been misunderstood, misusedand vulgarized... And he is absolutely right. However, as he also tellsus his papers are ‘‘obscure, lack precision and probably abound inambiguities’’ (Bernstein, 1971, p. 19), that is scarcely to be wondered at.A little earlier in his argument, Rosen cites an even more interestingadmission, in which Bernstein (1971: 11) refers to his early papers as‘conceptually weak... horrifyingly coarse’. Ultimately, as Rosen (1972: 15)suggests,you cannot protest very convincingly against the harm done by thelabel ‘‘linguistic deprivation’’ when your own theory points to a