|
Huw:
Of course, "Welsh" can be perfectly prototypical (I bet you can sing!) and there is probably a lot more scientific literature on the origins of Britishness. So I assume you are really talking about syntagmatic, everyday, weakly framed and weakly classified understandings versus paradigmatic, strongly classified and framed ones, the distinction at the root of Basil Bernstein's idea of "pedagogical device" and at the bottom of his very controversial distinction between a restricted code and an elaborated one.
Bernstein put forward this distinction to explain why working class kids were not doing well in schools in post-war Britain, and he was criticized a lot (and often unfairly, e.g. by William Labov) for blaming the victim and creating a deficit model of working class culture. A lot of the same criticisms that are made of Vygotsky's ideas about primitivism.
But Bernstein's model has been thoroughly operationalized for classroom data by the systemic functional linguists (Halliday, Hasan, Painter, Cloran, and others). It seems to me tht his distinction is one of the facts that people dislike but which is empirically true (although I think it doesn't really explain what Bernstein set out to explain because by the time kids are in middle school they talk like each other and not like their parents).
There are a lot of good studies in that direction:
Bernstein, B. (1996, 2000) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity. Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield Christie F. and J.R. Martin (eds) (2007) Languages, Knowledge and Pedagogy. London: Continuum. Christie, F. (ed) (1999). Pedagogy and the Shaping of Consciousness. London: Continuum.
And don't forget:
Lemke, J. (1990) Talking Science. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Halliday, M.A.K. and Martin, J.R. (1993) Writing Science. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
David Kellogg Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
--------- 원본 메일 ---------
|
__________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca