Language Diversity in the Classroom - ymerleksi - home

The Language Debate 103import of his work was really to be found (see, e.g. Bernstein, 1996).Support here has typically built upon the notion that the codes reflectlinguistic performance and not basic competence. In pointing to the growingsense that educational failure was linguistic failure (‘this notion is in theair, so to speak’), Halliday (1973b) was obliged to acknowledge that thesource of the equation could be found in Bernstein’s work. What a pity,Halliday implies, that the codes have become the culprit, given ‘the carewhich Bernstein has taken to emphasize that neither is more highlyvalued than the other’ (Halliday, 1973b: x). This is surely verydisingenuous, since we have ample evidence that by his own admission Bernstein took very little care in this regard. Furthermore, if you willcall one of your variants ‘elaborated’ and the other ‘restricted’...Apart from the sympathetic writings of Halliday (1973a, 1973b, 1975),relevant collections include those edited by Atkinson et al. (1995),Christie (1999) and Power et al. (2001). Foley (1991) also takes the linethat Bernstein has been misinterpreted, this time in a context ofcomparison with the theories of Vygotsky and Halliday. Of most interest,however, is the very recent anthology of Ruqaiya Hasan’s papers, asedited by Webster (2005). This collection is an excellent resource if youare interested in Bernstein and the ‘social-semiotic mediation of mind’, orperhaps the ‘meta-dialogism’ of his ‘exotropic’ theory.An interesting defense of Bernstein and his work has been mountedby Robinson (1998), who suggests that many of the views for whichBernstein was most vilified were not, in fact, his views at all. Robinsonalso maintains that academic criticism of Bernstein was essentially nonconstructive,not ‘Popperian-based’ and often personalized. However,while such criticism certainly arose in some quarters, it would be a greatmistake to imagine that more measured treatments were absent (seeEdwards, 1989; and the following chapter). Robinson (2001) adds that theactivities of members of Bernstein’s research team (of whom he was one)came to a rather abrupt halt, largely because of mounting academiccensure. Their publications, he argues, were simply ignored in thepolitical and educational corridors of power. Mentioning Labov’s workparticularly, Robinson (2001: 238) laments that the criticisms cameunaccompanied with any ‘constructive alternative curriculum... [and]simply left the disadvantaged children to suffer the same fate as theirancestors’. Now, while it is very useful if a critical perspective is soaccompanied, there is no logical requirement; indeed, it is quite commonto recognize the inadequacy of existing approaches without being able tocome up with satisfactory solutions. But Robinson is, in any event,mistaken in his assertion that the current state of affairs leaves children in