Linguistics Encyclopedia.pdf

The linguistics encyclopedia 340
In other words, because elaborated code is used predominantly at school, and because the
ability to use it is necessary for the formation of certain concepts which are important in
the educational setting, a child with no access to elaborated code will be unable to
succeed academically at school.
Elaborated code was said to be characterized by grammatical complexity and
completeness, restricted code by grammatical simplicity and incompleteness and much
use of brief imperatives and interrogatives; restricted code was also said to be logically
simpler than elaborated code. This gross oversimplification of Bernstein’s fully
developed theory has been discredited indirectly by Labov (1969) (see below), but it led
easily into the so-called myth of linguistic deprivation according to which speakers of
non-standard English of any kind are deprived of appropriate linguistic stimulation in the
home. The fault is thus seen to lie with the child who fails at school—the child fails
because his or her language is inappropriate to the school situation, preventing him or her
from forming the kinds of concepts necessary for academic success.
A less simplistic interpretation of Bernstein’s work, however, suggests that the link
between language and academic failure is indirect. Such an interpretation takes account
of Bernstein’s later version of the theory which includes considerations of contexts of
socialization, of which there are four (reprint of extracts from Bernstein, 1970, in
Giglioli, 1972, p. 170; emphasis added):
1 The regulative context—these are authority relationships where the child is made
aware of the rules of the moral order and their various backings.
2 The instructional context, where the child learns about the objective nature of objects
and persons, and acquires skills of various kinds.
3 The imaginative or innovative contexts, where the child is encouraged to experiment
and re-create his world on his own terms, and in his own way.
4 The interpersonal context, where the child is made aware of affective states—his own,
and others.
These are ‘generalized situation types which have greatest significance for the child’s
socialization and for his interpretation of experience’ (Halliday’s foreword to Bernstein,
1973). Halliday goes on to explain the indirect causation theory thus:
What Bernstein’s work suggests is that there may be differences in the
relative orientation of different social groups towards the various
functions of language in given contexts, and towards the different areas of
meaning that may be explored within a given function. Now if this is so,
then when these differences manifest themselves in the contexts that are
critical for the socialization process they may have a profound effect on
the child’s social learning; and therefore on his response to education,
because built into the educational process are a number of assumptions
and practices that reflect differentially not only the values but also the
communication patterns and learning styles of different subcultures. As
Bernstein has pointed out, not only does this tend to favour certain modes
of learning over others, but it also creates for some children a continuity
of cultures between home and school which it largely denies to others.