of appropriacy rhetoric can be found again and again across the country in
arguments for the subordination of languages and language varieties out of
social favor. Sometimes the argument is that the subordinated language
must be eradicated (as in the Philadelphia case); at other times the
message is softened by arguments for supplementation in the form of an
uneven bilingualism, a separate-but-equal language policy which relegates
home languages to the peripheral and disposable.
In contrast, a Massachusetts teacher of Puerto Rican students makes no
economic argument at all, but one which is purely ideological and
unapologetically racist:
These poor kids come to school speaking a hodge podge. They are all
mixed up and don’t know any language well. As a result, they can’t
even think clearly. That’s why they don’t learn. It’s our job to teach
them language – to make up for their deficiency. And, since their
parents don’t really know any language either, why should we waste
time on Spanish? It is “good” English which has to be the focus.
(cited in Zentella 1995: 8–9)In this second approach, a teacher has effectively summarized all of the
conclusions drawn from Basil Bernstein’s theories of restricted and
elaborated codes, also known as verbal deficit theory (1966). In
Bernstein’s view, children who do not speak *SAE do not possess
sufficient human language to think or reason, and must be helped to
overcome these language and cultural handicaps. The fact that Bernstein’s
theories and the resulting pedagogical innovations were thoroughly and
resoundingly debunked some 40 years ago^11 is an indication of how
receptive teachers can be to such rhetorical strategies.
It seems to be easier to approach language as a one-size-fits-all
proposition. If there is only one proper language for the children in our
care, and only one proper variety of that language – which happens to be
the language of the socially and economically dominant – then it becomes
easy, even prudent to dismiss the work that comes along with making
teaching a dialogue rather than a lecture.
Yet another approach to rationalizing linguistic subordination is seen in
the essay “Standard English vs. the American Dream” (Winsboro and