Misunderstanding Bernstein

 Martin & Rose (2007: 302):

There are five main dimensions of inequality in post-colonial societies, by which we are all positioned, very early in life in the home: generation, gender, ethnicity, incapacity and class. By generation we refer to inequalities associated with maturation; gender covers sex and sexuality-based difference; ethnicity is concerned with racial, religious and other ‘cultural’ divisions; incapacity refers to disabilities of various kinds; class is based on the distribution of material resources and arguably the most fundamental dimension since it is the inequality on which our post-colonial economic order ultimately depends. 

We should stress that we understand all of these as social semiotic coding orientations, which are thus materialised through both physical embodiments and semantic styles. The ways in which they operate is of course culturally specific, and far beyond the scope of this book to consider further here. 

The main influence on our thinking in this area is the sociologist Bernstein, as has perhaps become apparent to readers familiar with his work. For some of our dialogue with him, see Christie (1999). All five dimensions condition access to the hierarchies we encounter outside the home in education, religion, recreation and the workplace and so for most texts we have to consider power carefully in relation to field.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in Bernstein's model, such social variables are factors that orient different language users to different language codes. Halliday (1978: 106):

What Bernstein’s work suggests is that there may be differences in the relative orientation of different social groups towards the various functions of language in given contexts, and towards different areas of meaning that may be explored within a given function.

[2] To be clear, the orientations of social groups to different language codes are not materialised through semantic styles, not least because semantic styles are not material but semiotic. Instead, from the perspective of SFL Theory, the codes themselves are actualised in language through register. Halliday (1978: 68):

The code is actualised in language through register, the clustering of semantic features according to situation type. 

[3] To be clear, these five social dimensions do not "condition access to the hierarchies we encounter". Instead, we are necessarily already located within these hierarchies (social dimensions).

[4] To be clear, Bernstein's codes affect all contextual systems: field, tenor and mode. Halliday (1978: 67):

In terms of our general picture, the codes act as determinants of register, operating on the selection of meanings within situation types: when the systemics of language — the ordered sets of options that constitute the linguistic system — are activated by the situational determinants of text (the field, tenor and mode […]), this process is regulated by the codes.

That is, the authors' locating of coding orientation within tenor misunderstands the relation of Bernstein's model to SFL Theory.