ABSTRACT
The previous extract and its editorial introduction could not do justice to the subtlety and complexity of Bernstein’s contribution to a sociology of language. Likewise, this passage is simply illustrative of the critiques of Bernstein’s work undertaken by linguists, socio-linguists and sociologists of education. Much of the criticism has centred on the ambiguous concept of ‘code’ and on the interpretation of ‘restricted code’ as referring to an inferior form of speech. For examples of criticisms the reader is referred to Coulthard (1969), Jackson (1974), Grimshaw (1973) and Rosen (1972). The passage below, taken from an extended scrutiny of Bernstein’s work, has been chosen to complement the previous extract where Bernstein suggested a cultural and linguistic discontinuity experienced by lower working-class children in schools. Edwards argues that ‘the school end of this discontinuity of experience is described with infuriating vagueness’. He maintains that in the absence of extensive research into the forms and functions of classroom language, it could equally well be argued that in some schools (described as ‘highly ritualized’ and ‘hierarchical’), there might be ‘too much continuity between home and school experience of language’. At the very least, Edwards throws doubt on the adequacy of Bernstein’s account of how social class differences in language-use are related to social class differences in school achievement.
