Method I 123
Firstly, there have been few detailed analyses of the linguistic
interaction of the home and school which could provide empirical
support for such a theory. Secondly, those studies which do exist
[such as the Bristol study] have not shown the clear-cut
discontinuities which have been proposed. (McTear,1985:21)
McLure and French <1981) and Veils and Montgomery (1981 > dispute the
mismatch theory, on the evidence provided by their longitudinal study:
'There is no sharp discontinuity between the interactive styles of home
and school' (Velis and Montgomery,1981:232). Although many features of
Interaction have been pointed out as more likely to occur at home than in
the classroom, the same studies also stress the great variations in the
range of communicative styles of both parents and teachers. Villes
(1983) shows how most children learn the rules of communication in the
classroom quickly and without formal instruction. Children are exposed to
Test Questions at home as well, and supportive or tutorial styles of
interaction are to be found in both settings (Velis,1985. See also 2.4).
The construct of 'Zone of Proximal Development' (see page 45) helps us to
consider a very important characteristic of both parents' and teachers'
roles in their interaction with the language learning child: both
recognize the limited level of competence of the child, and make the most
of it, and both organize the interaction in terms of a 'launching
platform' (Brown,1977:15) for the child to try more complex forms of
communication, at a more adult or advanced level. This was confirmed by
the Bristol study:
The evidence found in the present Investigation of a general
tendency for items to show an increase in relative frequency
timed to occur slightly before their emergence in the speech of
the children, could be the outcome of the operation of just such a
strategy by the children's interlocutors. (Veils, 1985:378)
This complex state of affairs calls into question the legitimacy of
drawing pedagogical conclusions from descriptive studies without the
necessary mediation imposed by the peculiarities of the educational
process (the teaching and learning at school). The same criticism by
Stubbs (see quote on page 103) can be extended from the linguistic to the
pedagogical system, which also has its aims, taxonomies and structures.