Editing Sociolinguistics (section)

====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.