Bernstinova sociolingvistička teorija jezičkih kodova i obrazovanje
BASIL BERNSTEIN’S SOCIOLINGUISTIC THEORY
OF LANGUAGE CODES
R. Young Spring 2002
БАСИЛ
БЕРНСТИНОВА СОЦИОЛИНГВИСТИЧКА ТЕОРИЈА ЈЕЗИЧКИХ КОДОВА
R. Young Spring 2002
Базил Бернстин дао је
значајан допринос истраживању комуникације његовом Социолингвистичком теоријом
језичких кодова. У широј категорији језичких кодова елаборирани су ограничени кодови. У овом чланку, термин
код користи се на начин на који га је
дефинисао Stephen Littlejohn in Theories of Human Communication (2002),
„код се односи на сет организовајућих принципа који стоји иза чланова социјалних
група који су језички активни“ (p.278). Littlejohn
(2002)
сугерише да Бернстинова теорија показује да људи када говоре користе у
свакодневној конверзацији и мисли и облике који су претпоставке одређене
социјалне групе. Штавише, односи установљени у одређеној социјалној групи утичу
на начин на који та група користи језик и на начин на који користи говор.
James Atherton of the Doceo Teaching and Learning Website утврдио је да
је конструкт рестриктивних и елаборисаних кодова увео Basil Bernstein 1971.
As an educator, he was interested in accounting for the relatively
poor performance of working-class students in language based subjects, when
they were achieving scores as high as their middle-class counterparts on
mathematical topics. In his theory, Bernstein makes a direct correlation
between societal class and language.
According to Bernstein in Class, Codes and Control (1971),
“Forms of spoken language in the process of their learning initiate, generalize
and reinforce special types of relationship with the environment and thus
create for the individual particular forms of significance” (p.76). That is to
say that the way language is used within a particular societal class affects
the way people assign significance and meaning to the things about which they
are speaking. Littlejohn (2002) agrees and states, “people learn their place in
the world by virtue of the language codes they employ” (p.178). The code that a
person uses indeed symbolizes their social identity (Bernstein, 1971).
The two types of language codes are the elaborated code and the
restricted code. Now, to avoid misunderstanding, it is noted that the
restricted code does not refer to restricted vocabulary just as elaborated code
does not refer to better, more eloquent language. According to Atherton (2002), the essence of the
distinction is in what the language is suited for. The restricted code
works better than the elaborated code for situations in which there is a great
deal of shared and taken-for-granted knowledge in the group of speakers. It is
economical and rich, conveying a vast amount of meaning with a few words, each
of which has a complex set of connotations and acts like an index, pointing
the hearer to a lot more information which remains unsaid.
Within the restricted code, speakers draw on background knowledge
and shared understanding. This type of code creates a sense of includedness, a
feeling of belonging to a certain group. Restricted codes can be found among
friends and families and other intimately knit groups.
Conversely, according to Atherton (2002), “the elaborated code
spells everything out, not because it is better, but because it is necessary so
that everyone can understand it. It has to elaborate because the circumstances
do not allow the speaker to condense.” The elaborated code works well in
situations where there is no prior or shared understanding and knowledge, where
more thorough explanation is required. If one is saying something new to
someone they’ve never met before, they would most certainly communicate in
elaborated code.
In differentiating between restricted and elaborated codes, it is
noted that elaborated code can “stand on its own”, it is complete and full of
detail, most overhearing a conversation would be able to understand it.
However, restricted code is shorter, condensed and requires background
information and prior knowledge. A person overhearing a conversation full of
restricted code would be quite lost. It would be easily identifiable as an
“insiders” conversation. According to Bernstein (1971), “Јасно је да један код
није бољи од другога; сваки има своју естетику, сопствене могућности. Друштво, међутим, може придати различите вредности да би спровело у праксу селекцију, да би одржавало и
прогресивно јачало неку социјалну групу кроз различите језичке системе“ (p.135).
As communication occurs in groups and either the elaborated or
restricted code is used, there is a degree of openness that is noticed. There
is both the closed-role system and the open-role system. In a closed-role
system, roles are set and people are viewed in terms of these roles, as well as
expected to act in accordance with their role. In a open-role system, roles are
not set or simple, they are fluid and changeable (Littlejohn, 2002).
Постоје два фактора која
доприносе развоју било елаборисаног, било рестриктивног кода у социјалном
систему. То су: природа социјализирајућих агената (породица, вршњаци, школа,
радно место) датих у систему, као и вредности унутар система. Када су социјални
агенти добро дефинисани и структуирани наићићете на рестриктивни код. У
супротном, када су социјални агенти савитљиви, можемо наћи елаборисане
кодове. У друштвима која поштују индивидуалност наићићете на елаборисане кодове а у ужим друштвима налазите
рестриктивне кодове.
(Littlejohn, 2002). Bernstein (1971) purports
that, “The orientation towards these codes may be governed entirely by the form
of the social relation, or more generally by the quality of the social
structure” (p.135).
Bernstein је
направио везу између социјалних класа и употребе било елаборисаног, било
рестриктивног кода. Он је известио да ћемо у радничкој каласи вероватније наћи
употребу рестриктивог кода, док ћемо у средњој класи наћи употребу и рестриктивног
и елаборисаног кода. His research argues that
the working class have access only to restricted codes, the ones they learned
in the socialization process, where “both the values and role systems reinforce
restricted codes” (Littlejohn, 2002 p.179). However, the middle class,
being more geographically, socially and culturally mobile has access to both
the restricted codes and elaborate codes. (Atherton, 2002). Рестриктивни код је мање
формалан, има краће фразе, уметнуте у средину или на крај мишљења, фразе којима
се тражи да се потврди разумевање изреченог у комуникацији са другима. На
пример. „знаш“, „знаш шта мислим“, „у реду?“, „зар не мислиш?“ Elaborated codes have a longer, more complicated sentence
structure that utilizes uncommon words and thoughts. In the elaborate code
there is no padding or filler, only complete, well laid out thoughts that require
no previous knowledge on the part of the listener, i.e., necessary details will
be provided. According to Bernstein (1971), a working class person communicates
in restricted code as a result of the conditions in which they were raised and
the socialization process. The same is true for the middle class person with
the exception that they were exposed to the elaborate code as well. Both groups
use restricted code at some point, for as Atherton (2002) points out, “Everyone
uses restricted code communication some of the time. It would be a very
peculiar and cold family which did not have its own language.”
[The correlation between societal class and language codes shown
herein explains for the poor performance in language based subjects by the
working class students mentioned earlier.]
Now that the dynamics of Bernstein’s sociolinguistic theory have
been explored, it is prudent to critique the theory with several guidelines as
presented in Littlejohn (2002).
References
Adler, R. (1999). Looking Out Looking In.
New York: Harcourt Brace.
Atherton, J. (2002).
http://www.doceo.co.uk/language_codes.htm
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, Codes and
Control (Volume 1). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Littlejohn, S. (2002). Theories of Human
Communication. Albuquerque: Wadsworth
http://www.doceo.co.uk/language_codes.htm
Коментари
Постави коментар