Language Diversity in the Classroom - ymerleksi - home

132 Language Diversity in the Classroomsimply that some aspects of relativism are more appropriate than others,that relativism itself is relative, and that it is possible to construct anintellectual position that allows us to legitimately criticize some featuresof societies while still permitting different-but-not-deficient analyses ofothers. I assume, for instance, that a society that condones cannibalismand believes in witchcraft is inferior, in these respects, to one that doesnot. I do not see that this constrains me to accept, as well, that languageX is superior to language Y, even if Y-speakers eat their neighbors whileX-speakers turn the other cheek.Honey is particularly critical of Labov’s work, claiming that it did not,after all, show the dialectal validity of Black English vernacular (BEV).But Honey pays only passing attention to the most important part of thatwork, the demonstration of the rule-governed nature of BEV; indeed, heattempts to undercut the very approach, noting that not all linguistsagree on what the rules are. The lack of perfect knowledge andagreement, however, is a linguistic fact of life that is true for all varieties(including standard English), and it misses the essential point thatlinguists do agree that rules exist and are abided by.When he turns to consider current educational practice, Honey errsagain this time in his supposition that acceptance of the differenceposition necessarily entails active school promotion of nonstandardvarieties. Of course, it does not. The weight of the available evidencesuggests that schools should accept nonstandard varieties as valid systems;two corollaries are that teachers ought not to try and stamp them out, andthat children should not be penalized for using them. However, because ofsocial realities, schools should continue to provide standard Englishmodels and to promote awareness of this dialect, within an atmosphereof tolerance and respect for all other varieties (see also Pennycook, 2001). Itis important to remember here that a common standard can work to levelthe playing field just as easily as privileging one group over another: whichrole it fills, of course, depends upon how it is understood.Overall, the importance of Honey’s intervention is not in its handlingand interpretation of linguistic evidence; Crowley (1999) provides somechapter-and-verse documentation of Honey’s (1997) errors and rathercavalier presentation of evidence for his assertions. Rather, it lies in itsvery existence as an attempted defence of a linguistic status quo seen tobe in danger. Honey is exercised over the increasing power ofcontemporary influences (including television) compared to traditionalshapers of education and language (e.g. the Bible). He acknowledges thatchange is the inevitable order of the day, but clearly regrets it. In fact, hisgeneral thrust can be seen as a desire to defend traditional values. This