Search for a command to run...
Abstract This paper makes no attempt to re‐state the case for ‘awareness of language’ or ‘knowledge about language’ in the curriculum, but seeks only to trace, by reference to the key publications, the main lines of the history of the debate. From the questions raised by the Newbold (1921) and Crowther (1959) Reports, it traces dissatisfaction with English teaching, culminating in the bombshell of statistics of illiteracy (1972) resulting in the Bullock Inquiry. Bullock envisaged a ‘bridging’ role for ‘language’ but unaccountably failed to see any contribution being made to pupils’ growing awareness of language by study of a foreign language. Since Bullock the rich possibilities of teaching about ‘language’ have gradually been accepted, with fresh thinking in HMI discussion documents giving a notable lead (HMI, 1985, 1986), followed directly by the Kingman (1988), Cox (1989) and Martin Harris (1990) Reports. ‘Teaching about language’, after some doubts and opposition from English teachers, has come to be accepted as an essential element in the curriculum for all pupils. What remains unclear is whether ‘language’ should be treated as a discrete ‘module’ in the curriculum. To some it has seemed obvious that for ‘language’ to play the role of ‘bridging‐subject’ envisaged by Bullock it would be necessary for all teachers, regardless of specialism, to be trained to teach it, and Bullock made interesting proposals for this. It seemed to follow from this that ‘language’ must constitute a discrete ‘module’, for otherwise it would be unrealistic to expect teachers of different subjects to plan and teach it as a team, and equally unrealistic to expect teacher trainers to prepare students of different disciplines to tackle it. If this part of the curriculum debate has presented most difficulties and been most muddled, imaginative attempts have been made recently (Brumfit, 1991; Carter et al., 1991) to plan teacher training strategies, some parts of which have run up against opposition from proponents of ‘rigour’ in grammatical teaching. Inevitably this account of the debate must be partial. I am aware that it reflects, perhaps too markedly, my own interest in one particular aspect, namely the hope first expressed in 1973 that English teachers and teachers of foreign languages might realise the rich possibilities of working together in presenting ‘language’ to their pupils. It is a hope that, sadly, remains unfulfilled.