Language Codes and Classroom Practice

Abstract

Bernstein has argued, through nearly 30 years of writing about language codes, that there is an ‘opposition’ (or at least a ‘radical discontinuity') between the modes of communication which predominate in schools and those to which many pupils are accustomed. Briefly, he has maintained that schools are ‘predicated upon elaborated codes’. This claim is re‐examined, partly in the light of Paul Atkinson's recent structuralist critique of Bernstein, and mainly by reference to evidence from classroom research which suggests more readily a predominance of restricted (or perhaps quasi‐elaborated) codes. While the processing of ‘decontextualised’ information is undoubtedly a central feature of formal schooling, it is argued that an essential defining feature of elaborated codes as Bernstein himself presents them is that meanings are transmitted in ways which give access to the grounds for accepting them and which are therefore open to being challenged. It remains an unusual classroom in which pupils find opportunities for disturbing a body of received knowledge.

Unlike Bernstein, I do not assume that the classroom is normally ‘predicated upon elaborated codes and their system of social relationships’. Making deliberate reference to his own analysis of open and closed role systems, I would typify meanings in the ‘regulative’ context as being realised largely through imperatives and through positional appeals in a restricted code, and describe pupils as having to ‘step into’ a predetermined set of instructional meanings and ‘leave it relatively undisturbed’. It is surely an unusual classroom in which pupils find frequent opportunities for ‘disturbing or changing’ a body of received knowledge, and so of ‘achieving meaning’ on their own terms.

(Edwards 1981, p. 291)