![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper examines the key linguistic arguments underpinning Basil Bernstein's theory of ‘elaborated’ and ‘restricted’ ‘codes’. Building on a review of selected highlights from the collective critical response to Bernstein, the paper attempts to clarify the relationship of the theory to ‘deficit’ views and to explore the conceptual roots of Bernstein's position as well as of the linguistics which informs it. The paper finds that Bernstein's theory qualifies as a ‘deficit’ position on a number of counts, most particularly due to the alleged cognitive implications of the ‘codes’. However, the paper argues that no convincing evidence or rationale for the existence of such ‘codes’ has ever been provided. The paper gives support to the argument that Bernstein's ‘code’ theory has its roots in a particular model of literacy and, as such, is best understood as a variant of the more traditional ethno- (and socio-) centric ‘great divide’ perspective. The paper further argues that the relatively recent re-working of Bernstein's position in the work of Ruqaiya Hasan does not succeed in overcoming its principal theoretical and methodological failings.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the participants at the initial BAAL/CUP seminar for their comments on the paper as originally presented. I am particularly grateful to Roy Harris and Terry Wrigley for comments on an earlier draft of this paper, although they bear no responsibility for the views expressed here. Wrigley's own review of the deficit debate will appear in Smyth and Wrigley (Citation2013).
Notes
1. Ginsborg, for example, refers to Bernstein as ‘the British sociologist who put forward the verbal deprivation hypothesis’ as an explanation for ‘educational underachievement’ (2006, 14). Similarly, Hart and Risley argued that Bernstein's theory, circa 1970, ‘generated considerable controversy … by suggesting that lower-class children might have some sort of language deficit’ (1995, 135, fn). Tizard and Hughes, on the other hand, placed Bernstein in the opposing camp: ‘Both Bernstein and Labov contend that working-class children are as competent at conceptual and logical thinking as middle-class children’ (1984, 129–30). See Edwards (Citation2010) for a more detailed discussion.
2. The conclusions from this research informed the ‘compensatory language programme’ of Bereiter and Engelmann (Citation1966), see Trudgill (Citation1975) for a critique.
3. In his Postscript to the book, Bernstein sums up his own position in the following, rather equivocal, terms (to the frustration of Edwards Citation1976, 144): ‘code restriction where it exists does not constitute linguistic or cultural deprivation; for there is a delicacy and variety in cultural and imaginative forms. I can understand, however, that from a specific psychological viewpoint code restrictions may be equated with educational deficit’ (1970, 117, my emphasis). For a critique of the Gahagans work see Gordon (Citation1981).
4. After all, middle-class children have to operate in the here-and-now as well! Whether this concession makes sense in terms of Bernstein's overall sociolinguistic thesis is another question which I will not explore here.
5. An interesting case is the Bernsteinian response to Labov (Citation1972). Atkinson describes lower-class Larry's speech – ‘an implicit, highly contextual performance’ – as ‘restricted code’ (1985, 107), while Halliday argues that ‘the controlling code’ in Larry's speech ‘is predominantly an elaborated one’ (1978, 86). Bernstein (Citation1973) refused to be drawn initially but finally had his say (Bernstein Citation2000). His detailed critique of Labov's case deserves separate examination.
6. Cf. Bernstein (Citation1973, 188): ‘We started with the view that the social organization and sub-culture of the lower working class would be likely to generate a distinctive form of communication through which the genes of social class would be transmitted’.
7. According to Bernstein (Citation2000, 126, fn 2), Dittmar later moderated his views.
8. See Jones (Citation2007) for a similar critique of ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’, also informed by Hallidayan theory.
9. In fact Bernstein had already considered, and rejected, the relevance of the speech-writing distinction to his analysis of spoken modes (1973, 282, fn 4).
10. As Street (Citation1984) shows, Bernstein's ideas were seized on by Greenfield (Citation1972) who used them in her analysis of the cognitive powers of children from non-literate cultures and in the compensatory language training programme she constructed.
11. For a recent review of the literature and issues see Gee (Citation2012).
12. See Street (Citation1995, Chapter 8) for a more detailed critique of the contribution of linguistics to the ‘great divide’.
13. The research was cited as evidence for Bernstein's ‘codes’ as recently as Sadovnik (Citation2001).
14. This point is overlooked in Harris and Williams (Citation2007) who apply the Hallidayan theory of reference uncritically to examples of classroom discourse in support of a Bernsteinian position.
15. This definition in turn depends on a distinction between ‘material immediate situation’ and ‘relevant immediate situation’ (1973, 282) which I will ignore here. I will also leave aside Bernstein's own conception of ‘direct/indirect relation to a material base’ (1995, 393) which is also irrelevant to the present discussion.
16. The notion of ‘engagement’ and its relevance to discourse interpretation is discussed in Jones (Citation2007).
17. As van Oeurs explains: ‘Context is always strongly related to a personal (explicit or implicit) definition of a situation of action. But if that is true, decontextualization seems to suggest an occurrence of actions in a setting that is not interpreted by the agent. However, that would mean no situation, no action, no meaning at all’ (1998, 136).
18. For a different approach to the analysis of storytelling, including pronoun use, see Gee (Citation2012, Chapter 10).
19. Wrongly numbered in the original.
20. Pete's (1) in Extract 5 might better be described as a request rather than a question, but Hasan does not pick this up.
21. It would certainly be interesting to hear what the ‘LAP’ mothers and children might have to say about the ‘forms of consciousness’ of the linguists responsible for this evaluation of their minds and social relationships.
22. See Lambirth (Citation2006) on the role of such socio-centric perspectives in defining ‘collaboration’ and ‘collaborative learning’ in an educational context.