Linguists have been discussing David Blunkett's comments about how people should be urged to talk English in their homes. BAAL (the British Association of Applied Linguists) and the LAGB (Linguistics Association of Great Britain) are preparing a response to them. But some linguists think what he said might not be so bad after all. Here's the text of what Blunkett said (this is the only reference to language in the whole 20 pages):

'I have never said, or implied, that lack of fluency in English was in any way directly responsible for the disturbances in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham in the summer of 2001. However, speaking English enables parents to converse with their children in English, as well as in their historic mother tongue, at home and to participate in wider modern culture. It helps overcome the schizophrenia which bedevils generational relationships. In as many as 30% of Asian British households, according to the recent citizenship survey, English is not spoken at home. But let us be clear that lack of English fluency did not cause the riots.'

Some linguists take this as just saying that it could be a problem if parents can't speak a language being used by their kids. On the other hand, others say that it's presupposing English is the main language everywhere in the country. And they raise the question of whether the (local) government in Wales is 'promoting schizophrenia' by promoting use of Welsh as a first language?

Well, I thought I'd pass this on just in case I'm beginning to seem unfairly biased against the lying, deceitful ...

B-)