Researchers in many countries have
observed that middle class children as a group are more successful in the
educational system than working class children. More of the former, for example,
reach college. Professor Basil Bernstein of the University of London has argued
that there is a link between social class and educational failure and that this
link is language. In a series of papers published from 1958 to 1973 Bernstein
has developed a theory of the "structure and process of cultural transmission,"
or socialization, part of which may be summarized as follows.
One characteristic of many (but not all) working class families is that
the status of different members of the family is clearly defined; the authority
of the father, for instance, derives from the fact that he is the father. This
type of family Bernstein calls positional, and he contrasts it with the
person-centered family type, more common (although not omnipresent) in the
middle classes. In the latter, status, authority and interpersonal relationships
are "negotiated" according to the unique characteristics of each family member.
This negotiation, or lack of it, is reflected linguistically. The following
conversation might take place in a positional family:
Child: Can
I have an ice cream
Mother: No.
Child: Why
not
Mother: Because I said so.
In order to
justify her refusal of the child’s request, the mother resorts to her authority
as mother.
The equivalent exchange in a "person-centered" family
might go like this.
Child: Can I have an ice cream
Mother: No.
Child: Why not
Mother:
Because if you have an ice cream now, you won’t want your lunch later
on.
This time an attempt is made to justify the decision in
logical terms. In both cases a "reason" is given for denying the ice cream, but
the "rational" nature of the explanation given by the second mother leads her to
the explicit expression of a statement of condition—"if you have an ice cream
now"—and result—"you won’t want your lunch later on."
Now
Bernstein is not saying that middle class parents are more rational or
articulate or intelligent than working class parents. He notes, however, that if
this sort of difference distinguishes a large proportion of the conversations
these two children hear in their childhood, then it is reasonable to expect the
middle class child to enter school, at age five or six, with the ability to
understand and produce a more varied linguistic repertoire, a more "elaborated
code" than his working class school friend. The latter may be just as
intelligent, but he will probably possess a more "restricted" linguistic
code.
Bernstein also recognizes that not all middle class
parents’ interactions with their children will be like the (imaginary) example
quoted, nor all working class parents’ conversations with their children like
the second (imaginary) example. He argues that the middle class child, however,
is more likely to reach school age with mastery of both codes, restricted and
elaborated. Many (but not all) working class children, on the other hand, will
possess the "restricted code" only. This may be just as rich and powerful
linguistically, just as complex, just as adequate as a means of expression, but
it is not the language of the (often middle class) teacher, of books, of
schools, or, more generally, of educational success.
There are
several problems with Bernstein’s theory, even in its complete form. In common
with other critics, Labov has noted the vagueness of the notion of "code" and,
with another population, shown how differences in the speech elicited from
working class and middle class subjects are sometimes the product of the
elicitation procedures themselves. Rosen has attacked what he sees as the
confused political definitions of several of Bernstein’s central concepts,
including social class, and the lack of linguistic data with which to support
his theoretical claims. Trudgill suggests that the linguistic differences found
by Bernstein and his associates (such as more of less frequent use of
prepositions, impersonal pronouns, varied adjectives and adverbs, and passives)
do not reflect two linguistic codes but simply differences in
style. |
