Editing Sociolinguistics (section)

==Differences according to class==
{{further|Linguistic insecurity}}

Sociolinguistics as a field distinct from [[dialectology]] was pioneered through the study of language variation in urban areas. Whereas dialectology studies the geographic distribution of language variation, sociolinguistics focuses on other sources of variation, among them class. Class and occupation are among the most important linguistic markers found in society. One of the fundamental findings of sociolinguistics, which has been hard to disprove, is that class and language variety are related. Members of the working class tend to speak less of what is deemed [[standard language]], while the lower, middle, and upper middle class will, in turn, speak closer to the standard.  However, the upper class, even members of the upper middle class, may often speak 'less' standard than the middle class.  This is because not only class but class aspirations, are important. One may speak differently or cover up an undesirable accent to appear to have a different social status and fit in better with either those around them, or how they wish to be perceived.

===Class aspiration===
Studies, such as those by William Labov in the 1960s, have shown that social aspirations influence speech patterns.  This is also true of class aspirations.  In the process of wishing to be associated with a certain class (usually the upper class and upper middle class) people who are moving in that direction socio-economically may adjust their speech patterns to sound like them.  However, not being native upper-class speakers, they often [[hypercorrect]], which involves overcorrecting their speech to the point of introducing new errors. The same is true for individuals moving down in socio-economic status.

In any contact situation, there is a power dynamic, be it a teacher-student or employee-customer situation. This power dynamic results in a hierarchical differentiation between languages.<ref>Deckert, Sharon K. and Caroline H. Vikers.  (2011).  An Introduction to Sociolinguistics: Society and Identity. Page 44</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Non-standard dialect<br />(associated with lower classes) !! Standard dialect<br />(associated with higher classes) 
|-
| It looks like it ain't gonna rain today. || It looks as if it isn't going to rain today.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Gumperz|first=John|year=1964|title=Linguistic and social interaction in two communities|journal=American Anthropologist|volume=66|issue=6, part 2|pages=137–153|doi=10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00100}}</ref> 
|-
| You give it to me yesterday. || You gave it to me yesterday.<ref>{{cite book|last=Trudgill|first=Peter|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ai45AAAAIAAJ&q=%22The+Social+Differentiation+of+English+in+Norwich%22&pg=PR9|title=The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=1974|isbn=9780521202640|volume=13|location=Cambridge|page=56}}</ref>
|-
| Y'gotta do it the right way. || You have to do it the right way.<ref>{{cite book|last=Labov|first=William|title=The Social Stratification of English in New York City|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=1966|location=Cambridge|page=66}}</ref>
|}

===Social language codes===
[[Basil Bernstein]], a well-known British sociolinguist, devised in his book, ''Elaborated and restricted codes: their social origins and some consequences'', a method for categorizing language codes according to variable emphases on verbal and extraverbal communication. He claimed that factors like family orientation, social control, verbal feedback, and possibly social class contributed to the development of the two codes: elaborated and restricted.<ref name="Bernstein">{{cite book|last=Bernstein|first=Basil B.|title=Elaborated and restricted codes: their social origins and some consequences|year=1967|publisher=Bobbs-Merrill|pages=55–67|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Y-UiRUbQ44kC&q=%22Elaborated+and+restricted+codes%3A+their+social+origins+and+some+consequences%22}}</ref>

====Restricted code====
According to Basil Bernstein, the restricted code exemplified the predominance of extraverbal communication, with an emphasis on interpersonal connection over individual expression. His theory places the code within environments that operate according to established social structures that predetermine the roles of their members in which the commonality of interests and intents from a shared local identity creates a predictability of discrete intent and therefore a simplification of verbal utterances. Such environments may include military, religious, and legal atmospheres; criminal and prison subcultures; long-term married relationships; and friendships between children.

The strong bonds between speakers often renders explicit verbal communication unnecessary and individual expression irrelevant. However, simplification is not a sign of a lack of intelligence or complexity within the code; rather, communication is performed more through extraverbal means (facial expression, touch, etc.) in order to affirm the speakers' bond. Bernstein notes the example of a young man asking a stranger to dance since there is an established manner of asking, yet communication is performed through physical graces and the exchange of glances.

As such, implied meaning plays a greater role in this code than in the elaborated code.  Restricted code also operates to unify speakers and foster solidarity.<ref name="Bernstein" />

====Elaborated code====
Basil Bernstein defined 'elaborated code' according to its emphasis on verbal communication over extraverbal. This code is typical in environments where a variety of social roles are available to the individual, to be chosen based upon disposition and temperament. Most of the time, speakers of elaborated code use a broader [[lexicon]] and demonstrate less syntactic predictability than speakers of restricted code. The lack of predetermined structure and solidarity requires explicit verbal communication of discrete intent by the individual to achieve educational and career success.

Bernstein notes with caution the association of the code with upper classes (while restricted code is associated with lower classes) since the abundance of available resources allows persons to choose their social roles. He warns, however, that studies associating the codes with separate social classes used small samples and were subject to significant variation.

He also asserts that elaborated code originates from differences in social context, rather than intellectual advantages. As such, elaborated code differs from restricted code according to the context-based emphasis on individual advancement over assertion of social/community ties.<ref name="Bernstein" />

====The codes and child development====
Bernstein explains language development according to the two codes in light of their fundamentally different values. For instance, a child exposed solely to restricted code learns extraverbal communication over verbal, and therefore may have a less extensive vocabulary than a child raised with exposure to both codes. While there is no inherent lack of value to restricted code, a child without exposure to elaborated code may encounter difficulties upon entering formal education, in which standard, clear verbal communication and comprehension is necessary for learning and effective interaction both with instructors and other students from differing backgrounds. As such, it may be beneficial for children who have been exposed solely to restricted code to enter pre-school training in elaborated code in order to acquire a manner of speaking that is considered appropriate and widely comprehensible within the education environment.

Additionally, Bernstein notes several studies in language development according to social class. In 1963, the Committee for Higher Education conducted a study on verbal IQ that showed a deterioration in individuals from lower working classes ages 8–11 and 11–15 years in comparison to those from middle classes (having been exposed to both restricted and elaborated codes).<ref>{{citation|mode=cs1|author=Committee on Higher Education|year=1963|title=Higher Education Appendix One|issue=Parts 2 and 3|location=London|publisher=H.M.S.O.}} Cited in Bernstein 1967.</ref>  Additionally, studies by Bernstein,<ref>{{cite journal|last=Bernstein|first=Basil|year=1958|title=Some sociological determinants of perception: An enquiry into sub-cultural differences|journal=British Journal of Sociology|volume=9|issue=2|pages=159–174|doi=10.2307/587912|jstor=587912}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Bernstein|first=Basil|year=1960|title=Language and social class: A research note|journal=British Journal of Sociology|volume=11|issue=3|pages=271–276|doi=10.2307/586750|jstor=586750}}</ref> Venables,<ref>{{cite journal|last=Venables|first=Ethel|year=1962|title=The reserve of ability in part-time technical college courses|journal=University Quarterly|volume=17|pages=60–75|doi=10.1111/j.1468-2273.1962.tb00980.x}}</ref> and Ravenette,<ref>{{cite thesis |last=Ravenette|first=T.|date=1963|title=Intelligence, personality and social class: an investigation into the patterns of intelligence and personality of working-class secondary school children|type=unpublished PhD thesis|publisher=University of London Library}}</ref> as well as a 1958 Education Council report,<ref>{{citation|mode=cs1|author=Report of the Central Advisory Council for Education|year=1958|title=Fifteen to Eighteen|location=London|publisher=H.M.S.O.|issue=Vol. I|page=376}} Cited in Bernstein 1967.</ref> show a relative lack of success on verbal tasks in comparison to extraverbal in children from lower working classes (having been exposed solely to restricted code).<ref name="Bernstein" />

===== Contradictions =====
The idea of these social language codes from Bernstein contrast with famous linguist [[Noam Chomsky]]'s ideas. Chomsky, deemed the "father of modern linguistics", argues that there is a [[universal grammar]], meaning that humans are born with an innate capacity for linguistic skills like sentence-building. This theory has been criticized by several scholars of linguistic backgrounds because of the lack of proven evolutionary feasibility and the fact that different languages do not have universal characteristics.