Language in Use, as I see it, is the opening up of an important area of human potential. I use the ambiguous expression 'opening up' deliberately, to mean both making this potential available and bringing it to the light of day. Language in Use is a charted voyage of conquest and discovery, in which the pupil can explore, in terms of his own experience, the potential which lies at the heart of his understanding of that experience (and therefore of all his learning), namely his mastery of language. The mastery of language, it should be insisted, is not simply the ability to say what one means; rather, it is the ability to mean. Each one of us has this ability, and lives by it; but we do not always become aware of it or realise fully the breadth and depth of its possibilities.
Where does Language in Use fit in to the timetable? In one sense, nowhere. There is no place for language in the division of knowledge into arts and sciences-this is no doubt a principal reason for its neglect in our educational system, which depends on boundaries of this kind. Language can be approached from various intellectual standpoints, philosophical, aesthetic scientific and technological; or from none at all, simply on the basis of a thoughtful and open-minded sensitivity to one's own experience. In another sense however, it is easy to see where Language in Use fits in, because it answers closely to what we call 'English' in the curriculum, provided that this is interpreted broadly enough, as the exploration of the richness, the functional variety and the expressive resources of the mother tongue.
This is not to suggest that Language in Use can be introduced only in the period listed as 'English' in the timetable, although that is a very good place for it. It may come usefully within the framework of general studies, or under a heading such as 'liberal studies' or 'communication' -as arts for the science student, or science for the arts student; or where there is no label and no subject specialisation at all. It has even been used, with some success, to meet the language requirements of public examinations. There should, however, be some place for language in the working life of the secondary school pupil; and, it might be added, of the student in a College of Education, who will bear much of the responsibility for the success or failure (and educational failure is largely linguistic failure) of the next generation of pupils.
What you expect to find will depend on your individual experience hitherto, as a teacher, as a trainee teacher, and before that, as a pupil. Your own prototype of language might be based on a theory of grammar and usage, with usage as what is and grammar as what ought to be; or you may see language as a vehicle of the creative imaginationwhether, in consequence, you reject the daily round as unworthy of' attention or perhaps find poetry in the language of the kitchen sink; or you may see it as a means of the accurate communication of ideas, as the channel for rhetoric and effective discourse, or as many other things besides. In each case you will have different expectations. It would be easy to say 'make your mind a blank, and try to approach Language in Use with no expectations at all'. But this would hardly be possible; and if it could be done, it would mean jettisoning a lot of sensible and useful ideas. Your personal angle is a valid point of departure; only, it is almost certainly not the total perspective. Similarly, your pupils may find it helpful to start by being asked to consider what language means to them in their own lives; what do the),- get, and what do the), expect to get, from their mother tongue' Language in Use provides a way in to the exploration of these questions.
Language in Use is the product of a length), period of thinking, talking and reading in all kinds of subjects, followed by two rounds of trials in a variety of schools (extending over the age range 11-18), in Colleges of' Further Education, and in Colleges of Education. It started with the Nuffield Programme in Linguistics and English Teaching (1964), In which teachers and linguists came together to work on the problem of the more effective teaching of the mother tongue in schools. I was Director of this Programme from its inception until the end of 1970. Peter Doughty was in it from the beginning, and has taken the major responsibility for the direction of the work at secondary level. John Pearce and Geoffrey Thornton have been his colleagues since the project entered its development stage under the Schools Council (1967). These three are the authors of the present volume, They were assisted during the preparation and trial of the materials by Kathleen Wood, who was simultaneously working on materials for the 'middle school' age range; and by Stephen Lushington, who also took special responsibility for an important and rather unexpected development, the use of the materials in Approved Schools. I would like to place on record here our appreciation of the active interest shown by teachers in these schools, and by the Home Office Children's Department Development Group, with whose blessing and assistance these contacts were made.
The home of the project has been the Department of General Linguistics at University College London, and more specifically the Communication Research Centre, which is the base for the Department's outside research and other activities. The team are members of the College staff and have drawn extensively on College resources and good will.
Outside the College, the work of the Sociological Research Unit, and that of the Department of English as a Mother Ton tie, both at the Institute of Education, University of London, have provided a constant source of inspiration, and we would particularly like to thank Professors Basil Bernstein and James Britton for their help and encouragement.
The teachers, head teachers and lecturers, inspectors and advisers who have been involved in the work in one way or another are too numerous to mention. We hope that the time and effort they put in is adequately reflected in the present volume. Many will find their ideas incorporated, and to them we owe a special debt. The success of the volume is ultimately dependent on the publisher, and I know the authors would wish me to acknowledge the outstanding care and attention which Edward Arnold have given to their work. And perhaps I might also put in on their behalf a word of thanks to Patty Brooks, who has nourished it with such patience and understanding.
London, January 1971 M.A.K. .HALLIDAY