Search

The article reviews the article "A public language: some sociological implications of a linguistic form" which is by Basil Bernstein, was published in this journal in 1959, and is reprinted in this issue.

This article presents a clarification on points made in a theory of social class communication codes by Michael Huspek. I raised questions about the status of the terms 'code,' 'dueling,' and 'opposition' in my original Rejoinder. For it seems to me that these terms are not known by their internal relations, that is known through a language of their description, but are known only by what is taken to be their realizations. That is, in crude terms they are known by their outputs, not by their 'inputs'. Thus there is no necessity between the terms and what counts as realization. And, if this is the case, there is no principle of interpretation by means of which information provided by, or elicited from, an informant, can be transformed into data. This means that once an example, a stretch of speech, is challenged for its interpretation, or an alternative interpretation is offered, the theory is literally vacuous. This raised a further question about the use of the term 'theory'. I am inclined to think that if a term is only known by a realization, an exemplar, then the term is only a metaphor and the example stands in a metanymic relation to the metaphor: Terms in social theory are likely to be metaphors but if we can substitute x or y for these terms, and if their descriptions and functions are available, then external referents of the theory can be recognized and interpreted with some plausible necessity.

This article presents Basil Bernstein's response to an article by Michael Huspek which advanced a theory of the relationship between social class and communication codes. Bernstein acknowledges that a developing theory creates a burden for those who engage with it. Such a theory requires its readers a recency of reading. In the case of Huspek he seems to have parted company with the theory well before 1975. The major arguments derived from papers published well before 1970. The section headed A Reconsideration of Bernstein's Descriptions of Working-class Speech draws entirely from a paper published in 1962, and the description of codes reduced syntactic complexity goes back to a paper published in 1958. According to Bernstein, it is therefore difficult, if not possible, to comment on Huspek's paper without summarizing or at least referring to developments of the last 20 years. Developments which not only have escaped Huspek, but perhaps equally seriously have escaped the anonymous reviewers whom Huspek acknowledges. Bernstein's comments is grouped under two headings: Social Class and Education, and Class and Oppositional Codes. Huspek points out that Bernstein has operated with a two level model of empirical research.

This article focuses on linguistic forms or codes. Changes in the form of the social relation affect both the planning procedures used in the preparation of speech and the orientation of the listener. Different forms of social relations can generate quite different speech-systems or linguistic codes by affecting the planning procedures. These different speech-systems or codes create different orders of relevance and relation for their speakers. Two general types of code can be distinguished: elaborated and restricted. These codes can be defined in terms of the probability of predicting for any one speaker which syntactic elements are to be used to organize meaning across a representative range of speech. They themselves are functions of a particular form of social relationship. The pure form of a restricted code would be one where all words and hence the organizing structure are wholly predictable for speakers and listeners. It defines the form of the social relationship by restricting the verbal signaling of individual differences. Individuals mainly relate to each other through the social position or status they occupy. An elaborated code, where prediction is much less possible at the syntactic level, is likely to arise in that social relationship which raises the tension in its members to select a verbal arrangement from their linguistic resources which closely fits specific referents.

These days various forms of psychotherapy are being extended to include a greater number of individuals from different social backgrounds. Training programs for probation officers, social workers, psychologists and members of the prison and borstal services are gradually being extended at different rates to include an understanding of psycho-dynamic processes and a therapy-oriented relationships. The therapy relationship is based upon the belief that those conditions which brought the patient into the relationship may be ameliorated by communication in a context where the normal status relationships serve as no guide for behavior in a context which involves a suspension of the patients social identity and where the referent for the communication is the discrete experience of the patient. This is a somewhat unusual social relationship involving some strange requirements. It will be argued that members of the lower working-class who are limited to a particular speech system are likely to find these requirements difficult to meet. Such individuals are likely to benefit less from therapy, to break off treatment early, whilst the therapist will tend to find the relationship unrewarding. Psychotherapist will require a sensitivity towards his patient of a different order than that necessary for a middle-class patient.

The article presents a research note which discusses the relation between languages and social class. Linguistic differences, other than dialect, occur in the normal social environment and status groups may be distinguished by their forms of speech. This difference is most marked where the gap between the socio-economic levels is very great. It is suggested that the measurable inter-status differences in language facility result from entirely different modes of speech found within the middle-class and the lower working-class. It is proposed that the two distinct forms of language use arise because the organization of the two social strata is such that different emphases are placed on language potential. The role intelligence plays is to enable the speaker to exploit more successfully possibilities symbolized by the socially determined forms of language use. It is suggested that the typical, dominant speech mode of the middle class is one where speech becomes an object of special perceptual activity and a theoretical attitude is developed towards the structural possibilities of sentence organization. This is not the case for members of the lower working class.

In this article, the author holds the view that language is one of the most important intervening variables between the individual and behavior. Certainly implications of a given form of language use are continuously reinforced from the beginning of speech, perhaps even before. The child understands before it can speak. The linguistic form is a powerful conditioner of what is learnt, how it is learnt and influences future learning. In this article, the behavior which is facilitated by a public language, has been analyzed. One major implication of the view held here, which is ethical and political rather than sociological, is that the changing of a form of language use, in this case a public language, involves something more than might be thought as first sight. A public language contains its own aesthetic, a simplicity and directness of expression, emotionally virile, pithy and powerful and a metamorphic range of considerable force and appropriateness. A change in the mode of language used, involves the whole personality of the individual, the very character of his social relationships, his points of reference, emotional and logical, and his conception of himself.