The Diversion of Language: A Critical Assessment of the Concept ‘Linguistic Diversity’

Abstract

Although in the mid-1960s a comprehensive survey of socio-linguistics could be contained in a single review article,¹ the discipline has grown so rapidly over the past decade that an exceedingly long book would now be needed. One reason for this expansion has undoubtedly been its applicability to practical problems in education — in particular to the consequences of desegregation in American schools. The failure of this policy to solve the problem of ‘underachievement’ among pupils from minority ethnic groups has, in part, been explained in terms of the ‘communicative interference’ arising from the contact (and clash) of different linguistic patterns. Important in this context is the work of Harold Rosen as director of a research project on ‘linguistic diversity’ at the Institute of Education in London.² Rosen also has a wider importance in British educational debates about language and culture: he is a leading opponent of ‘deficit’ theories and his work is often invoked in attempts to formulate a ‘progressive’ or ‘socialist’ pedagogy.³ In fact, we shall argue, Rosen himself conceptualises both teaching and politics almost entirely in terms of consciousness-raising; we shall attempt in this article to see how he draws on general socio-linguistic concepts to justify this conclusion.

Screen Education, no. 34, Spring 1980.