Out

78-14,639
SIEGEL, Gary Lee

LANGUAGE AND THE ORGANIZATION OF BEHAVIOR: AN
EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF CLASS AND ETHNIC
DIFFERENCES IN GIVING AND ENACTING
DIRECTIONS.
Saint Louis University,
Ph.D., 1577
University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48ioe
() Copyright by Gary Lee Siegel 1977

All Rights Reserved
LANGUAGE AND THE ORGANIZATION

OF BEHAVIOR
AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF
CLASS AND ETHNIC DIFFERENCES
IN GIVING AND ENACTING
DIRECTIONS
by
Gary Lee Siegel, M.A.
A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate

School of Saint Louis University in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
1977
COMMITTEE IN CHARGE OF CANDIDACY

Professor Thomas S. McPartland
Chairman and Adviser
Professor Clement S. Mihanovich
Associate Professor William J. Monahan
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like not only to acknowledge, but

to dedicate this dissertation to Dr. Thomas
McPartland without whose insight, guidance,
and patience it could not have been written;
and to Margaret, who was always there.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
iv
LIST OF TABLES
vii
Chapter
l
I. BACKGROUND
Aim
II.
CONCEPTUAL AND EMPIRICAL FRAMEWORK

OF THE PROBLEM
III. OPERATIONALIZATION:
DIRECTIONS"
"GIVING
IV. A PILOT STUDY: GIVING GEOGRAPHICAL

DIRECTIONS
Non-Adequate Directions
Adequate Directions
Adequate-Plus Directions
The Task
Audience
V. HYPOTHESES
VI.
VII.
7
18
29
34
36
38
41
43
51
METHOD
55
Subjects
55
Procedures
58
FINDINGS
65
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 2
65
69
v
Page
Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 4
Hypothesis 5
Hypothesis 6
Written v. Oral Communication
Grade School and High
School Samples
VIII. DISCUSSION
80
88
103
116
121
134
Language, Codes and the

organization of Behavior . . . .
Task Complexity and Language-Communication
Encoding and Decoding
Language-Communication
and Social Class
Language-Communication,
Class and Ethnicity
Written Versus Oral
Communication
Language-Communication of
Grade School, High School
and College Subjects
A Final Word
134
146
151
155
158
172
175
180
IX. SUMMARY
184
BIBLIOGRAPHY
189
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1. Adult Sample
64
2. Language Mode and Task Enactment .
57
3. Task Enactment of Directions

Given for Tinker Toy and
Puzzle Tasks
71
4.
Task Enactment for Four Task

Levels
5. Language Mode Used for Tinker

Toy and Puzzle Tasks
72
73
6. Language Mode Used for Four

Task Levels
74
7. Language Mode and Social Class . .

8. Language Mode and Social Class
for Tinker Toy Task
9. Language Mode and Social Class
for Puzzle Task
10.
11.
12.
77
78
81
Social Class of Directors and

Task Enactment
82

Task Enactment for Puzzle
Tasks
83

Task Enactment for Tinker Toy
Tasks
84
13. Language Mode of Directors of

Different Social Class and
Ethnicity
vii
86
Page
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Language Mode of Directors of Different

Social Class and Ethnicity for Tinker
Toy (Simple) Tasks
89
Language Mode of Directors of

Ethnicity for Puzzle (Complex)
Task
90
Social Class and Ethnicity of

Directors and Task Enactment
91
Task Enactment (of Adequate and

Adequate-Plus Directions) by
Subjects Who Had Employed
Different Language Modes in
Their Directions
93
Task Enactment of Adequate and

Adequate-Plus Directions to
Tinker Toy (Simple) Tasks by
Different Language Modes
95

Adequate-Plus Directions to
Puzzle (Complex) Tasks by
Different Language Modes
96
Task Enactment by Actors of

Different Social Class
98

Ethnicity
99
Task Enactment of Tinker Toy

Tasks by Actors of Different
Social Class and Ethnicity
101
Task Enactment of Puzzle Tasks

by Actors of Different Social
Class and Ethnicity
102
viii
Pag
Task Enactnent by Middle and Lower
Class Actors of Directions Given
by Middle and Lower Class
Directors
105
Task Enactment by Middle and Lower

Class Actors of Adequate and
Adequate-Plus Directions Given
by Middle and Lower Class
Directors
108
Task Enactment by Black and White

Actors of Directions Given by
Black and White Directors
109

Actors of Adequate and AdequatePlus Directions Given by Black and
White Directors
Task Enactment by Actors of Different
Social Class and Ethnicity of
Adequate and Adequate-Plus
Directions Given by Directors of
Ethnicity
Hi-
112
Task Enactment by Lower Cliss Black

Actors of Directions Given by
Directors of Different Class
and Ethnicity
114

Different Class and Ethnicity
of Directions Given by Lower
Class Black Actors
115
ix
Page
31.
Adequacy of Directions and Frequency of Task Enactment for Oral

and Written Directions Given for
the Four Task Levels by Directors
of Different Class and Ethnicity . . . 117
32.
Language Mode of Written and Oral

Directions Given for Puzzle
(Complex) Tasks
119
Language Mode Used by Black Directors

in Written and Oral Directions Given
for Tinker Toy (Simple) Tasks . . . .
120
Task Enactment by High School Lower

Class Actors
123
Task Enactment by High School Middle

Class Actors
124
Task Enactment by Grade School Lower

Class Actors
125
Task Enactment by Grade School

Middle Class Actors
127
Frequency of Task Enactment and

Adequacy of Directions Given by
Lower and Middle Class Grade
School, High School and College
Directors
128

Grade School and High School
Versus College Directors
129

Grade School, High School and
College Students of Different
Social Class
130
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
Page
41.
42.
Task Enactment of Adequate-Plus

Adult Directions by Grade
School and High School
Actors of Different Social
Class
132
Task Enactment of Adequate Adult

Directions by Actors of Different class and Age
133
xi
CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND
Since the middle 1960's there has been much
interest in the language of children from the socalled "disadvantaged populations" (cf. Cazden,
1966).
Judged by the standards of the educational
system, the language of such children, more than

any other factor, has seemed to set them apart
from their middle class counterparts. A common
view of many writers on poor children has been
that a deprived environment retards children's
speech, that this inferior speech leads to deficient thought, and that deficient speech and
thought result in school failure (cf. Blank and
Soloman, 1968; and Williams, 1970).
Much of the current interest in the language

of the "disadvantaged" has been stimulated by the
writing and research of the British sociologist
Basil Bernstein and his associates (cf. especially:
Bernstein, 1971 and 1973; and Cook-Gumperz, 1973).
Bernstein has devoted his attention to class
1
2
differences in the use of language.
He distin-
guishes a "restricted code" and an "elaborated

code" which govern the selection of linguistic
forms and suggests that working class speakers
are confined to the former while middle class
speakers have both.
Much of the writing on the language of the
"disadvantaged" can be located under the label
of a "deficiency hypothesis" (Williams, 1969).
The response to this hypothesis has been to provide
lower class children with compensatory programs of
language development.
Bereiter and Engelmann
(1966), for example (cf. also: D.M. and G. Gahagen,

1970;
and Blank and Soloman, 1968), stress programs
of direct linguistic instruction.
Similarly such
programs as "Head Start" and the Public Broadcasting Company's Sesame Street and The Electric Company
have language development as one of their key goals.
Interest in the connection between social class,
3
language, and performance has spawned much research
on social class correlates of speech acquisition,
as well as social class variations in phonology,
lexicon, syntax, and inflection (cf. inter alia:
Ervin-Tripp, 1967; Williams, 1971; Bernstein, 1973;
and Gluksberg and Danks, 1974).
There has also been
considerable research in the United States on the

speech of blacks, particularly the speech of poor,
urban, black children (inter alia: Stewart, 1965;
Labov, 1966; Wolfram, 1969; and Fasold, 1372).
Un-
fortunately, there is little research dealing with

the implications of language use on performance.
Entwisle (1971: 125), observing this fact, writes:
The central emportance of language is acknowledged in the massive efforts now aimed at
early education of the culturally deprived.
Subcultural differences in language development are assumed to be important, but documentation of the assumption is surprisingly
sparse. It is astonishing, even somewhat
frightening, how little solid information
is available to guide these action programs.
Much of what (is being done) about educational deficits and the role of language
. . . is based more on intuition than hard
data.
4
The question of the relation between language ase and behavior, while an issue of considerable importance for educators, is a crucial
matter for the social sciences generally
(Luckman, 1975).
It is a central tenet of the
social sciences that the bulk of human behavior

is not expressive and spontaneous but organized
and directed (Newcomb, 1950).
And it has been
argued in Sociology since Durkheim (1901), in

Anthropology since Sapir (1921), and in Social
Psychology since Mead (1934), that organization
and direction are supplied by man's symbolic and
linguistic capabilities.
Questions regarding the
implications which this uniquely human form of

behavior, language, has upon other forms of behav
ior, thus, go to the center of sociological
concerns and must be addressed empirically and
systematically.
Moreover, it is important for
a social science which strives to be behavioral

and useful not to restrict itself to accounts and
5
illustrative anecdotes (e.g. Sudnow, 1972) for
data on the relation between language and behavioral organization, but to test this relation.
Aim
This research is designed to analyze this
particular empirical problem:
What is the corr-
espondence between the use of language and the

organization of behavior?
More specifically,
it aims at establishing a set of procedures for

determining the specific features of language
used by people that make it a useful device for
guiding or informing their conduct in particular
environments.
It further aims at using these
procedures to determine whether different modes

of language-communication can be distinguished
which are more or less effective organizational
devices.
It ought to be of crucial significance
to be able to analytically distinguish differences

in language-communication which have fundamentally
different correspondences to the organization and
6
direction of behavior.
Finally, in the analysis
of the relation between language use and behavioral organization, this research will attend to
class and ethnic differences in the sub-cultural
backgrounds of language users.
CHAPTER II
CONCEPTUAL AND EMPIRICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE PROBLEM
Considerable conceptual formulation regarding
the link between language and the organization of
behavior has been provided in the work of the
American Pragmatists, particularly that of John
Dewey (e.g. 1896, 1929, 1950) and George Mead
(e.g. 1934, 1936).
Both Dewey and Mead argued
that language communication was not the simple

expression of antecedent thought, but was a way
of getting a plan of action organized into behavior.
In their view, language, as communication,
is a device, not just for passing along information, but for informing and organizing conduct
and strips of conduct with reference to particular
environments.
In Experience and Nature, Dewey (1929:

857-858) wrote:
"Language is a mode of inter-
action . . . it is a relationship . . . the word

is a mode of social action not an expression of
7
8
a ready-made, exclusively individual mental state."
Language symbols refer to and are defined by an
active relationship between organism and environment.
"To name something is to direct an inter-
action between an organism and some object" (805).

For Dewey, a person's response to an environmental
object depends upon his interpretation of its
meaning.
These interpretations, which serve to
organize an individual's actions toward the environment, are carried by language symbols.
Mead maintained that it is because of language that mancunlike other animals, is not at the
mercy of whatever stimuli that may be impinging
upon him at a given moment.
It is language
which gives man control over his relationship with

the environment. Mead wrote (1956: 201): "Man
holds onto different possibilities of response
in terms of the different stimuli which present
themselves and it is his ability to hold them there
that
constitutes his mind . . . and the mechanism
that makes that possible is language."
Because of
9
language, man is not a passive reactor to environmental stimuli.
"The human animcil is able to
indicate to itself and to others what the characters are in the environment which call out these
complex, highly organized responses, and by such
indication is able to control his responses . . .
Mentality consists in indicating these values to
others and to one's self (that is, it consists
of using language) so that one can control one's
responses" (205).
Thus with language, man has at his disposal

what we might call a regulatory strategy, a coping
mechanism, or a verbal organizational device that
guides and aids his dealings with his environment.
Moreover, as both Mead and Dewey observe, language
is a social and public organizational device.
This
means that the meanings of the language symbols

employed, the interpretations which a person uses
to guide his conduct, are social in origin, and
that the language-communication of one person
can inform or guide the behavior of another.
10
To a useful but limited extent (e.g. Goldstein,
1940;
Luria, 1959, 1960, and 1961;
Bruner, 1964;
Beiswerger, 1968) the directive and organizational

capacity of language has been the subject of
empirical research.
Luria (1959), for example,
has shown how the actions of children are organized

and directed at first by the speech of adults and
afterward by their own speech.
Bruner (1964) has
shown that the language children bring to a task

affects their performance of the task.
(Mead and
Dewey, as well as Luria, would go further than

Bruner and maintain that the language not only
affects, but effects the performance.)
Proceeding from this theoretical and empirical

work some fundamental questions arise which must be
answered:
What is it about language-communication
that allows someone to be guided by it?

the informational features of language?
of talking go with ways of acting?
What are
Do ways
Are there part-
icular kinds of language modes better suited to
11
serve as coping mechanisms for particular acting
situations?
Are particular coping mechanisms '
inadequate to meet the demands of particular kinds

of conduct?
In considering an approach to these questions,
the work of Goldstein (1940;
and with Scheerer,
1941) and Head (1926) on speech pathology is

especially relevant.
From the examination of
aphasics, these writers conclude that there is a

correspondence between being able to perform certain kinds of acts and being able to use language
in certain kinds of ways.
Head (v. 2: 857-859)
distinguishes what he calls acts of direct reference, non-symbolic acts toward objects directly
available in an environment, and symbolic acts,
or acts of indirect reference, those acts that
require some sort of symbolic formulation between
the initiation and the completion of the act.
The
aphasic, suffering some loss in language function,

is generally able to engage in acts of direct
12
reference, but has difficulty carrying out acts
of indirect reference.
Goldstein (1941: 22)
remarks that "there is a pronounced line of

demarcation" between these two levels of activity
"which do not represent a gradual ascent from more
simple to complex mental sets."
What Goldstein
calls the "abstract level of behavior" has an

"emergent quality, generically different from the
concrete" (22). This abstract level of behavior
he finds only among patients who are able to deal
with objects in their language "independent of
their occurence in any particular situation"
(1940: 76).
Although the contribution of Head and Goldstein

to the study and understanding of aphasia is recognized
and frequently applauded (cf. Critchley,
1970, p. 68), the line of enquiry they initiated

has been generally neglected.
Interest has tended
to focus on the development of treatment therapies

for particular language pathologies (in reading,
13
writing, hearing as well as speaking; (cf. Schuell,
1965) rather than the behavioral consequences
and correlates of these pathologies. However,
Hildred Schuell, one of the names most associated
with recent developments in the study of aphasia,
in delivering a paper on results of research she
conducted at the University of Minnesota, noted
that aphasics who had difficulty following simple
directions were able to perform a procedure when
"the therapist was carefully and systematically
demonstrating each step of the procedure at the
same time that she gave the directions" (1974:
91).
Although Schuell does not pursue this,
what she is describing is evidence that there is

a correspondence between the ability to use language and the ability to organize behavior.
The question is, can we distinguish a parallel

correspondence between ways of using language and
the organization of behavior among persons without
an organic speech pathology?
Can we distinguish,
14
on the one hand, modes of language-communication
which limit, perhaps severely limit, the complexity
of behavioral organization, and, on the other hand,
modes which provide for the organization of more
complex conduct?
The distinctions between different kinds of

language and acts made by Head and Goldstein
parallel Mead's distinction between "significant
gestures" and "significant symbols." Mead suggested that it is with the capacity to use what he
termed "significant symbols" that the individual
becomes capable of using anticipated results of
actions to guide present action.
He is able to
organize his acts with reference to objects, actions

and events that are not directly available in the
acting situation (1934: 46-48 and 61-75).
Gest-
ures, on the other hand, confine the user to

responses elicited by the presence of the gestures
(109).
15
Clearly, language which is more "gestural"
in its meanings will be able to inform and organize a narrower range of action and a shorter scope
of action than language which is more symbolic,
more abstract in its meanings.
That is, language
required to inform or organize acts of direct

reference may not be adequate to inform or organize acts of indirect reference.
Language capable
of informing acts of indirect reference must consist of words whose meanings are not tied to concrete objects, but rather, are clear independent
of any particular referent.
In work that was foreshadowed by Schatzman

and Strauss (1955), Basil Bernstein (1971, 1973)
and his associates (Cook-Gumperz, 1973; Henderson, 1971;
Turner and Pickvance, 1971;
Robinson
and Creed, 1968), working with English school

children, have identified two distinct language
styles or modes which they call "sociolinguistic
codes."
Differences in these language codes, they
16
maintain, reflect differences in the social environments of the English middle and working classes.
Bernstein found that different ways of using language is a product of different ways of acting and
inter-acting learned and practiced within different socio-economic strata.
Bernstein's research
indicates that the language of working class children tends to be confined by what he calls a "restricted code" which, among other features, is more
socially than conceptually oriented, appears limited
and stereotyped in its expressive alternatives, and
tends to be confined to relatively context-tied
meanings. Middle class children, on the other hand,
while learning the restricted language code also
learn a more "elaborated code" which is more
conceptually oriented, is richer in potential
alternatives for expression and which does not rely
heavily upon the context for meaning.
It is Bern-
stein's view that his findings lead to a theory

which is not just another way of describing language differences in children, but rather, a theory
17
of socialization which has speech mediating
the characteristics of social structures and the
development of children reared within those structures.
The question which remains from Bernstein's
work is: Do these differences in language codes

only reflect differences in socializing experiences,
or do they effect differences in the organization
of behavior?
Building upon the work of theorists like Mead

and Dewey and researchers like Luria, Goldstein
and Bernstein, if we pay attention to the way symbol and action interweave in behavior and in particular behavioral situations, we should be able to
discover what kind of language goes with and is
adequate to cope with particular kinds of action
and to what extent the use of effective languagecommunication is related to the social class and
ethnicity of language users.
CHAPTER III
OPERATIONALIZATION:
"GIVING DIRECTIONS"
One example of where this symbol-action inJ 3rweave is observable is found in situations in which
people give directions.
Here we have an empirically
available occasion in which people overtly try

to direct and organize actions in particular acting
environments with language.
It is a situation
in which people attempt to have a particular set

of symbols, particular sentencesc transformed into
specific strips of action.
Such a situation, sys-
tematically studied, should enable us to determine

how language is used as an organizational device to
give form to particular actions.
It should allow
us to determine what differences in language use

make a difference in the organization of actions.
It should show us what level of symbolization, of
language use, is required for what kind of action
and whether a task can overload the coding capacity
of a particular language-user.
18
19
If, for a particular task, an individual's
directions do not admit interpretation in action,
we can assume that the task overloads his coding
capacity;
that is, that his habitual level of
symbolization, of language use, does not provide

him with the regulatory strategy required to cope
with the task.
If, on the other hand, an indiv-
idual's directions are enactable, we can assume

that the coding technique he uses provides him
with a sufficient regulatory strategy to organize
this kind of action.
Analyzing the directions people give, we will

be able to determine whether their language in
particular acting contexts limits their capacity
to organize behavior and thus restricts them to
limited and reactive acts of direct reference in
these contexts or whether their language is adequate to plan and organize symbolic acts.
Consequent
ly, it is proposed here to analyze the relation

between the use of language and the organization
20
of behavior in the particular empirical situation
of "giving directions."
In the course of this
research social class and ethnic differences in

the sub-cultural backgrounds of language users
will be attended to.
In work that represents, perhaps, the largest

and most coherent body of empirical research
touching upon the role of language in the organization of behavior, Soviet psycho-linguists
A. Luria (1959, 1960, 1961) and L. Vygotsky
(1962, 1966) see a central role for direction in
the ontogenetic development of the verbal regulation of behavior.
The leitmotif of their work is
that what the child is at first able to do with

the aid and direction of an adult's speech, he
is subsequently able to do with his own speech;
at first using vocal speech, but later in development through what they call "silent speech"
(cf. Luria, 1959: 341). They see an adult's use
of increasingly complex instructions or commands
21
as an "important vehicle for the interiorization
of social conduct, creating new levels of behavior"
(Luria, 1960: 359). Their research indicates that
it is the communicative nature of language, which
initially allows the adult to give form to the
activity of the child and which gradually becomes
the mechanism by which the individual develops
the capacity to organize his own actions through
the language-communication he has learned to use.
By focusing on situations in which the behavior
of a child is regulated and guided by the directions
of an adult, Luria and Vygotsky have successfully
brought to bear the role of language-as-communication
on the organization of behavior.
Unfortunately, this appreciation of the relation between the communicative nature of language
and its organizational capacity has seldom found
its way into the debate on the implications of
social class and ethnic differences in language use
(cf. Labov, 1970; Williams, 1970; Cazden, 1966;
22
Ervin-Tripp, 1967).
For the most part this debate
has been dominated by psycho-linguistically

oriented researchers who have described and
explained differences in speech solely on the
level of distinctions in form
phonological
features, vocabulary size, inflectional capabilities, syntactic repertoire, etc.
The result
has been that "communication" development, understood not simply as the acquiring of a syntactical
and lexical repertoire, but as a person's capability of using language and using it in an informational way (that is, to organize and give shape
to actions vis a vis particular environments) has
been generally overlooked.
Moreover, research
indicates that grammatical and lexical skills

do not necessarily correlate with communication
skills (Bruck and Tucker, 1974; Bruner, 1971)
and that programs designed to improve formal
linguistic skills do not necessarily improve
communication skills (Cicerelli et al, 1968).
Thus, it is not surprising that analytical
23
procedures useful for the study of linguistics or
psycho-linguistics have not proven to be effective
for studying the behavioral implications of language use.
It is precisely the lack of focus on
language-as-communication which is the reason that

so little data has been produced on the relation
between language use and behavioral performance.
It is a central argument of this research
that the relation between language use and the
organization of behavior is amenable to research
which focuses on directions, that is, situations
in which one person instructs another how to
execute some task.
Not only does this operational-
ization of the problem make use of a situational

genre in which the connection between language and
action is empirically available, but it also ensures
that the study will attend to the communicative
aspects of language. Moreover, while Luria and
Vygotsky have focused on the role of direction and
instruction in the developmental process of children,
and while, in this country, much of the debate on
24
the implications of language use has been focused
upon educational settings (cf. Bereiter and
Engelmann, 1966; Gluksberg and Danks, 1974;
Entwisle, 1971), the role of language as an
instructional device for shaping behavior is,
clearly, not limited to the experiences of
children or the confines of the classroom.
It
is, in fact, a common aspect of the everyday

social experience of all of us; one in which
there should be general agreement that a link
between language used and behavior performed
exists and in which this link, when it occurs,
can be commonly recognized.
Certainly, occasions abound in which the

language-communication of one individual shapes
the enactment of a particular line of conduct by
another.
Instructors, consultants, coaches,
supervisors, organizers, film directors, teaching

golf pros, baseball hitting instructors, swimming
instructors, ballet teachers, all supply direct-
25
ions
which serve as the verbal mapping which
organizes the actions of others.
Instructional
television developed out of the proposition that

some masters at yoga, gardening, guitar playing,
cooking, etc. can communicate their skills to
others.
Julia Child's"French Chef" PBS program
was long-running not simply because her peculiar

voice and mannerisms were amusing to viewers, but
because of her ability to encode the procedures
for complex and unusual gastronomical concoctions
in such a way that the amateur gourmet could
produce a respectable facsimile.
To some extent we all have been on both the
giving and receiving ends of communication which
has led to the enactment of particular lines of
conduct.
From this we know that there are better
ways of encoding actions as well as ineffective

ways.
We recognize that within particular worlds
(of cooking, acting, dancing, etc.) some individuals are capable of invoking especially effect-
26
ive communicative modalities that serve to encode
lines of action within these worlds. Directors
of ballet troupes and theatre companies must
possess special communicative skill to be able
to elicit, through their instructions, such
elaborate and lengthy performances on the part
of dancers and actors.
The concept performance,
in fact, entails not a string of random actions

but an organized, constructed, and planned-out
enactment.
Likewise, consider the teaching golf
pro whose help is sought by other professional

golfers.
Clearly, he must stand apart from other
teachers of golf, not because he possesses a

unique vocabulary, but because of the quality of
his instruction, his ability to employ communicative
skills which effectively assist another golfer to
re-shape, re-construct, his actions (his positioning, rhythm, coordination) so that he plays better.
At the same time we realize that there are

also directors who cannot direct, coaches who
27
cannot coach, and instructors who cannot instruct.
Many tax payers might argue that the designer
of the federal income tax forms has a poorly
developed communicative technique; that the
modality employed leaves much to be desired in
effecting the satisfactory completion of tax
forms.
It is not at all clear to what extent the
relative ability to employ efficacious languagecommunication within one world is associated
with the ability to do so in another.
Could Julia
Child become an accomplished film director?

Could Ingmar Bergman teach cooking?
We might
expect that the carry-over factor is more likely

between worlds which are similar, than worlds
which are dissimilar;
just as it should be easier,
for example, for a native Spanish speaker to learn

Portugese than Arabic. We might also expect
that someone who has already experienced the
learning process of developing an effective coding
28
technique within a once unfamiliar world would
more likely be successful in another such enterprise than someone who has never done this.
However, all of this is extremely speculative.
The present research will focus on the differences
between the language people of different social
and ethnic groups use to encode lines of action
within a particular world.
Obviously, there are
possibilities for much further research which

could also usefully employ the study of directions or instructions as a way of empirically
operationalizing the relation between language and
behavior.
CHAPTER IV
A PILOT STUDY:
GIVING GEOGRAPHICAL DIRECTIONS
The giving and receiving of geographical
directions is a familiar and common social experience.
A geographical direction (a response to
a "how-do-I-get-there?" question) can be seen

as a verbal map that a director gives a traveler
to guide and organize his actions in some particular and unfamiliar environment.
In order to
get a better handle on the features of communicated

directions which are efficacious and those which
are not, to develop a set of procedures for analyzing directions as verbal organizational devices,
and to better determine the important parameters
of a research design employing directions, a
pilot exercise was run in which 86 college underclassmen were asked to give geographical directions.
They were asked simply:
"Write directions on how
to get from where we are now to your home."
The
examination of these directions has led to a number
29
30
of important conclusions about directions as verbal
organizational devices as well as about the nature
of tasks encoded in directions.
First of all the examination indicated that
the directions obtained could be separated into
two discrete categories:
those that were enact-
able and those that were not.
Somewhat to the
surprise of this investigator, approximately one

third of the directions fell into the latter category and were not enactable.
It was also evident
that the enactability of the directions was not

simply reducible to the lexical and/or syntactic
characteristics of the language of which they
consisted.
Examination indicated, rather, that the adequacy of a direction to serve as an enactable verbal
map hinged upon the way the particular line of
conduct was encoded.
Following Goldstein's
(1940) analysis of the speech of aphasics, it

was possible to distinguish between directions in
31
which objects and actions were dealt with either
dependently or independently of their occurence
in a particular situation.
Consider the follow-
ing directions:
A. On Oakland take the Hampton bus to Goodfellow
to Page. Take the bus by the record center
and this puts you off in front of my house.
B. Go straight down the highway till you come
to the exit of Grand Ave. get off there turn
right go down Lindell and Grand till you hit
a little town looking like a downtown area.
Then keep straight on down going north. You
will see a fox show going on until you see a
Jack in the Box, and on the left side of the
street is my house.
C. First of all you go stand in front of the school
where the bus stops. Get on and ride downtown.
Around there is another bus zone. Catch that
and get off right in front of it by the Pierce
Lounge. The other bus is Cherokee.
D.
Go west on Oakland Ave to Hampton. Turn left

onto Hampton and follow the signs to Interstate 40 west. Take this entrance to get
upon I 40 and keep driving west until you
reach Rt. 725. Take 725 North until you get
to Olive Street Rd. Go Olive Street Rd east
until you get to Woodson Rd. Turn left at
Woodson Rd. Go to Richard. Turn right on
Richard and go all the way down as far as you
can. My house on the corner left.
E. Go out of the parking lot and make a left on
32
Oakland, keep going west to Skinker, make
a right on Skinker, go over Skinker to
Page. Make a right on Page then another
right on Hodiamont. The No. is
.
F.
Go out to front of school and catch the

Forest Park bus going east on Oakland,
get off the bus at Oakland and Kingsway
the Bus will turn and let you off in front
of a Dinner I forget the name but anyway
they're selling five hamburgers for a $1.00.
You can wait inside if it real cold or raining. Then catch the Kingsway bus going North
besure to read the Name on the bus because four
bus stop in front of the dinner when you pass
across page ave. you can start looking for my
house which is the one on the right hand side.
The number is
.
What we have here are differences in the use

of language to encode lines of conduct in the particular world of city geography.
In the first three
directions (A, B, and C) directors take a great

deal for granted regarding the traveler's familiarity with the acting contexts.
These direc-
tions are closely tied to the contexts which generated them and their meanings (that is, the lines
of action to be taken by the traveler) are, to a
great extent, implicit.
In directions D, E, and F
33
little is taken for granted regarding the traveler's
familiarity with the acting contexts, directions
are much less context-tied, and therefore the
meanings of these directions are, for the most
part, explicit.
In a frequently cited study, P. R. Hawkins
(1969) analyzes the narrative-descriptions children give to a captionless strip cartoon.
Follow-
the work of Halliday (1966) and Hasan (1968),

Hawkins uses the reference categories "anaphoric"
and "exophoric" to distinguish whether the referents of pronouns used are located within the narrative text itself (anaphoric) or whether the
narratives contain pronouns which refer to objects
in the cartoon strip but which are not named in
the narrative (exophoric).
Using these concepts
to distinguish different kinds of references (not

just pronouns) in the directions above we could
say:
Directions A, B, and C which employ reference
statements which would be fully understood only by
34
others who had access to the context which generated the directions in the first place, make use
of references that are more exophoric in nature.
Whereas directions D, E, and F employ references
that are more anaphoric in that they can be understood by others who are not familiar with the
acting context in question.
"Non-Adequate" Directions. Further, and to

the point, we can say that context-dependent
directions, directions which consist of and
rely
on exophoric references, are non-enactable directions.
By themselves these directions cannot give
shape to acts of indirect reference, that is,

acts with reference to objects and situations not
a part of the immediate acting context.
Therefore
these directions are inadequate as organizational

devices to guide a traveler to specific unfamiliar
locations.
The language employed in context-depend-
ent directions is typically gestural, concrete, and

lacking in necessary specificity. The
undirectional
35
phrase, such as "go down the highway", without
elaboration, has little or no regulatory value
and only serves to add to a traveler's uncertainty.
It could only be useful if given in the
acting context in which it applies and then only

if accompanied by the director pointing.
Simil-
arly, instructions which employ concrete objects

(e.g. "a fox show") require fore-knowledge of the
referent to be useful.
In context-dependent directions referents do

not operate as symbols so much as situated signals.
The actor is not given an explicit plan of action
but rather a series of situated signals or markers
which imply some concrete but largely unspecified action (apparently taken by the director
himself).
An actor unfamiliar with the environ-
ment in which each referent-signal is found has

no way of knowing what the action is.
Taken to-
gether these instructions represent a sequence of

connected acts of direct reference in which each
36
act is precipitated not by its own anticipated
end, but by the end of the preceding act recognized by the presence of a particular concrete
object.
Of the 86 directions obtained in the pilot
study, 32 of them were not adequate as verbal
organizational devices to effect the enactment
intended.
"Adequate" Directions.
On the other hand, for
directions to be at least adequate to serve as

verbal organizational devices or verbal maps
they must be encoded in such a way that the meanings of the referents are independent of the contest in which they occur;
exophoric references.
they must not rely on
In directions D, E, and F
above the traveler is given a verbal map which

represents a kind of schematic model of the course
he is to take.
It is not required that he have
concrete foreknowledge of the course before he

starts.
Particular lines of action with regard to
37
each
referent are not implied but explicitly
stated.
The references used are not limited to
vague, subjective or concrete meanings.
Rather,
they function as symbols which allow the organization of lines of conduct that are planned and
anticipatory, that is, acts of indirect or symbolic
reference.
Directions encoded in this manner can
be distinguished as adequate verbal organizational

devices, capable of effecting the successful organization of and completion of the acts they encode.
In his research Hawkins found that working
class children more frequently used exophoric
pronouns in their stories and middle class children
more often used anaphoric pronouns.
The pilot
study here indicates, similarly, that lower class

students more frequently employ language-directions
characterized by exophoric references and context
dependency than do middle class students and that
the directions of the latter were more often
enactable.
What we are dealing with here are
38
differences between people in the way they use
language in giving a certain kind of direction,
differences in the way they encode particular
lines of action, and, we must assume, differences
in the habitual level of symbolization available
to them to invoke when encoding these actions.
"Adequate-plus" Directions. Further examination of the obtained directions showed that just
as we can distinguish between those which are
adequate verbal organizational devices and those
which are not, we can also distinguish between
directions which are barely adequate and those
which are more than adequate.
Consider the follow-
ing directions:
G.
Go west on Oakland to Skinker Ave., from there,

go on Skinker to Olive, make a left turn on
Olive and go until you arrive at North and
South Blvd., then go until you reach Milan,
make a left turn onto Milan until you reach
Birchmont, make another left turn onto
Birchmont, keep straight until you reach
(the address).
H.
Take Grand north to Lindell, turn west or

left on Lindell, take Lindell about two miles
39
until it dead ends at Wash U. on Skinker.
Turn right or head north on Skinker, passing
Forest Park Parkway, on your left will be
a subdivision enclosed by a white stone wall
"Parkview", the first street is Pershing.
My street is the second one waterman, take
a left from Skinker to Waterman.
My house is
the first on the left
Waterman. A
large brick house with rounded door and a gas
light in front.
We can see that vis a vis the particular lines
of action encoded, direction H is contextually
more specific than direction G.
For each act
encoded direction G gives just enough explicit

information to allow the act to be enacted.
Direction H, on the other hand gives additional
and supportive information for many of the actions
to be taken. We are told that turning west involves
taking a left;
that we take Lindell to Skinker
which is about two miles away;
that Waterman can
be expected a block after Pershing and both after

Forest Park Parkway;
we are given the location of
the house on the block, its address and a description of it. Direction H clearly gives us more
information per act encoded than Direction G.
If
40
the former is enactable, the greater specificity
of the latter makes the destination easier to
find as well as more likely to be found.
In a
relatively complex environment a direction which

is barely adequate places great demands upon the
traveler.
The more contextually specific and
informative a direction is the clearer the appropriate lines of conduct will be to the actor and
the easier it will be to follow.
Thus, examination of the geographical directions obtained in the pilot study produced three
discrete analytic categories for distinguishing
different modes of encoding lines of action: nonadequate verbal organizational devices, adequate
devices, and more-than-adequate (or adequate-plus
devices.
In the process two dimensions were
indicated along which the language-communications of

directions can be differentiated (and which represent communicative features of language rather than
formal linguistic features):
and context-specificity.
context-dependency
With use and refinement
41
these dimensions might be able to sustain a
two-dimensional grid along which language-communication might be able to be plotted with greater
sophistication.
For the present, given the
relatively unchartered nature of these research

waters, the three categories of verbal organizational devices would seem to be sufficiently
precise as well as manageable.
The Task.
It also became apparent in the
pilot study that the task to be encoded is itself

an important variable.
In the pilot, while each
student gave the same kind of direction, the course

of action each was asked to encode was, in fact,
a different one. A student who lived miles away
across the city or even in a different community
was required to encode a more elaborate course of
action than a student whose home was down the
block.
It would seem clear that a more difficult
task to perform is a more difficult taks to encode;
42
and, likewise, a task which is less difficult
to enact would be less difficult to encode.
Thus,
for example, a line of conduct which is longer

should be a harder task to enact and encode than
a shorter line of conduct.
It also seems apparent
that a task which must be performed in a more

varied world is harder to encode, requires more
information to organize, than one which is to be
performed in a less varied world.
We can and should distinguish, then, between
tasks which are more or less difficult or complex
as they require more or less information to enact
and involve encoding more or less information.
As the adequacy of language-communication to function as a verbal organizational device is related
to the informational demands of a particular task,
directions should more accurately be distinguished
as either:
non-task-adequate devices;
adequate devices;
task-
or task-adequate-plus devices.
The work of Bernstein (1960) indicates that
43
the language of lower class children is not as
effective in dealing with complex ideas, objects
and experiences as the language of middle class
children.
Likewise, Deutsch (1965) has remarked
". . . a s labelling requirements become more complex

and related to more diverse and variegated experience, lower class people with more restricted
experiences are going to have more difficulty in
supplying the correct labels (86)."
In the study
proposed here, task complexity will be included

as an independent variable.
Audience c One other consideration of consequence arose during the pilot study and that has to
do with the question of the audience for which directions are intended.
It might be argued that
those directions which were categorized non-adequate are, in fact, in many cases adequate devices
for particular populations.
That is, while a
direction may be non-task-adequate for this investigator or for the public at large, it might be
44
task-adequate for a population which shares a
similar contextual history with the director.
It has been demonstrated, for instance, that
reference phrases become more abbreviated as a
function of the frequency of usage in social interaction (cf. Krauss and Weinheimer, 1964).
everyone's
It is
experience that in communication with
familiar others regarding familiar topics, things

are taken for granted;
not everything is spoken.
Communication addressed -co a comprehending friend

may be obscure to a stranger who overhears it.
There is a popular position afoot these days

which insists that the speech of poor, black children is not deficient but simply not intelligible
to middle class white adults (cf. inter alia:
Labov, 1967, 1970;
Ginsburg, 1972; Houston,
1969, 1970; Baratz and Baratz, 1970; Gluksburg

and Danks, 1973).
Unfortunately, this position
maintains, these adults in many cases are the

teachers of these children who are perceived to
45
possess poor learning skills and little aptitude
and who, as a result of their non-standard English
speech are victims of a self-fulfilling prophecy
(Williams and Naremore, 1969;
Baratz, 1969).
Stewart, 1969;
Studies are pointed to (e.g.
Pasomanick and Knoblock, 1955; Labov, et al.,

1968;
Resnick, 1969; Philips, 1970) which
demonstrate that what appsar to be practically

non-verbal children, when taken out of the alien
and threatening classroom environment and approached
in a location and manner compatible with their
experiences (and usually by a black adult), that
these children often manifest highly sophisticated
verbal skills which is seen by some (e.g. Entwisle,
1970;
Williams, 1971; Brown, 1972; Houston,
1969, 1973; Kochman, 1969) as a hallmark, rather

than a deficit, of the poor-black American subculture.
This position argues, accordingly, that
the problem resides not in the language capacity

of these children but in the perceptual and judgmental limitations of their teachers (Abrahams,
46
1969;
Johnson, 1969;
Stewart 1969a, 1969b).
It generally concludes, that as a programmatic

response to this situation, the educational system
should not try to change the speech habits of these
children so much as build upon the richness of
expression that their speech contains (Baratz
and Baratz, 1969; Feigenbaum, 1970; Leaverton,
1971);
the teacher as audience should learn to
adjust to the communicating child rather than the

other way around. An exponent of this view,
William Labov (1970: 154) has written:
"The
notion of verbal deprivation is a part of the

modern mythology of educational psychology, typical of the unfounded notions which tend to expand
rapidly in our educational system."
It is unfortunate that much of the work which

bears on this timely matter is either anecdotal
in nature (cf. Kohl, 1967;
Herndon, 1968;
Dennison, 1969) or else confounds formal linguistic aspects of language with language-communication
47
(cf. Wolfram, 1969;
Labov, 1970;
Fasold, 1972).
It is also the case that there is considerable

research with findings not consistent with the
assumptions of this position (cf. inter alia:
Hurst and Jones, 1966;
Seitz et al., 1967,
Blank and Soloman, 1968).
Krauss and Rotter
(1968), for instance, find that there is some

evidence that poor black children are better able
to comprehend the speech communication of middle
class white children than that of other poor black
children.
Somerviile and Jacobs (1972) found black
children who listened to standard English had a

higher comprehension score than those who listened
to Black English.
It is also unfortunate that the
debate on the merits of non-standard English

dialects has often been more ideological than
pedagogical.
It is important to point out, in any event,

that if language-communication is related to
behavior, then someone "restricted" (to use
Bernstein's word) to sharing familiar experiences
48
only with others with whom he shares a contextual
history, is doomed to an extremely narrow range
of experiences. He will be severely hampered
if called upon to deal with something new and
different (an issue, a person, a problem, an
environment).
The ability to deal with the fam-
iliar in the particular subcultural idiom of one's

everyday reality, while more noticeable among
more ghettoized sub-groups, is, nonetheless, a
skill which members of all groups possess. Limitations arise if and when the idiom is the only
medium an individual is able to invoke. A central
focus of any educational program is, or ought to
be, overcoming the narrowness of individual experiences and expanding the individual through the
use of more universalistic modalities.
In the directions given in the pilot, a response mode which assumes and demands a narrowly
restricted audience, while sometimes colorfully
argotic, is, nevertheless, an inadequate response
49
to the task.
In relying upon the environmental
context for support, to supply the meaning left

implied, there is more than just the casual implication of potential limitations and problems in
operating in unfamiliar environments which cannot
be relied upon for support.
The best evidence
available to indicate that a person's habitual

level of symbolization does not provide him with
the coding capacity to cope with a particular
task is its failure to do so.
It would not seem unreasonable, in this research, to rely upon what might be called a "constant
audience" in the sense of the public-at-large
(represented by the researcher himself).
In the
pilot, for example, it was the investigator who

requested the directions.
So if, in fact, part-
icular directions were not enactable by him, this

represents a coding inadequacy vis a vis a real
audience.
A similar concept has been employed by
others, namely "consensual validation" (cf. Sullivan,

1953) and "consensual statements" (cf. Kuhn and
McPartland, 1958;
and Garretson, 1962).
50
However, in order to clarify the validity
and ensure the reliability of both the research
procedures and the research findings, directions
obtained will also be presented to other subjects
to try to enact.
In this way the adequacy of
directions can be most clearly established.
This
procedure also allows the research to be designed

so as to determine whether communication between
members of the same sub-cultural groups is more
effective than communication between members of
different sub-cultural groups.
In addition, if
each subject serves as both a communicator-director and also as
an audience for another
subject's directions, valuable data will be

obtained on the relation between the capacity
an individual has to invoke a particular level of
symbolization to encode a line of action on the
one hand, and his capacity to translate directions
into actions on the other.
CHAPTER V
HYPOTHESES
From the theoretical framework and empirical
work cited, the following hypotheses can be
formulated:
1.
The language-communication mode used in
particular directions will be related to the

ability of subjects to enact them, and in such
a way that:
Non-task-adequate directions will
not be enacted while task-adequate directions

will be enacted in most cases, but not as consistently as will task-adequate-plus directions.
2.
A more difficult task to perform will
be a more difficult task to encode and a less

difficult task to perform will be a less difficult
task to encode.
2a.
Combining hypothesis 2 with hypothesis
1 it is expected that tasks which are less difficult to encode will be more frequently enacted
51
52
successfully.
3.
The language-communication mode used in
directions will be related to the social class of

subjects, and in such a way that: Middle class
subjects will more often give directions that are
task-adequate and task-adequate-plus and lower
class subjects will more often give directions
that are non-task-adequate.
3a.
This finding will be stronger for more
difficult tasks than for less difficult tasks.
3b.
combining hypothesis 3 with hypothesis
1 it is expected that middle class subjects will

more often give directions that can be enacted
than will lower class subjects.
4.
Does the ethnicity of subjects affect the
relationship between the social class of subjects

and the language-communication mode they employ?
5.
The language mode employed by subjects in
giving directions will be related to their ability
53
to enact the directions of others, and in such
a way that:
Those who employ non-task-adequate
directions will be least likely to enact adequate

directions given by others and those who employ
task-adequate-plus directions will be most likely
to enact adequate directions of others.
5a.
Directions which are non-adequate will
not be enacted regardless of the language mode

available to the actor.
5b.
The finding predicted in this hypothesis
will be more pronounced on more difficult tasks

than on less difficult tasks.
5c.
Combining hypothesis 5 with hypothesis
3 it is expected that lower class subjects will

less frequently be able to enact the directions
of others than will middle class subjects.
6.
The effectiveness of communication will
be determined less by the social class and ethnicity of subject-directors and actors than by
54
the language-communication mode employed in the
directions.
CHAPTER VI
METHOD
Subjects
While most studies on language codes employ
children as subjects (e.g. Bernstein, 1971;
Tough, 1970), this study focused primarily,
although not exclusively, upon adults. The
adult subjects were 228 students attending classes
in four metropolitan colleges. All subjects volunteered to participate.
In writing about the work of Bernstein and

the contextual dependency of the language of
children from different social classes, Bruner
(1971: 149) observed:
"I do not know,save by
everyday observation, whether the difference is

greater among adults, but my impression is that
the difference in decontextualization is greater
between an English barrister and a dock worker
than it is between their children."
55
56
In order to explore Bruner's "impression"
more fully, the study also included some younger
subjects.
These were 88 sixth and tenth grade
volunteers from four metropolitan schools.

Following Brandis (1970) in Great Britain
and Hollingshead (1957) in the United States, two
factors were considered in determining the social
class of subjects: occupation and education.
The social class of adult subjects was determined
as follows:
If the subjects were full time students
whose primary residence was with their parents,

the occupation and education level of their parents
was used.
For the purposes of this study, these
subjects were categorized as lower class if their

parents were engaged in manual occupations and
had not attended college;
they were categorized
as middle class if their parents were engaged in

non-manual occupations or if they had attended
college.
For subjects whose primary residence
was not with their parents and who were not
57
economically dependent upon their parents, the
subjects' own occupation was used along with
their parents' educational level.
These subjects
were classified as lower class if they were employed

in manual work and if their parents had not attended
college;
they were classified as middle class if
they were engaged in non-manual work or if their

parents had attended college.
Of the 228 adult subjects, 127 were lower class
and 91 were middle class.
The determination of the social class of the
younger subjects was not made on a case by case
basis.
Rather, these subjects were drawn from
schools whose students came from either predominantly lower class or middle class families.
Of the 88 sixth and tenth grade subjects, 40

were lower class and 48 were middle class.
Along with social class, the ethnicity of the
58
subjects was also a controlled, independent variable in the study.
One hundred and eight of the
adult subjects were white and 120 were black.

Sixty-six of the sixth and tenth grade subjects were
white and 22 were black.
Procedures
In this study subjects were asked to do two

things:
1) they were asked to give directions
regarding the execution of a task
(in this capa-
city subjects are referred to as "directors";

and 2) they were asked to try to enact directions
of a second task previously given by another subject
(in this capacity subjects are referred to as
"actors").
Prior to their being given to actors to enact,

the directions obtained were categorized by the
investigator, using the dimensions of contextdependency and context-specificity, as verbal
organizational devices that were either: non-task
59
adequate;
task-adequate;
or task-adequate-plus.
The study employed two similar but distinct

tasks for which directions were sought.
Each task
had a less complex and a more complex variation.
Task One involved the following puzzle:

variation 1
(four pieces)
^
variation 2
(five pieces)
NT
Forty-eight subjects were asked to give directions
for assembling variation one and 49 were asked to
give directions for assembling variation two.
Task Two involved constructing the following
designs with tinker toy pieces:
60
design 1
(four pieces)
design 2
(six pieces)
Sixty-six subjects were asked to give instructions

for constructing design one and 65 were asked to
give instructions for constructing design two.
It has been suggested (e.g. Labov, 1970),
that in considering the relative communication
effectiveness of people in different social class
and ethnic sub-cultures, it may make a difference
whether the form of the communication is oral or
written.
While this is not a major concern of
this research, it is also not a trivial matter.

Accordingly, for the adult subjects, 163 of them
gave their directions in writing and were given
written directions to enact.
The remaining 65
61
subjects gave and received directions orally in
back-to-back pairs (except for one triadic group).
All 88 of the younger subjects gave and received
directions in back-to-back pairs.
Differences between written and oral directions were considered an important issue but secondary to the central focus of the research and were
treated independently of the basic design (in
which both written and oral directions were combined) . Likewise, the sample of the 88 youthful
subjects was treated as a secondary issue and
analysed independently of the adult sample.
The basic experimental design of this study

was a 2 x 2 x 2 construction:
social class
(middle and low) x ethnicity (black and white) x

task complexity (simple and complex).
It was originally assumed that the tinker toy
and puzzle tasks were of a similar degree of
difficulty and that for the purposes of analysis
the four piece puzzle task and the four piece
62
tinker toy task could be combined under the rubric
"simpler task" and that, likewise, the five piece
puzzle and six piece tinker toy tasks could be
combined in the analysis as the "more complex task."
However, preliminary analysis after 150 subjects had participated in the study showed that
both versions of the tinker toy task were more
frequently being enacted successfully than either
versions of the puzzle task.
The rate of success-
ful enactment for the four piece tinker toy task

was 62%; for the six piece tinker toy task, 40%;
for the four piece puzzle task, 25%; and 15% for
the five piece puzzle task.
Accordingly, in the analysis both tinker toy

tasks were treated as and classified as the
"simpler tasks" and both puzzle tasks were treated
and classified as the "more complex tasks."
The final array of adult subjects as directors
and actors according to their class and ethnicity
63
and the task for which directions were given is
shown in Table 1.
64
Table 1
Adult Sample
Actors
Directors
WL
WM
BL
BM
WLS
12
12
32
WLC
10
25
WMS
11
29
WMC
22
BLS
12
22
55
47
BLC
11
33
BMS
23
BMC
_5_
__4
17
57
51
80
40
228
W = White
B = Black
L = Lower Class
M - Middle Class
S = Simple Task (tinker toy)
C = Complex Task (puzzle)
CHAPTER VII
FINDINGS
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis one predicted that the languagecommunication mode used in particular directions
would be related to the ability of subjects to
enact them.
Specifically, it predicted that non-
task-adequate directions would not be enacted;

that task-adequate directions would, in most cases,
be enacted;
and that task-adequate-plus directions
would be enacted consistently.
Hypothesis one was confirmed.
Directions obtained in the study were categorized as non-task-adequate (NA), task-adequate

(A), or task-adequate-plus (A+) verbal organizational devices, according to the criteria established in the pilot study.
Of the 228 directions
given, 105 were classified NA, 104 were classified

A, and 19 were classified A+.
65
66
Table 2 shows that, as predicted in hypothesis
one, there was a significant correlation between
the language-communication mode used in particular
directions and the ability of subject-actors to
enact them (X2=134.32, p .001; C=.61).
As predicted
A+ directions were most frequently enacted (17

of the 19 A+ directions were enacted successfully
operationally, this means these 17 tasks were
performed perfectly.)
Seventy-seven of the 104 A
directions were enacted.
Only one NA direction wss
enacted.
If this single NA direction that was enacted

can be considered an accident, then we can say
that, for this study, "adequate" language-communica '^n encoding was a necessary condition for the
task enactment.
As defined in the pilot study,
"adequate" encoding entailed language-communication

that was context-independent and context-specific.
Thus a fundamental requirement to inform and
direct the range of action represented in this
67
Table 2
Language Mode and Task Enactment
Language Mode
used in
Directions
successful
not successful
total
104
105
adequate
77
27
104
adequate-plus
17
19
95
133
228
non-adequate
= 134.32, 2 df, p
.001. Contingency Coefficient C = .61.
68
study's tasks (acts of "indirect reference" as
defined by Head, 1926;
"abstract level" behavior
as described by Goldstein, 1941) was languagecommunication that was context-independent and

specific ("significant symbols" as described by
Mead, 1934).
Directions which consisted of
context-tied language (Mead's "significant
ges-
tures") were not adequate to inform and direct the

level of behavioral organization represented by
these tasks.
Of the 228 directions obtained in the study,

only 123 of them (53%) were encoded "adequately."
Less than half of the directions given were enacted
successfully.
These numbers seem remarkable con-
sidering the subjects involved were college students.

In 59% of the cases, the college student subjects
did not give directions to the tasks that other
college students enacted.
As the results in Table
2 indicate, this failure is associated with the

leval of symbolization available to the subjects
69
to invoke either when encoding or decoding the
actions which comprise the tasks.
Hypothesis 2
It was predicted in hypothesis two that a
more difficult task to perform will be a more
difficult task to encode.
This Hypothesis was confirmed.
That the puzzle tasks were more difficult
to perform than the tinker toy tasks is operationally indicated in the fact that the puzzle tasks
were less frequently enacted than the tinker toy
tasks.
As shown in Table 3, 74 of the 131 direct-
ions given for the tinker toy tasks (56%) were

enacted, while only 21 of the 97 directions given
for the puzzle tasks (21%) were enacted.
As
table 4 further shows this finding is consistent

across all four task levels. Enactment rates
varied from a high of 70% for the four-piece tinker
70
toy task to a low of 16% for the five-piece
puzzle task.
Table 5 shows that the puzzle tasks were also
more difficult to encode than the tinker toy tasks
2
as predicted by hypothesis 2 (X =9.37, p .01).
Sixty-two percent of the tinker toy task directions
were A+ or A directions. Moreover, table 6 shows
that for the four task levels as the tasks got
progressively more difficult they became progressively harder to encode.
If we compare the relative difference between

the percentage of tinker toy tasks for which A
directions were given (62%) and the percentage
of tinker toy directions enacted (56%) on the one
hand, to the difference between the percentage of
puzzle tasks for which A directions were given (42%)
and the percentage enacted (21%) on the other, it
appears that, not only is a more difficult task to
perform harder to encode, but that an adequate
71
Table 3
Task Enactment of Directions
Given for Tinker Toy and
Puzzle Tasks
Task Enactment
Tasks
successful
not successful
total
tinker toy
74
57
131
puzzlr
21
76
97
95
133
228
X 2 = 28.89, 1 df, p .001,
72
Table 4
Task Enactment for Four Task Levels
Task Enactment
Tasks
successful
not successful
total
tinker toy
(4-piece)
46
(70%)
20
(30%)
66
tinker toy
(6-piece)
28
(43%)
37
(57%)
65
puzzle
(4-piece)
13
(26%)
35
(74%)
48
puzzle
(5-piece)
(16%)
41
(84%)
49
95
133
228
73
Table 5
Language Mode Used for Tinker
Toy and Puzzle Tasks
Language Mode
Tasks
tinker toy
puzzle
adequateplus
adequate
nonadequate
total
12
70
49
131
34
56
97
19
104
105
228
X 2 = 9.37, 1 df, p .01.
74
Table 6
Language Mode Used for Four
Task Levels
Language Mode
Tasks
adequate-plu s
and adequate
non-adequate
total
tinker toy
(4-piece)
50 (75%)
16 (24%)
66 (100%)
tinker toy
(6-piece)
32 (49%)
33 (51%)
65 (100%)
puzzle
(4-piece)
22 (39%)
26 (54%)
48 (100%)
puzzle
(5-piece)
19 (39%)
30 (61%)
49 (100%)
123
105
228
75
direction to a less difficult task.
These results indicate that increasingly

complex behavioral organization requires increase
ingly sophisticated language-communication. Also,
ability to encode or decode language-communication
for a relatively simple task does not mean one
possesses the language-communication skill required
for encoding or decoding more complex tasks.
Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis three predicted that the languagecommunication mode used in direcL-
would be
related to the social class of the subjects.

More specifically, it predicted that middle class
subjects would more often give A+ and A directions
and that lower class subjects would more often give
NA directions.
This hypothesis was confirmed.
As table 7 shows the difference in the languagecommunication mode used by middle and lower class
76
subjects was significant (X2 =14.21, p 01; C=.24).
Sixty-nine percent of the directions given by
middle class subjects were A+ or A directions.
On the other hand, only 43% of the directions
given by lower class subjects were A+ or A.
Hypothesis three further predicted that this
finding would be stronger for more difficult and
complex tasks than for less difficult, simpler
tasks.
Table 8 shows the language-communication
mode used by middle and lower class subjects for

the simpler (tinker toy) tasks. Table 9 shows
the language mode used by middle and lower class
subjects for the more complex (puzzle) tasks.
As can be seen, the tendency for middle class
subjects to give A+ or A directions more often
than lower class subjects was significant for both
tasks.
The tables also show that both groups gave
A+ or A directions more frequently to the simpler

task than the complex task.
Comparing the tables
we can also see that, as expected, the association
77
Table 7
Language Mode and Social Class
Language Mode
Subjects
adequate-plus non-adequate total

and adequate
_______________ ______
middle class
63 (69%)
28 (31%)
lower class
60 (43%)
77 (57%) 137 (100%)
123
105
X 2 = 14.21, 1 df, p .01. C = .24.
91 (100%)
228
78
Table 8
for Tinker Toy Task
Language Mode
Subjects
adequate-plus
and adequate
non-adequate
,.
total
middle class
39 (77%)
13 (23%)
52 (100%)
lower class
43 (57%)
36 (43%)
79 (100%)
82
49
131
X 2 = 6.68, i df, p .01. C = 22.
79
between class and language code is somewhat stronger
for the more difficult task (x2 =9.93; C=.30)
than for the less difficult task (X2 =6.68;
C=.22).
Finally, it should be pointed out that the
relative difference between the ability of middle
and lower class subjects to encode the tasks was
such that middle class subjects gave A+ or A
directions to the more difficult tasks more frequently (61%) than did lower class subjects to
the less difficult tasks (57%).
Hypothesis 3a
It was further predicted that middle class
subjects would more frequently give directions
that would be enacted than would lower class subjects.
As table 10 shows, while this tendency was
present, the difference was not significant.
When we separate the directions given for

the puzzle tasks from the directions given for the
80
tinker toy tasks we can see (tables 11 and 12)
that the predicted tendency is present inboth
cases and that it is, in fact, significant between
the .025 and .05 level for the puzzle tasks.
This
further emphasizes that the differences that do

exist between middle class and lower class subjects
in giving effective directions are greater for
more complex tasks than for simpler tasks.
Hypothesis 4
Hypothesis four enquired whether the ethnicity
of the subjects affected the relationship between
social class and language-communication mode.
No
prediction was made.
Table 13 shows the language mode used by

subjects who are white lower class (WL), white
middle class (Wm) , black lower ^ a s s (BL) , and
black middle class (BM). We can compare the
relative ability of the four groups to encode the
tasks by looking at the frequency of NA directions
The subject-group with the fewest NA directions
81
Table 9
for Puzzle Task
Language Mode
Subjects
adequate-plus
and adequate
non-adequate
total
middle class
24 (61%)
15 (39%)
39 (100%)
lower class
17 (29%)
41 (71%)
58 (100%)
41
56
97
X 2 = 9.93, 1 df, p .01. C = .30
82
Table 10
Social Class of Directors
and Task Enactment
Task Enactment
SubjectDirectors
successful
not successful
total
middle class
44 (48%)
47 (52%)
91 (100%)
lower class
51 (38%)
86 (62%)
137 (100%)
95
133
X 2 = 2.79, 1 df, p .10 (M.S.)
228
83
Table 11
Task Enactment for Puzzle Tasks
Task Enactment
SubjectDirectors
successful
not successful
total
middle class
10 (25%)
29 (75%)
39 (100%)
lower class
11 (18%)
47 (82%)
58 (100%)
21
76
97
X 2 = 4.53, ldf, p .05.
84
Table 12
Social Class of Directors and Task
Enactment for Tinker Toy Tasks
Task Enactment
SubjectDirectors,
successful
not successful
total
middle class
34 (65%)
18 (35%)
52 (100%)
lower class
40 (50%)
39 (50%)
79 (100%)
74
57
131
X 2 = 2.42, ldf, p .20. (N.SO
85
(and therefore a greater frequency of A+ and A
directions) was WM with 28%. This group also
had the most A+ directions (17%). BM subjects
had the next fewest NA directions, 35%. WL
followed with 39%. Finally, BL subjects gave NA
directions 69% of the time.
Thus, as table 13 shows, the group which
most frequently failed to encode their directions
adequately was BL. Black lower class subjects,
in fact, stood well apart from the other three
groups in ability to encode the tasks. The most
common language mode of WL subjects (51% of the
time), WM subjects (55%), and BM subjects (57%)
was A. However the most common language mode
employed by BL subjects was NA (69%) . Thus we
can see that the findings which support hypothesis
3 which show lower class subjects less frequently
giving A+- or A directions than middle class subjects, are primarily due to the BL subjects.
There is little difference in the language
86
Table 13
Ethnicity
Language Mode
Directors
adequateplus
adequate
nonadequate
total
WL
(10%)
29 (51%)
22 (39%)
57(100%)
WM
9 (17%)
28 (55%)
14 (28%)
51(100%)
BL
(02%)
24 (29%)
55 (69%)
80(100%)
BM
3 (08%)
23 (57%)
14 (35%)
40(100%)
19
104
105
X * = 26.91, 6 df, p .001.

WL
WM
BL
BM
=
=
=
=
White
White
Black
Black
lower class subjects

middle class subjects
lower class subjects
middle class subjects
228
87
mode employed by BM subjects compared with WL
and WM subjects (X2 =1.13, p .70).
There is a
significant difference, however, between the

language used by BL and BM subjects (X2 =27.12,
p .001).
We see that ethnicity as a contributing
factor does not stand alone.
Difficulty using effective language-conununication to organize and inform actions does not
arise simply out of social class differences or
of ethnic differences.
These findings indicate
that the problem of effectively employing language

to inform and organize actions is particularly
acute among subjects with a black and lower class
background.
In tables 14 and 15 we can see how much difficulty BL subjects had encoding both the tinker
toy and the puzzle tasks.
We also see in table
15 that WM subjects did considerably better than

any of the other groups in encoding the more complex
puzzle tasks.
88
When we look to see whose directions were
enacted (table 16), again, the overwhelming
finding is the relative failure of BL subjects
to have their directions enacted.
Hypothesis 5
Hypothesis five predicted that there would
be a significant association between the languagecommunication mode used by subjects in giving
directions and their ability to enact directions
given by others.
Specifically, it predicted that
those who gave NA directions would be least

likely to enact directions given by others and
that those who gave A+ directions would be most
likely to enact the directions of others.
These findings are indicated in table 17.

Since only one NA direction of the 105 obtained
in the study was enacted, the table includes
only the 123 A+ and A directions given by subjects.
89
Table 14
Ethnicity for Tinker Toy
(Simpler) Tasks.
Language Mode
Directors
adequate--plus
and adequate
non-adequate
total
WL
23
32
WM
22
29
BL
20
27
47
23
49
131
BM
17
82
X 2 = 12.65, 3 df, p .01.
90
Table 15
Ethnicity for Puzzle (More
Complex) Tasks
Language Mode
adequate--plus
and adeqijate
non-adequate
total
12
13
25
15
22
28
33
17
41
56
97
= 17.11, 3df, p .001,
91
Table 16
Task Enactment and Social Class
and Ethnicity of Directors
Task Enactment
Directors
successiful
not successful
total
WL
29
28
57
WM
27
24
51
BL
22
58
80
BM
17
23
40
95
133
228
X 2 = 11.34, 3 df, p .01.
92
It shows whether these directions were enacted
successfully or not by subjects who had employed
NA, A, and A+ modes in their own directions. Of
the 123 A+ and A directions obtained in the study,
94 of them were enacted successfully.
All 11
subjects who had given A+ directions themselves

and 40 of the 48 subjects who had given A directions
enacted the adequate directions given to them.
As table 17 shows, 33% of the time, subjects

who had been unable to adequately encode the task
were also unable to decode adequate directions and
perform the task.
On the other hand, this means
that 67% of the subjects whose coding capacities

were insufficient to cope with the task were able
to perform a similar task when adequate languagecommunication was supplied by another subject.
Hypothesis 5a
It was further predicted that the association
between the abilities of subjects to encode and
decode directions would be more pronounced on
93
Table 17
Adequate-Plus Directions by
Different Language Modes in
Their Directions
Task Enactment
Language Modes
used by
Directors
successful not successful
total
non-adequate
43
21
64
adequate
40
48
adequate-plus
11
11
94
29
123
X 2 = 6.99, 2df, p .05,
94
more difficult tasks than on less difficult
tasks.
Table 18 shows how frequently A+ and A

directions for the tinker toy tasks were enacted
by subjects who had employed different language
modes in their own directions.
It shows that
most subjects, irregardless of the language mode

employed in their own directions, were able to
enact these directions.
Ninety-seven percent
of the subjects who had given A+ or A directions

and 82% of the subjects who had given NA directions,
enacted adequate directions given to them for
these simpler tasks.
Table 19 shows how frequently A+ and A directions for the more complex puzzle tasks were
enacted.
Subjects who had given A+ and. A direct-
ions themselves were able to enact these directions 67% of the time, while subjects who had given
NA directions enacted them only 29% of the time.
Here we see that the relation between language
95
Table 18
Task Enactment of Adequate and Adequate-Plus
directions for Tinker Toy (Simpler) Tasks
by Subjects Who Had Employed Different
Language Modes
Task Enactment
Language Modes
successful
not successful
total
non-adequate
38
46
adequate-plus
and adequate
35
36
73
82
X 2 = 4.22, 1 df, p .05.
96
Table 19
Task Enactment of Adequate and Adequate-Plus
Puzzle (More Complex) Tasks by Subjects Who
Had Employed Different Language Modes
Task Enactment
Language Modes
successful
not successful total
12
17
16
24
21
20
41
non-adequate
adequate-plus
and adequate
X 2 = 5.48, 1 df, p .01
97
mode used and task enactment (between ability to
encode and decode) is much stronger.
Hypothesis 5b
It was further predicted that lower class
subjects would be able to enact the directions
of others less frequently than middle class subjects.
This hypothesis was not confirmed.
Table 20 shows how frequently lower and middle

class subjects were able to successfully enact
directions which were A+ or A.
found between the two groups:
No difference was
76% of the time
lower class subjects enacted these directions and

77% of the time middle class subjects enacted them.
When ethnicity of subjects is considered along

with social class we get the frequencies shown in
table 21. Between group differences are relatively
small:
White lower class subjects enacted the
directions most frequently, 84%; followed by black

middle class subjects, 78%; then white middle
class subjects, 76%;
and finally, black lower
98
Table 20
Adequate-Plus Directions by
Actors of Different Social
Classes
Task Enactment
SubjectActors
successful
not successful
total
lower class
57 (76%)
18 (24%)
75 (100%)
Middle class
37 (77%)
11 (23%)
48 (100%)
94
29
3.20, ldf, M.S.
123
99
Table 21
Task Enactment of Adequate and AdequatePlus Directions by Actors of Different
Ta sk Enactment
SubjectActors
successful
not successful
total
white
lower class
27 (84%)
5 (16%)
32 (100%)
white
middle class
19 (76%)
6 (24%)
25 (100%)
black
lower class
30 (70%)
13 (30%)
43 (100%)
Black
middle class
18 (78%)
5 (22%)
23 (100%)
94
29
X 2 = 2.35, 3 df, M.S.
123
100
class subjects, 70%. As indicated in table
21 these differences between the four subject
groups are not significant (X2 =2.35, p .50).
Tables 22 and 23 show how frequently subjects
from the four subject groups enacted adequate
directions for the tinker toy and puzzle tasks
respectively.
Table 22 shows that, for the
tinker toy task, there was little difference between groups in their abilities to enact these
directions.
Most of the subjects in all the
groups were able to enact them.
Table 23 shows,
however, that while all groups enacted adequate

puzzle directions less frequently than they had
tinker toy directions, none of the BL subjects
who were given adequate puzzle directions were
able to enact them, while a majority of subjects
in each of the other groups were able to.
Thus while no overall difference was found

between middle and lower class subjects in their
101
Table 22
Task Enactment of Tinker Toy
Tasks by Actors of Different
Task Enactment
Actors
successful
not successful
total
white
lower class
19
19
white
middle class
11
12
black
lower class
30
36
black
middle class
14
16
74
83
102
Table 23
Task Enactment of Puzzle Tasks
by Actors of Different Social
Class and Ethnicity
Task Enactment
Actors
successful
not successful
total
white
lower class
13
white
middle class
13
black
lower class
black
middle class
20
20
40
103
ability to enact the directions of others, we
do find on the more complex tasks that black
lower class subjects have the most difficulty
following adequate directions given to them.
Hypothesis 6
Hypothesis six predicted that communication
effectiveness, both within and between ethnic
and social class sub-groups, was determined primarily by the adequacy of the language-communication
used in directions rather than the sub-cultural
similarities between subjects.
The initial indication of the central importance of the language-communication mode for communication effectiveness was the finding (cf. hypothesis 1) that only one of the NA directions had
been enacted.
This meant that, in spite of the
ethnicity and class of the director vis a vis the

ethnicity and class of the actor, in 104 out of
105 cases when the directions were NA they were not
104
enacted.
Subjects within particular sub-groups
did not (as some researchers have indicated they

do;
eg. Houston, 1967) communicate in some special
sub-cultural code that was effective only for someone within the group.
Table 24 shows how frequently lower and middle
class actors were able to enact directions given
to them by lower and middle class directors.
It
shows that middle class actors as well as lower

class actors were more frequently able to enact
the directions of middle class directors. As can
be seen middle class actors successfully enacted
the directions of middle class directors 45%
of the time and enacted the directions of lower
class directors 37% of the time.
Similarly,
lower class actors enacted middle class directions 51% of the time and lower class directions
37% of the time.
Now if we consider only A+ and A directions
given by subjects of either class to actors of
105
Table 24
Class Actors of Directions given
by Middle and Lower Class Directors
Middle Class
Actors
Directors
successful
not successful
Lower Class
Actors
successful
not successful
middle
class
18
22
26
25
lower
class
19
32
32
54
106
either class, the differences found in table 24
no longer appear.
As table 25 shows, it is no
longer the case that middle and lower class actors

more often enact the directions of middle class
directors.
Each group enacts the directions given
by all directors a very high percentage of the

time.
It is clear that the data in table 24 which
shows both middle class and lower class actors more

frequently enacting the directions given by middle
class directors results from the fact that the
middle class directors gave fewer NA directions
(cf. table 7 ) .
Table 26 shows how frequently black and white

actors were able to enact directions given to them
by black and white directors.
It shows that black
and white actors enacted the directions of black

directors less frequently (black actors: 34%;
white actors: 37%) than the directions of white
directors (black actors: 47%; white actors: 56%).
Again, considering only A+ andA directions, we see
107
Table 24
Class Actors of Directions Given
by Middle and Lower Class Directors
Task Enactment
Middle Class
Lower Class
Actors
Actors
Directors
success- not succful

essful
success- not succful

essful
middle class
18
22
26
25
lower class
19
32
32
54
108
Table 25
Class Actors of Adequate and AdequatePlus Directions Given by Middle and
Lower Class Directors
Task Enactment
Middle Class
Actors
Directors
successful
not successful
Lower Class
Actors
successful
not successful
middle
class
18
25
13
lower
class
19
32
109
Table 26
Actors of Directions given by Black
and White Directors
Task Enactment
Black Actors
Directors
successful
White Actors
not succ- successessful

ful
not successful
Black
23
44
16
37
White
25
28
31
24
110
in table 27, that black actors no longer enact the
directions of white actors more frequently.
There remains, however, a tendency for white
actors to enact the directions of white directors
more frequently.
But this
would appear to result
from the fact that 10 of the 19 A+ directions given

in the study were given by white directors to
white actors, whereas white actors received no A+
directions from black directors. And so even this
finding results from the language mode used in
directions that actors received and not simply the
ethnicity of the director.
Table 28 shows how frequently WL, WM, BL and

BM actors successfully enacted A+ and A directions
given by WL, WM, BL and BM directors.
No sign-
ificant or even strong effects are indicated which

result from the ethnicity and social class interaction of the subjects.
The overriding factor
effecting the enactment of all directions by all

subjects was the adequacy of the language-commun-
Ill
Table 27
Task Enactment by Black and White Actors
of Adequate and Adequate-Plus Directions
Given by Black and White Directors
Task Enactment
Black Actors
Directors
successful
not successful
White Actors
successful
Black
23
15
White
25
10
31
not succful
112
Table 28
Social Class and E t h n i c i t y of Adequate
and Adequate-Plus D i r e c t i o n s Given by
D i r e c t o r s of Different Social Class
and E t h n i c i t y
Actors
WL
Directors
WL
WM
NS
12
WM
BL
BM
27
BL
NS
NS
NS
19
10
4
S = successful
NS
BM
"= not successful
30
2
5
13
3
5
18
1
2
113
ication used in giving directions.
In the analysis of the data of this study,
black lower class subjects have been distinguished
by their relative difficulty both in giving directions and in enacting them.
The following two
tables take a closer look at BL subjects as actors

and directors.
Table 29 shows that the ability
of BL actors to enact directions is not a function

of the ethnicity or class of the director but
the adequacy of the language used in the directions.
Table 30 shows that the ability of BL subjects to
effectively communicate to an actor is not a
function of the ethnicity or social class of the
actor but rather the ability of the particular
BL director to adequately encode the directions.
With regard to the tasks used in this study, BL
subjects (in fact, all subjects) demonstrated no
greater facility to communicate effectively among
themselves than to communicate with any of the
other subjects.
114
Table 29
Task Enactment by Lower Class Black
Actors cf Directions Given by Directors
of Different Class and Ethnicity
Black Actors
Directions
received
from
all directions
WL directors
adequate-plus and
adequate directions
S_
NS
NS
12
23
10
WM directors
BL directors
10
BM directors
S = successful
NS = not successful
115
Table 30
Class and Ethnicity of Directions Given
by Lower Class Black Actors
BL
Directions
given to
all directions
adequate-plus and
adequate directions
NS
NS
WL
15
WM
11
BL
10
23
10
BM
S = successful
NS = not successful
116
Written Versus Oral Communication
Of the 228 adult subjects who participated
in this study, 163 gave and received directions
in writing, while 65 gave and received directions
orally.
Table 31 shows, for both written and
oral cases, the adequacy of the directions given

and the frequency of their enactment for each
sub-group of subjects and for each task level.
No significant differences were found on any task
level for any sub-group of subjects.
Although statistically insignificant, strong
difference between written and oral directions
were observed.
Table 32 shows that for more
difficult tasks oral directions were less frequently

adequate (32%) than written directions (42%).
Table 33 shows, on simpler tasks, that black
subjects less frequently gave adequate directions
when writing them than when giving them orally.
Table 31
Adequacy of Directions and Frequency of Task
Enactment for Oral and Written Directions Given
for the Four Task Levels by Directors of Different Class and Ethnicity
Directors
Task
WL
TTT-4
T _4
TT-6
P-4
P-5
WM
TT-4
TT-4
TT-6
P-4
P-5
Oral Directions
Language
Task
Mode
Enactment
A+&A
NA
S. NS
T
33
1
3
1
4
2
2
3
5
3
3
1
3
4
1
_3
1
_4_5
2
9
6
11 18
9
0
4
0
4
44
2
2
2
4
2
1
0
3
3
2
_ 2 ^ L _ 3 _ i
2
10
TT-4
TT-6
P-4
P-5
Written Directions
Language
Task
Mode
Enactment
A+&A
NA
S
NS
T
9
2
9 2
11
8
4
7 5
12
5
4
4 5 9
4
3
2
5
7
26
13
23
17
39
9
2
7 4
11
7
3
7 3
10
6
1
4
3
7
5
=
=
=
=
tinker
tinker
puzzle
puzzle
8
toy
toy
- 4
- 5
15
- 4 piece
- 6 piece
piece
piece
_5
_3
27
GT
15
17
13
12
57
15
14
10
_6
12
20
16
36
51
T = total
GT = grand total
Table 31 (cont)
Adequacy of Directions and Frequency of Task
Enactment for Oral and Written Directions Given
for the Four Task Levels by Directors of Different Class and Ethnicity
Directors
Task
BL
TT-4
TT-6
P-4
P-5
BM
TT-4
TT-6
P-4
P-5
Oral Directions
Task
Language
Mode
Enactment
A+&A
NA
T
NS
S
4
4
1
1
5
2
2
3
3
5
0
4
0
4
4
4
0
0
4
4
6
12 18
12
6
0
3
0
3
3
4
3
2
2
1
4
2
0
2
4
0
1
3
3
2
10 14
8
6
4
Written Directions
Task
Language
Mode
Enactment
NA
NS
A+&A
S
T
9
19
10
10
9
18
14
3 15
4
2 10
12
9
3
11
1 12
13
2
16 46
62
19
43
9
3
6
3
6
3
7
4
3
4
5
2
3
2
3
4
5
2
1
3
10
26
13
13
16
TTX-A_ = tinker toy - 4 piece

TT
LJ.-6 = tinker toy - 6 piece
P-4 = puzzle - 4 piece
P-5 = puzzle - 5 piece
.T = total
GT = grand total
GT.
24
23
16
17
80
12
11
9
8
40
oo
119
Table 32
Language Mode of Written and
Oral Directions Given for
Puzzle (More Complex) Task
Language Mode
Directions
adequate-plus
and adequate
non-adequate
total
written
31
35
66
oral
10
21
31
41
56
97
X 2 = 1.85, Idf, N.S.
120
Table 33
Language Mode Used by Black Directors
in Written and Oral Directions Given
for Tinker Toy (Simpler) Tasks
Language Mode
Directions of
Black Directors
adequate-plus
and adequate
nonadequate
total
written
24
29
53
oral
11
17
35
35
70
X 2 = 3.64, ldf, N.S.
121
Grade School and High School Samples
Besides the 228 adult subjects who participated in the study, 40 high school sophomores from
two area high schools and 48 sixth graders from
twoarea grade schools also participated in the study.
These88 subjects were tested in pairs.
In each pair,
while seated back-to-back, the students took turns

giving directions to each other.
Each pair of stud-
ents also were read A+ directions previously written

by an adult subject and asked to try to enact them.
The high school sample consisted of 22 sophomores (3 black, 19 white) from a school which
draws upon a predominantly working class population
and 18 (all white) from a school with predominantly
middle class students.
The grade school sample
consisted of 18 sixth graders (17 black, 1 white)

from a school with a lower class population and 30
sixth graders (28 white, 2 black) from a middle
class school
only 16 of these latter subjects
also received adult directions.
122
Table 34 shows the results from the working
class high school sample. As can be seen, the
students were unable to enact any of the directions
given by fellow students.
However, 12 of the 22
students were able to enact the directions of

adults.
Table 35shows the results from the middle

class high school sample.
Six of the 18 students
were able to enact directions given by fellow

students;
adults.
12 of the 18 enacted the directions of
Middle class high school students, thus,
were more successful than their lower class counterparts both in giving directions to each other and
in enacting the directions of an adult.
This difference between middle class and lower

class high school subjects was mirrored in the findings among grade school subjects.
Table 36 shows
the results from the lower class grade school sample.

Two of these 18 students enacted student directions,
while five of the 18 enacted the adult directions.
123
Table 34
Task Enactment by High School Lower
Class Actors
Student
Directions
task
NS
tinker toy
(4-piece)
Adult
Directions
NS
tinker toy
(6-piece)
puzzle
(4-piece)
puzzle
(5-piece)
22
S = successful
NS = not successful
12
10
124
Table 35
Task Enactment by High School Middle
Class Actors
Student
Directions
task
Adult
Directions
NS
NS
tinker toy
(4-piece)
tinker toy
(6-piece)
puzzle
(4-piece)
puzzle
(5-piece)
12
S = successful
NS = not successful
12
125
Table 36
Task Enactment by Grade School Lower
Class Actors
Student
Directions
task
NS +
tinker toy
(4-piece)
tinker toy
(6-piece)
puzzle
(4-piece)
puzzle
(5-piece)
16
S = successful
NS = not successful
Adult
Directions
NS
13
126
Table 37 shows the results from the middle class
grade school sample.
Nine of the 30 students
enacted student directions.
Seven of the 16
who were given adult directions to enact did

so successfully.
Table 38 shows that middle class subjects
of each group (grade school, high school, as well
as college) more frequently gave adequate directions and had more of their directions enacted
than lower class subjects.
By comparing tables
34 through 37, showing results for the younger

subjects along with tables 7, 8 and 9, showing the
results of adult subjects, we can see that the
differences between all groups of subjects is such
that, as the tasks become more difficult, the size
of the difference increases.
Table 39 shows that, on all tasks, adult
subjects more frequently gave adequate directions
than did the younger subjects.
Table 40 shows
that this finding holds true for both lower class
127
Table 37
Tasks Enactment by Grade School Middle
Class Actors
Student
Directions
Adult
Directions
task
S.
NS
NS
tinker toy
(4 piece)
tinker toy
(6-piece)
puzzle
(4-piece)
puzzle
(5-piece)
21
S = successful
NS = not successful
128
Table 38
Frequency of Task Enactment and Adequacy
of Directions Given by Lower and Middle
Class Grade School, High School,and
College Directors
Task Enactment
Language Mode
S.
NS
A+&A
NA
16
14
_9
21
13
11
11
37
17
31
Grade School
lower class
middle class
(X2 = 5.98, 1 df, p .02.)

High School
lower class
middle class
22
20
_6
6
12
34
_8
10
10
30
(x2 = 4.20, 1 df, p .02)

College
lower class
51
86
60
77
middle class
44
47
63
28
95
133
123
105
(X2 = 14.21, 1 df, p .001)
129
Table 39
Adequacy of Directions Given by Grade
School and High School Versus College
Directors
Language Mode
Directors
Grade and
High School
College
adequate-plus
and adequate
non-adequate
total
27
61
88
123
105
228
150
166
316
(X2 = 12.70, 1 df, p .001)
130
Table 40
Adequacy of Directions Given by Grade
School, High School, and College
Students of Different Social Class
Language Mode
Lower class
Directors
grade school
high school
college
adequate-plus
and adequate non-adequate
total
4
2
60
14
20
77
18
22
137
66
111
177
(X2 = 11.66, 2 df, p .01.)
Middle class
Directors
grade school
high school
college
13
8
63
17
10
28
30
18
91
84
55
139
(X2 = 8.90, 2 df, p .02)
131
and middle class subjects.
Table 41 shows that the social class of grade

school and high school subjects was not a factor
determining ability to enact A+ adult directions.
Overall, adults more frequently enacted adequate adult directions than did the younger subjects.
But as table 42 shows, this is true of lower class
subjects but not middle class subjects.
132
Table
41
Task Enactment of Adequate-Plus Adult Directions by Grade School and High School Actorsof
Different Social Class
Task Enactment
Grade School
Actors
successful
not successful
total
lower class
13
18
middle class
16
12
22
34
lower class
12
10
22
middle class
12
18
24
16
40
High School
Actors
133
Table 42
Task Enactment of Adequate Adult Directions by Actors ofDifferent Social Class
and Age
Task Enactment
Lower Class
Actors
grade school
successful
not success ful
total
13
18
high school
12
10
22
college
5_7
18
75
77
41
115
(X2 = 21.91, 2 df, p .001)

Middle Class
Actors
grade school
16
high school
12
18
college
37
11
48
56
26
82
(X2 = 5.53, 2 df, N.S.)
CHAPTER VIII
DISCUSSION
Language, Codes and the Organization of Behavior
The results of this research establish that
there are differences in language-communication,
different language codes, which have fundamentally
different correspondences to the organization and
direction of behavior.
Luria and his associates
(cf. Luria, 1959; Vygotsky, 1962; and Martsinovskaya, quoted in Luria, 1961) have demonstrated
the role of language as a regulator of motor
behavior.
They have not, however, investigated
whether or how the regulation of behavior might

be facilitated or impeded by differences in the
way people use language. American researchers
interested in Luria's work and in what they call
language's "mediational" role in behavior (Reese,
1962;
Kendler and Kendler, 1962;
Gagne and Smith,
1962) have generally limited themselves to either

134
135
replicating Luria' work or only narrowly extending
it.
They likewise, have neglected to pursue the
behavioral consequences of language differences.

The results of this study indicate that the
critical features of language-communication which
determine whether it will be an adequate regulatory
device or not, are its context-independency and
context-specificity.
These two factors, which
emerged in the pilot study, proved to be the

critical differences between directions which
were effective and those which were not.
Only
subjects whose directions consisted of contextindependent and context-specific language successfully shaped and gave form to the enactment of the
task by an actor. Directions which did not possess
these features were not informative;
they were
inadequate and were not enacted.
The work of Bernstein on language codes anticipated these results (cf. especially, 1971).
How-
ever, the language codes Bernstein distinguished
136
represent a vast array of primarily structural
differences in the language used by the middle and
working class children he studied.
The language-
communication modes distinguished in this study

represent only those features of language which
affect the informational content and effect the
organizational consequences of language as communication.
This study did not seek to determine
the distinguishing characteristics of the language

used by particular groups of peole, but to distinguish the determining features of language-communication as a regulatory device and only subsequently establish the extent to which these features
are found in the language of different social
classes and ethnic groups.
By looking at some specific directions given

by subjects in this study, we will be able to more
clearly understand the informational and organizational role of context-independency and specificity
in language-communication.
This will also serve
137
to demonstrate how and why directions were cate
gorized as representing different languagecommunication modes.
The directions which will follow were given by
different subjects for the same task, the four-piece
tinker toy task.
Direction 1.
1st you will find 4 objects; a blue stick approximately 3 inches long, a yellow stick approximately
2 inches long, 2 wheel shaped objects. These
wheels have a hole which goes through the center
from 1 flat surface to the other. Around the
periphery of the wheel there are 8 additional
holes. (1st) Take the 2 wheels & lay them 4
inches apart so that a flat surface is facing up.
(2nd) Now take the blue (3 in stick) and put one
end of the stick into one of the outer peripheral
holes in one wheel & the other end of blue stick
in an outer peripheral hole of the other wheel.
Place this object back down in front of you so that
the 2 wheels still have a flat surface showing up.
(3rd) Now take the yellow (2 in) stick and put it
in one of the peripheral holes of one of the
wheels so that counting clockwise, from the junction of the blue stick to the wheel you choose to
work with, the yellow stick is attached 5 holes
away from the blue sticks attachment & counting
counter-clockwise the yellow stick is attached 3
holes away from the blue stick.
Very little is taken for granted in this direction.
Each of the four tinker toy pieces is
138
first carefully described.
Then each act to be
taken with regard to each piece is specifically

denoted.
Throughout, all references to the pieces
are clear and explicit. All referents are

"anaphoric," they are contained in the direction
itself.
It is not necessary for an actor to have
ever seen the final assemblage to know what action

to take with what pieces in order to re-construct
it successfully.
It is in this sense that the
direction is said to be context-independent:
The
meaning of each sentence of instruction in the

direction (what the actor is to do) does not depend
upon concrete foreknowledge of the object by the
actor.
The instructions stand on their own, taking
the place of the object symbolically, re-presenting

the object to the actor as a series of specific,
explicit acts.
Each instruction in the direction,in fact,

specifically limits the actor to one explicit act.
And the meaning of this act is not contingent upon
139
any subjective extrapolation by the actor.
Rather,
it has a direct correspondence in a particular

action and cannot be satisfied by any other action.
It is in this sense that the direction is said to
be context-specific:
There is a set of particular,
concrete acts that, if taken with respect to these

particular concrete tinker toy pieces, will form
this assemblage.
Thus, for example, the instruction "take the

blue (3 in) stick and put one end of it into one
of the outer peripheral holes in one of the wheels"
both 1) indicates an action that can be taken by
someone who has not previously seen the puzzle
assembled, and 2) admits interpretation into only
one specific, explicit act.
In this study direction 1 was categorized as
an "adequate-plus" direction.
This means, that
besides being context-independent and -specific,

the instructions included supplemental or clarifying information.
For example, the sticks are
140
consistently referred to in terms of both their
color (blue or yellow) and their length (2 or 3
inches).
Another indication of this appears in
the last sentence of the instruction in which the

actor is told where on the wheel to place the
yellow stick relative to both sides of the blue
stick.
Direction I was enacted successfully by a

subject-actor, as was the following direction for
the same task.
Direction II.
Lay the 2 wheels flat in front of you. Put the
blue stick into any of the holes on the outer edge
of one of the wheels. Put the other end of the
blue stick into any of the holes on the outer edge
of the other wheel. Put the yellow stick into one
of the holes in the outer edge of one of the wheels
so that there are two holes between the blue stick
and the yellow stick.
Like example I the language of this direction
is context-independent.
The actor was able to
follow each instruction without reference to or

foreknowledge of the completed assemblage itself.
Also, each act of which the final product is composed
141
is specified, although without elaboration.
This
direction was, accordingly, categorized as "adequate" rather than "adequate-plus."

The instruction:
"put the blue stick into
any of the holes on the outer edge of one of the

wheels" is 1) intelligible to a naive actor and
2) while simply put, its meaning is unequivocal.
Directions I and II are examples of directions

which were composed of "adequate" or "adequateplus" language-communication.
In these directions
we find an isomorphic correspondence between the

vehavioral organization involved in the task-tobe-done and the informational organization of the
instructions.
These directions re-present the
acts, which, in turn, define the task for the actor.

This correspondence is not found in the following
instructions.
Direction III.
1. Insert the long blue poll in the center of
each brown wheel; connecting both wheels with the
142
poll in the middle;

2. then insert your short yellow poll in one of
the wheels, in the 5th hole of the wheel.
Direction IV.
Take one round piece with smooth sidetowards you.
Put it on the bottom. Take the other round piece
and put it on the top. Take the long blue piece
and put it down the middle of the two round
pieces into appropiate holes. Face the piece
already constructed directly in front of you. On
the circle on top count 3 lines going clockwise
and insert yellow piece.
Directions III and IV were classified as "nontask- adequate" directions and neither was enacted.
The meaning of the instructions given, that is,
what actions are to be taken, is often ambiguous
in these directions.
For example, the instruction
in direction III which tells the actor to "insert

the blue poll in the center of each brown wheel"
led the actor in this instance to connect the stick
to the hole in one of the flat sides of the wheel
rather than in one of the holes around the edge
of the wheel where it belonged.
Likewise, the
"5th hole of bhe wheel" has little or no regulatory

value without reference to something else and can
143
only add to the actor's uncertainty rather than
reduce it.
Similarly, the instruction in example IV that
tells the actor to "Take the long blue piece and
put it down the middle of the 2 round pieces into
appropriate holes" begs the question the instructions are supposed to answer:
namely, what are the
"appropriate holes?"
This kind of context-tied language is not

informative.
It does not take the place of or
re-present the organization of the task symbolically, but relies on it.
It does not stand for it
in its absence. And it can not admit interpretation back into action it does not informationally
contain.
This kind of language is not effective
language-communication.
It does not inform or
organize the range of action involved in this task.
Watching the way symbol and action come together in the tasks used in this study in the
directions and enactments of the subjects, we see
144
the way language-communication is able to act
as an organizational device for behavior.
We
see how it can give direction and guidance for

actions oand also how and when it fails to do
this.
The job which faced the subject-directors
in this study was 1) to transform the task-object
into an organized set of actions, and 2) to transform these actions into instruction-sentences
which symbolically and context-independently
represented the task-object as task-actions-tobe taken to the actor.
These instruction-sent-
ences thus presented to the actor the set of

context-specific acts that composed the taskobject, that, if performed by the actor, would
re-constitute the task-object.
If the director did this and effected the

correspondence between the organization of actions
represented by and in the task-object and the
symbolic representation of the instruction-sen-
145
tences, his directions could be said to be informative (that is, effective as communication and
effective in informing and directing the required
actions).
Language-communication which has been called
"adequate" and "adequate-plus" is informative in
this sense.
It presents the actor with the explicit,
specific acts which constitute the task-object.

Directions which consist of language-communication
which has been called "non-adequate" is composed
of instruction-sentences which do not symbolically
represent the task-object (that is, is contextdependent) and which, if enacted, would lead to
actions not a part of that set of acts which constitute the original task-object.
Non-task-adequate
directions are thus not informative and cannot

effect the formation of the task-object.
Subjects who did not possess the languagecommunication skill to construct the context-independent and specific sentences required to represent
146
symbolically a particular task-object, were
limited to presenting non-adequate directions
which were not informative and not enactable.
In this way a particular task could overload the
coding capacity of a communicator-director.
The
language-communication which resulted was inadequate symbolization and is commonly referred to

as "misinformation."
Task Complexity and Language-Communication

The data which confirm hypothesis two indicated
that as tasks became increasingly complex, they
become increasingly more difficult to encode and to
enact.
As discussed, the job of the director was
to transform the organization of the task-object

into a highly specific, symbolic representation, that
is, directions which were the informational equivalent of the task-object.
The first logical
step in this process involved -che translation by

the director of the organization of the task-object
into an organized set of actions-to-be-taken
147
(specifically, the constituentacts of the task).
These actions-to-be-taken were the informational
content of the task-object which the director
encoded in his directions.
The greater the number
of specific acts that constituted a task-object,

the more information (or bits of information)
needed to be encoded by the director.
And the
more information encoded by the director means

there is more information to be decoded by the
actor and transformed into his actions-
Only if
every constituent act of the task-object (every

bit of information) was represented in it could a
direction effect the object's reconstruction
through the organization of an actor's behavior.
It is not difficult to understand how the
five-piece puzzle was informationally and organizationally a more complex task-object than the fourpiece puzzle.
But why or in what way was the
four-piece puzzle a more complex task than the

6-piece tinker toy assemblage?
148
A task-object is not defined by the sum of its
pieces but by its constituent acts.
These acts,
moreover, are not independent of each other, but

combine as a particular organization of actions
one organization or combination, in fact, which

must be specified from a universe of n-possible
combinations.
The complexity of the language-
communication required to effect any particular

organization can be seen as a function of the
n-possible combinations:
the product of the total
number of ways the pieces may be combined and the

universe within which the constituent acts are
specified.
For example:
The four-piece puzzle task
consisted of four puzzle pieces of different shapes

and sizes - one three-sides piece, two four-sided
pieces, and one five-sided piece.
Since any piece
can potentially be ajoined to any other along

any of the sides, the total possible combinations
are: 3 x 4 x 4 x 5 =
240. Directors confronted
149
with this puzzle had to encode a line of highly
specific actions that would be informationally
isomorphic with only one of a great number of
possible combinations.
Looking at the six-piece tinker toy assemblage we see two kinds of pieces: wheels and
sticks.
The three wheels were identical, each
with eight holes around the rim and one through

the center.
lengths.
The three sticks were different
Since sticks could only be connected to
wheels and not directly to other sticks, and

wheels, likewise, could only be connected to
other wheels via sticks, the maximum number of
possible combinations is:
9 x 2 + 9 x 2 + 9 x 2
= 54. Thus directors confronted with the sixpiece tinker toy assemblage were faced with encoding a line of action within a much less organizationally and informationally complex universe
than the directors who were given the puzzle tasks.
In tte table below we can see the relationship
150
between the relative informational complexity of
the four task levels (in terms of the possible
combinations each represents) and how frequently
they were adequately encoded, as well as how
frequently directions for them were successfully
enacted.
complexity (combinations)
task
adequately
encoded
successfully
enacted
four-piece
tinker toy
36
76%
70%
six-piece
tinker toy
54
49%
43%
four-piece
puzzle
240
46%
26%
five-piece
puzzle
960
39%
15%
A more complex task-object requires informationally more complex language-communication to

encode it and to organize behavior that reconstructs
it.
A majority (76%) of subject-directors possessed
a level of language-communication effective in

encoding and organizing the simplest task.
However,
as the task level became more complex we see that

the coding capacity of more and more subjects is
151
overloaded.
Encoding and Decoding
While "adequate" encoding in the languagecommunication of the director was a necessary
condition for successful task enactment, it
did not, obviously, guarantee that communication
would take place and that the task would, in fact,
be enacted.
As we saw in this study, 29 of the
133 directions which were not enacted had been

adequately encoded.
This means that the informat-
ional complexity of a particular task may overload the coding capacity of a communicator, but
also that the complexity of particular tasks may
require the encoding of language-communication
which overloads a particular actor's ability to
translate them into his actions.
One would expect that encoding and decoding

language-communication are related skills.
of hypothesis 5 confirm that this is so.
Results
As
indicated in the findings, 86% of the subjects
152
whose language-communication was sufficient to
adequately encode the task presented to them were
also able to decode adequately encoded directions.
On the other hand 33% of the actor-subjects who
were unable to decode and enact adequate directions
were subjects who as directors, had not employed
adequate language-communication in their directions.
Thus someone whose language-communication

skills permitted him to encode a particular task
was more likely to be able to decode and enact a
similar task than someone who had been unable to
encode the former task.
However, as pointed out
earlier, many subjects (67%) whose language was

inadequate to cope with a particular task were,
nonethless, able to decode and perform a similar
task when adequate symbolization was supplied by
another subject.
Luria's (1959) central hypothesisconcerning

the development of verbal control of behavior in
children is that this development takes p]a ce in a
153
progression of identifiable stages. He found that
from approximately 1.5 to 3 years of age, the child
is capable of organizing simple actions through
the speech of adults.
Then from 3 to 4.5 years
the child begins to gain regulatory control over

his own actions through his own overt speech.
The final stage in Luria's study involved the
internationalization of verbal control, selfcontrol through covert speech ("thought").
This present research suggests five identifiable levels of language-communication in adults,
analogous to the stages Luria describes in the
development of children, which relate to the
organization of behavior.
Subjects in this study
possessed language-communication capabilities which

enabled them (or did not enable them) to encode
and direct and to decode and enact either simple
or complex tasks. At the lowest level (level 1)
we find subjects who do not have the language-communication capacity to either encode or decode even
154
relatively simple tasks. At the highest level
(level 5) on the other hand, we find subjects
whose language-communication sophistication enables
them both to direct as well as to enact highly
complex tasks.
In between we find subjects
who can decode and enact a simple task but

cannot encode it (level 2);
who can both encode
and decode simple tasks (level 3);
who can encode
simple tasks but not complex ones, but who can,

nevertheless, decode and enact complex tasks
(level 4 ) .
These five levels represent progressive stages

of language-communication development and control
over behavioral organization.
We should expect that just as the children in

Luria's research developed increased symbolic
control over behavior, that similar development is
possible among adults. Bern (1967) found that
three-year olds whose performance on a pretest
measure suggested an absence of verbal self-regu-
155
lation of behavior, could be trained to develop
this capacity.
There is no reason to doubt that
an adult with some encoding and decoding ability

would be able to learn through instruction how to
bring language-communication and behavioral
organization together on increasingly complex
tasks.
Language-Communication and Social Class

The expectation that this research would find
significant language-communication differences
between subjects of different social classes
was based upon the previous work of Bernstein
(1971) among others (e.g. Schatzman and Strauss,
1955;
Deutsch, 1965).
The major theme which runs
through Bernstein's research is the social class

basis for language differences.
He sees the social
class experience in a Durkheimian perspective (cf.

1971, 170-230):
Social relationships emerging
among the working class are characterized by

mechanical solidarity while the social relationships
156
which develop within the middle class are characterized by organic solidarity.
Bernstein writes:
"Which speech codes are realized is a function of

the culture acting through social relationships in
specific contexts. Different speech forms or
codes symbolize the form of the social relationship
....
the speech form is a function of a given
social arrangement" (173-174).
It is Bernstein's
view that the "elaborated" code employed by the

middle class and the "restricted" code of the
working class reflect as well as reinforce the
different forms of social integration found within
the classes.
A number of researchers, however, have not

accepted Bernstein's analysis and especially his
findingsthat the language of the working or lower
classes is more "restricted."
Lawton (1968)
maintains, for instance, that working class children

can use the "elaborated" code even though it may
be difficult for them.
They can do it, he believes,
157
if they are placed in a situation that forces
them to use the elaborated code, such as a discussion of an abstract question or of an ethical
issue.
Lawton views the use of different speech
modes as the result of habit rather than necessity.

He believes we may adapt our modes of speech to
the situation.
The results of this study, however, do not

indicate that the use of more sophisticated ("adequate") language-communication can be turned on
or off depending upon the situational requirements.
In this research all subjects were required to use
language-communication appropriate for a specific
task.
The results indicate that there were social
class differences in the ability of subjects to do

this.
The differences found between classes are
not categorically absolute.
Many lower class
subjects were able to successfully employ adequate

language-communication for the tasks and many
middle class subjects were not.
But there is a
158
significant difference overall showing middle class
subjects more frequently using a level of language
communication adequate to encode the tasks.
The results of this study also indicate (as
Bernstein, 1960, and Deutsch, 1965, predicted)
that as the task becomes more comples, i.e., more
informationally demanding in the language-communication required, the social class differences become more pronounced.
Language-Communication, Social Class rnd Ethnicity
As the results pertaining to hypothesis 4
indicate, the role of social class in producing the
preceding findings is somewhat confounded by the
ethnicity of subjects.
Both white and black middle
class subjects were more frequently able tc adequately encode task-directions than their white and
black lower class counterparts.
However, WM
subjects were more frequently able to adequately

encode the more complex tasks than were BM subjects.
Likewise, the language-communication of WL subjects
159
was more often adequate than that of BL subjects.

How can we explain this?
In his study of "Social Class and Language in
Glasgow," Macauley cautioned that findings may
sometimes be artifacts of the way social class
differences are determined.
In this study, class
was determined by using an occupational-educational

index which could be applied either to subjects
themselves or to their families of origin. Whenever the index could be applied directly to the
subject, as in the case of a part-time student
who had a full-time job and did not live with his
parents, it was.
If it could not, as in the case
of a full-time student living with his parents, the

index was applied to the parents.
Reexamination of the background data sheets

on the subjects categorized as BM showed that five
of them had been categorized as middle class
because of their occupation, but that they came
from families that were lower class according to
160
the index.
For instance, one subject who was a
supervisor in a Manpower Program was classified as

middle class.
His father, however, was a retired
laborer and his mother did housework.
If social-
ization plays the powerful role in language development that Bernstein suggests, we might expect
some language differences between middle class
subjects with lower class roots and middle class
subjects with middle class roots.
Two of these five BM subjects had given directions for the tinker toy tasks and three for the
puzzle tasks.
One of the former and none of the
b-tter had encoded the task adequately.
If we
remove these latter three subjects from table 15

we see the following change;
from A+&A
NA
WL
WM
BL
BM
12
15
5
9
13
7
28
8
WL
WM
BL
BM
A+&A
12
15
5
9
NA
13
7
28
5
to -
161
As we can see, the difference between the WM
group and the BM group of subjects has diminished.
In fact, the difference between the groups in the
second case is not statistically significant
(X2 =.056, ldf, p .90).
The evaporation of this difference when
legitimate adjustments were made in the social
class index, called for the reexamination of the
background data of the 80 BL subjects. The
language-communication differences between BL subjects and WL subjects had been found to be greater
than the differences beVeen BM and WM and were
found not only on the complex tasks (table 15),
but on the simpler tasks as well (table 14).
This look at the background data on the BL
subjects suggested that the categorization of all
of these subjects under the single rubric "lower
class" may have been a gross oversimplification.
On the one hand there were student-subjects in this
category whose parents were policemen, clerks, and
162
and factory workers.
On the other hand there
were subjects whose parents were welfare recipients

or simply were unemployed.
When the directions given by these two subgroups of the category "lower class subjects"
are examined separately we see the following
results regarding the language-communication mode
used:
BL total (as in table 13):
BL (from working families):
BL (from non-working
families):
A+&A
25
NA
55
17
24
31
This difference is statistically significant

at the .05 level (X2 = 3.98, 1 df, p .05).
The
difference between the BL - working class subjects

and the WL subjects (also from working class families) continues to be significant, but less strongly
so (X2 = 3.31, 1 df, p .05).
We again see that
adjustments in the method of determining social

class distinctions have reduced the independent
163
affect of ethnicity.
This suggests that study
results which isolate ethnicity as a strong,

determining independent variable (e.g. Jensen,
1969;
especially, 78-80) may simply not have
looked closely enough at the extenuating nature

and consequences of social class.
Nonetheless, for whatever reasons, an unequivocal finding in this study was that lower class
black subjects most frequently brought a level of
language-communication to the task which was incapable of encoding it adequately.
While some
members of all subject groups lacked the languagecommunication required for the tasks, especially
for the complex tasks, this was simply much more
often the case for BL subjects.
Evidence of what some have called the language

deficiency of lower class blacks is not uncommon.
Two frequently cited studies were carried out at
the Institute forDevelopmental Studies in New York.
John (1963) examined "linguistic and cognitive
164
behavior" in black children from several socioeconomic levels by administering a battery of
language and IQ tests.
She found that middle class
children performed higher than the lower class

children on such measures as vocabulary, nonverbal
IQ and tasks involving use of precise and abstract
language.
Deutsch (1965) evaluated a wide range
of variables with children of different ethnicity

and social class.
He found variables which measured
abstract and categorical use of language to be

highly correlated with ethnicity and socioeconomic
status, with poorer performances by lower class
children, particularly lower class black children.
Nevertheless, a debate has raged in this country

in recent years between those who view the language
of poor black children as deficient and those who
view it as different but not deficient.
What is
called the "deficit model" is perhaps most commonly

associated with Bereiter and Engelmann (1966).
This position holds that disadvantaged children are
165
slower than middle class children in the acquisition of language.
The language they do develop
is viewed as being limited in many respects
smaller vocabulary (Goldberg, 1967), grammatical

errors (Yoneura, 1969), mispronunciation (Cheyney,
1967).
This language deficit is believed to retard
academic progress in the school setting (Hunt,

1967;
Engelmann, 1971) and is seen as not providing
an adequate basis for abstract thinking and conceptualization (Ausubel, 1967) or cognitive development
(Raph, 1965).
A primary goal of those who hold to the deficit

position is the practice of intervention to change
and improve language skills.
Their efforts have
primarily emphasized "correction" of structure

and form.
The approach has been to correct the
child's grammar and pronunciation, with the assumption that "correct" grammar and pronunciation are
the roads to cognitive development and academic
success.
166
On the other hand those who support the "difference model" maintain that "Black English" is
not a substandard variety of standard English,
but that it has a pattern of syntax and phonology
which is quite structured and consistent (Malmstrem ,
1969;
Stewart, 1969b) and that it is equally
effective for the needs of its speakers (Dillart,

1972;
Stewart, 1969b).
Proponents of this pos-
ition often have a Chomskyesque view of language

acquisition (cf. Chomsky, 1967) which minimizes
the role of parent-child interaction in favor of
what is seen as an innate capacity for language
(Lenneberg, 1964;
Houston, 1970).
It is their
view that the very fact that a child uses language

necessitates rather than precedes abstract thinking, categorization, and conceptualization (Houston,
1970;
Cazden, 1971; Menyuk, 1970).
Since the adherents of the differencemodel do

not assume the child to be lacking in linguistic
skills, they do not advocate intervention to
167
correct deficiencies (cf. Baratz and Baratz, 1970).
It is not surprising that the language intervention programs designed by deficit model theorists and emphasising linguistic structure have
seldom proven effective (Cazden, 1970).
As the
results of this research confirm, the crucial

features of language which determine its effectiveness as communication and its capacity to
organize behavior are informational rather than
structural.
There has been some evidence in recent literature of a recognition that language intervention
programs have often been misdirected.
Cazden (1971)
has noted chat the goals of education "too often

focus on language form when they should be concerned with language use."
Bernstein (1970) indicated
that his own research and philosophy have been

misinterpreted and that too much emphasis has been
given to distinctions in speech and not enough to
168
communication.
The existence of a "restricted"
code, according to Bernstein, does not mean that

teaching formal grammar will help.
Unfortunately, the frequent failure of such
intervention programs has intensified the backlash
from different model theorists who view this as
legitimation of their own assumptions (cf. Somerville,
1976).
Labov, (1969), who has written extensively on
the language of poor black children and is one of
the most frequently quoted proponents of the different model, maintains that language enrichment
programs do little good because any concepts which
can be expressed in standard English can also be
expressed in "Black Vernacular English."
The
results of this research, however, bring that

position into serious
question.
C. S. Pierce
commenting about concepts has observed (in Thayer,

1973: 226): "consider the effects. . . with practical
bearing which you conceive a concept to have . . .
169
those practical effects are all that your concept
means."
If we judge the ability of subjects in
this study to express the meaning of the taskobjects in their language in terms of effects what
do we find?
Not only that black lower class sub-
jects had consistently more trouble encoding the

tasks than the other subjects, but that these
subjects also had significantly fewer of their
directions enacted.
This research also calls into question the
assumption upon which Labov's comment appears to be
based;
that because someone uses language at all,
he possesses the full range of language-communication capabilities.
Subjects in this research were
found to possess quite different and wide ranging

language-communication skills.
In fact, many lower
class black subjects were found to be able to decode

and enact adequate directions given by other subjects even though they were themselves unable to
give such adequate directions for the tasks. The
170
results of this research are clear in this regard:
there are different levels of language skill which
have different consequences upon communication
effectiveness and behavioral organization.
Another frequently quoted supporter of the
different model, Houston (1970, 1973),'has described what she refers to as "register."
She
defines "registers" as styles of speech which are

appropriate to a given situation.
She maintains
that the nonschool register of the black child is

quite fluent and creative.
In this register a
child has no difficulty in expressing himself and

in being understood by others operating within the
same register.
It is the school register, accord-
ing to Houston, which is responsible for the misconceptions about language held by those who view
the language of the disadvantaged as deficient.
However, the subjects of this research were

not children new to the unfamiliar role of student.
They were adult, college students.
Further, the
171
language-communication problems experienced by
lower class black subjects in this study did not
arise between themselves and a teacher who used a
different "register".
Their failure to communicate,
that is, to effect successful task completion,

as the results from hypothesis 6 indicate, occurred
no less frequently when the actor was another lower
class black than when the actor was a middle class
black or a lower or middle class white.
The crucial determinant of communication
effectiveness in this research was not, as Houston
and Labov have suggested, the ethnic and socioeconomic similarity between directors and actors.
Communication effectiveness, rather, hinged primarily upon the language-communication skills, of
the directors and the tasks they faced.
It was
the task that either was cr was not encoded adequately.
The nature of the relationship between
director and actor was independent of this.

informational requirements of the task-object
If the
172
overloaded the language-communication ability of
a director, sub-cultural (ethnic, class, or
language - "register") similarities were not
sufficient compensation.
If the language-comm-
unication was inadequate, then the director was

not successful and his direction was not enacted.
If the language-communication of a director was
adequate, then the actor, irrespective of class or
ethnicity, was likely to enact the task.
It was
the variation in the complexity of the task, not

variation in the audience, which determined whether
the language-communication of a particular director
was able to encode it.
Written Versus Oral Communication

One of the criticisms sometimes made of
Bernstein's work is its preoccupation with spoken
at the expense of written data (Robinson, 1965;
Rushton and Young, 1975).
References towritten
language are rare in his work.
Lawton (1968),
quoting Vygotsky (1962), remarks that the autonomous

nature of written language suggests that the act of
173
writing might require a form of verbal planning
closer to that of Bernstein "elaborated" code.
He predicted that, as a result, social class
differences in writing would be greater than those
found in speech.
Robinson (1965), on the other
hand, has argued that as speaking is the skill

which requires the more rapidly produced sequences
of co-ordinated activity it may be that working
class subjects will find it easier to produce
complex and elaborate language in writing.
The relative skills of black and white children to express themselves m writing and in speech
has been given some attention by researchers in
this country.
A number have praised the spoken
language of poor black children for being especially creative and fluent (inter alia: Labov, 1969;
Williams, 1971; Kochman, 1969).
Some have main-
tained that the speech of young inner city children is linguistically more advanced than middle
class children of the same age (Entwisle, 1970;
Entwisle and Greenberger, 1968).
174
Obtaining both written and oral data this
study was able to look at these expectations.
The major finding was that there was little or
no difference between the effectiveness of written
and oral directions for either black or white
subjects.
There was some tendency (although
statistically not significant) for written directions to be more frequently adequate for the more
complex tasks.
Perhaps this occurs for the reasons
Vygotsky has suggested, that writing requires the

use of contextually less restrictive language.
This does not seem likely, however inthis study
since the only non-verbal communication mode
available in the oral situation not available in
the written was voice inflection.
The slight tendency for black subjects to
more often give adequate directions when giving
them orally, might appear to support the expectations of both Robinson and Labov.
But this
finding, like the former is so slight, that
175
additional study is necessary before anything can
be concluded.
The general finding that oral and written

communication did not differ in adequacy seems
most likely to be an indication that the abstract
nature of the tasks in this study required a
sophisticated level of symbolization for which
language, oral or written, is better suited than
other non-verbal means of communication,
Language-Communication of Grade School, High School

and College Students.
By concentrating upon adult subjects this

research represents a departure from the far more
common practic. of studying language differences,
codes, and consequences among children.
Yet the
small samp] of grade school and high school students in this research, coupled with the adult
sample, allow a more comprehensive perspective on
the development of language-communication skills.
The two major findings cnat emerged from this
176
of the research were 1) that older subjects generally possess more sophisticated language-communication skills than younger subjects, and 2)
that the social class differences in languagecommunication capabilities found among adult subjects were also found among the younger subjects
as well.
Neither of these findings is surprising.
In fact, it would have been much more surprising

if they had not been found.
There are some interesting findings worthy
of a word or two of comment, however.
For instance,
we can compare the differences between the groups

in terms of the five-level model of languagecommunication discussed earlier.
Tnis gives us a
glimpse of the range of language-communication

skills found among the different groups.
We found,
for example, that the adults in the study ranged

from those who could neither encode or decode the
simple tasks (level 1) to those who could both
encode and decode the more complex tasks (level 5 ) .
177
We found further that lower class black subjects
were more heavily represented at the bottom end of
this language-communication spectrum (level 1)
and that middle class white subjects were found
somewhat more frequently than the other groups
at the topend (level 5 ) .
The younger subjects as a group were heavily
concentrated toward the lower end of this spectrum,
with only one middle class high school student
at level 5.
Comparing the two high school samples we see
that the difference between the middle class and
the lower class is not in their ability to follow
simple instructions, but in following (decoding)
complex directions and, especially, in giving
(encoding) instructions.
The shared ability of a
majority of these students to decode the tasks and

the inability of most to encode them, may result
from the considerable practice they have had, in
their student role, in taking instructions and
178
being directed (and in a more general way,
reflect normal language-communication development;
observed among children by Luria).
The
grade school subjects, with less practice in the

student role, were less often able to do this.
Within the middle class grade school sample,

however, a wider range of language-communication
was found, not only than their lower class Grade
school counterparts, but also than the lower class
high school sample.
Close tohalf of the middle
class grade school subjects faced with the simpler

tasks were able to encode them adequately, a feat
only a couple of lower class high school subjects
could do.
A rather startling discovery is that the

range of language-communication skills found
among middle class grade school and high school
students is approximately the same as the range of
language-communication skills found among lower
class college students, particularly lower class
179
black college students.
Language development
among this latter group appears to have been

stunted from the beginning of their lives and to
have continued.
Finally, comparing the size of theChi-square
scores shown in table 38, we see that there is
less difference among younger subjects in languagecommunication mode used than among the older subjects (as Bruner hypothesized).
This result appears
to have occurred because of the more sophisticated

development that has taken place in the languagecommunication of the middle class subjects.
This finding is consistent with those of Deutsch

(1967).
He found that the gap between disadvantaged
children and their middle-class contemporaries

widens as the children progress through school. He
referred to this increasing difference as the accumulative deficit."
180
A Final Word
In a general and theoretical sense, the
results of this research corroborate the view of
language held by Pragmatists like Mead, Dewey and
Pierce in which language and behavioral organization are seen as interrelated and interdependent.
It likewise lends support to the Durkheimian
tradition which has seen a fundamental linkage
of symbolic systems, social structure and the
shaping of experience.
It also extends the
Worfian view of important intercultural consequences flowing from linguistic differences, to an

appreciation of important intracultural consequences which flow from different language-communication modalities.
This research demonstrates what each of these

perspectives has maintained:
that there are import-
ant correspondences between symbol and action,

language and behavior.
It has also demonstrated
that these correspondences, central to the study of

human, social behavior, can be systematically and
181
empirically investigated.
In a practical sense, this research has
important implications.
The organizational and
informational complexity of objects, ideas, physical and social systems and relationships,
actions and performances all have language-communication prerequisites.
Language which does not
meet these symbolic (informational and coding)

prerequisites is insufficient to deal with them.
If educators, for example, restrict the process
of instruction only to those things which can be
handled by the language-communication level
students have previously developed, they will of
necessity remove from consideration entire areas
of study.
This has nothing to do with teacher
attempts to make the educational experience

"relevant" or of employing language metaphors that
are "meaningful" to the sub-cultural experiences
of their students.
Of course the educational
process must be relevant and meaningful.
But it
182
means that unless student capacities to employ
language-communication is developed, the range
of "meaningful" instruction itself will be
severely limited.
Language-communication develop-
ment is the condition for the possibility of a

wider range of items, experiences, perceptions,
ideas, skills, etc. becoming meaningful for the
student.
This research indicates that the languagecommunication of lower class blacks has particular
informational limitations.
To the extent that
the problems are fundamentally social class in

origin, long term programs of intervention must
be economic and occupational as much as linguistic.
In the meantime, such programs need to emphasize
the areas of linguistic difference that makes a
difference.
It can only be counterproductive to
deny their existence and, therefore, their consequences, or to focus only upon highly visible but
largely inconsequential differences.
183
Finally, communication is often defined as
a "transfer of meaning".
In this study it can
be seen what that definition entails. Meaning

is where symbols and actions come together.
communicator is successful, accomplishes communication, to the extent that his use of symbols
(language) informs the receiver;
that is, to the
extent that the symbols can be transformed into

the actions of the receiver. Mead wrote:
"Meaning is thus a development of phases of the
social act;
it is not a psychical addition to
that act . . . . Meaning is given or stated in

terms of response . . . Its development takes
place in terms of symbolization"
(1934: 75-76).
CHAPTER IX
SUMMARY
To a considerable degree, Basil Bernstein

and his colleagues are responsible for much of
the interest that has developed in language codes
in recent years.
The focus of their studyhas been
the relationship between the social class of people

and the language they use.
Their studies do not
extend, however, to the kinds of behavioral consequences that might flow from different language
codes.
On the other hand, Alexander Luria and his
associates, with a view of language reminiscent
of Mead's, have long been studying the role of
language in the regulation and direction of
behavior.
They have not, however, investigated
whether or how the regulation of behavior might

be facilitated or impeded by differences in the
way people use language, that is, by different
language codes.
This research represents in many ways a

184
185
synthesis of the ideas of Bernstein, Luria, and Mead,
and an extension of their work.
In the process,
some of the basic inadequacies in contemporary

theorizing about the language of the "disadvantaged"
are addressed.
This research sought to determine:
1) whether
differences in language use, different language

codes, are more or less effective in organizing
and directing behavior;
2)
what the crucial
features of language which differentiate such

codes are;
3) what extent these language features
are found in the language-communication of people

from different socio-economic and ethnic groups;
and 4) to what extent these language codes influence the ability of members of these groups
to communicate effectively with each other.
This research employed a straightforward

method to study the relation between language use
and the organization of behavior.
It had sub-
186
jects (directors) give directions for a task and
then had other subjects (actors) try to follow
these directions.
Each subject was employed as
both a director and an actor.
This method allowed
effective language-communication to be compared

with and distinguished from ineffective languagecommunication.
It also allowed the social class
and ethnicity of subject-directors and subjectactors to be controlled and their language analyzed.
The major findings of this study can be briefly

summarized:
1.
Different language codes have different correspondences to the organization and direction of
behavior.
2.
The two features of language-communication

which are necessary for it to be an adequate
organizational device are context-independency
and context-specificity.
Language-communicat-
ion modes can be distinguished by the presence

or absence of these features.
187
3.
The relation between language-communication

and the organization of behavior is such that
more difficult tasks to perform are more
difficult to encode.
4.
The ability to encode and direct and to decode

and enact directions are related skills.
However, decoding is something most subjects
could do if supplied with adequate directions.
5.
Levels of language-communication skill can be

distinguished.
These represent at the lowest
level, the inability to encode or decode simple

tasks to, at the highest level, the ability
both to encode and decode complex tasks.
6.
The language of middle class subjects is more

often adequate to encode the tasks than the
language of lower class subjects, especially,
lower class black subjects.
This difference is
more pronounced on more complex tasks.

7.
Communication effectiveness within and between

members of different sub-cultural groups depends
upon the language-communication mode employed
by the communicator rather than the sub-cultural
188
similarity between directors and actors.
There is no difference between the adequacy
of written and oral directions for the tasks
used in this study.
Younger subjects are less able to encode and
decode task directions because of their
level of language-communication than older
subjects.
Social class differences in language-communication found among older subjects also
exists among younger subjects.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ausubel, David P.
1967 "How reversible are the cognitive and
motivational effects of cultural deprivation." Education of the Disadvantaged,
A. H. Passow, et al. (eds.) New York;
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Baratz, Joan C.
1969 "Language and cognitive assessment of
Negro children: assumptions and research
needs." American Speech and Hearing
Association 11: 87-91.
Baratz, Stephen S. and Joan C. Baratz
1969 "Negro ghetto children and urban education: a
cultural solution." Florida FL Reporter,
Special Anthology Issue, Alfred C. Aarons,
et al. (eds.) 7: 13-14.
Baratz, Stephen s. and Joan C. Baratz
1970 "Early Childhood Intervention."
Educational Review 40: 29-50.
Harvard
Beiswerger, H1968 "Luria*s model of the verbal control of

behavior." Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
14: 267-284.
Bern S. L.
1967 "Verbal self-control: the establishment
of effective self-instruction." Journal
of Experimental Psychology 74: 485-491.
Bereiter, C. and S. Englemann
1966 Teaching Disadvantaged children in the
Preschool. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
189
190
Bernstein, Basil
1960 "Language and social class." British
Journal of Sociology 11: 271-276.
Bernstein, Basil
1970 "A sociolinguistic approach to socialization with some references to educability". Pp. 25-61 in Frederick Williams
(ed.) Language and Poverty. Chicago:
Markham.
Bernstein, Basil
1971a Class, Codes and Control, Volume 1.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Bernstein, Basil
1971b "Social class, language and socialization."
Current Trends in Linguistics, Volume
12, Associate Editors: A. S. Abramson,
et al. (eds.) London: Mouton.
Bernstein, Basil (ed.)
1973 Class, Codes and Control, Volume 2.
Blank M. and F. Soloman
1968 "A tutorial language program to develop
abstract thinking in socially disadvantaged preschool children." Child Development 39: 379-389.
Brandis, W. and D. Henderson
1970 Social Class, Language, and Communication.
Brown, H. Rap
1972 "Street talk". Pp. 205-208 in Thomas
Kochman (ed) Rappin' and Stylin' Out.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
191
Bruck, M. and R. Tucker

1974 "Social class differences in the acquisition of school language." MerrillPalmer Quarterly 20; 205-220.
Bruner, Jerome S.
1964 "The course of cognitive growth."
can Psychologist 19: 410-425.
Bruner, Jerome S.
1971 The Relevance of Education.
Norton.
Ameri-
New York:
Cazden, Courtney B.
1966 "Sub-cultaral differences in ch:id language: an interdisciplinary review."
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 12: 185-219.
Cazden, Courtney B.
1971 "Approaches to social dialects in early
childhood education." Pp. 70-81 in
Roger W. Shuy (ed.) Sociolinguistics:
A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective.
Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics,
Cheyney, Arnold
1967 Teaching Culturally Disadvantaged in the
Elementary School. Columbus: Charles E.
Merrill.
Chomsky, Noam
1967 "Review of Skinner's Verbal Behavior."
Pp. 325-339 in John P. De Cecco (ed.)
The Psychology of Language, Thought and
Instruction. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
192
Cicerelli, S.
1968 The Impact of Head Start: An Evaluation
of the Effects of Head Start on Children's
Cognitive and Affective Development.
Bladenburg, Maryland: Westinghouse
Learning Corporation.
Cook-Gumperz, Jenny
1973 Social Control and Socialization.
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
London:
Critchley, MacDonald
1970 Aphasiology and Other Aspects of Language.
New York: Williams and Wilkins.
Dennison, G.
1969 The Lives of Children.
House.
New York: Random
Deutsch, Morton
1965 "The role of social class in language
development and cognition." American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry 35: 78-88.
Dewey, John
1896 "The reflex arc concept in psychology."
Psychological Review 3: 357-370.
Dewey, John
1929 Experience and Nature.
New York: Norton.
Dewey, John
1950 Human Nature and Conduct. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Dillard, J.L.
1972 Black English.
New York:
Random House.
Durkheim, Emile and Marcel Mauss

1901 "Primitive forms of classification:
contributions to the study of collective
representations." Anne Sociologique,
Volume 6.
193
Engelmann, Siegfried
1971 "The inadequacies of the linguistic
approach in teaching situations." Pp.
141-151 in Roger W- Shuy (ed.) Sociolinguistics: A Cross-Disciplinary
Perspective. Washington: Center for
Applied Linguistics.
Entwisle, Doris
1970 "Semantic System of Children: some assessments of social class and ethnic differences." Pp. 123-141 in Frederick Williams
(ed.) Language and Poverty. Chicago:
Markham.
Entwisle, Doris
1971 "Developmental sociolinguistics: inner
city children." Pp. 125-136 in Educating
the Disadvantaged 1968-1969, Volume 1.
Ams. Press.
Entwisle, Doris and Ellen Greenberger
1968 Differences in the Language of Negro and
White Grade School Children. ERIC Accession Number ED01876.
Ervin-Tripp, Susan
1967 Sociolinguistics. Working Paper Number
Three. New York: Language-Behavior
Research Laboratory.
Fasold, Ralph W.
1972 Tense Marking in Black English:
Linguistic and School Analysis.
Washington: Center for Applied
Linguistics.
Feigenbaum, Irwin
1970 "The use of nonstandard English in teaching standard: contrast and comparison."
Pp. 87-104 in Ralph W. Fasold and Roger
W. Shuy (eds.) Teaching Standard English
in the Inner City. Washington: Center
for Applied Linguistics.
194
Gagne, R. M. and E.C. Smith

1962 "A study of effects of verbalizations on
problem solving." Journal of Experimental
Psychology 63: 12-18.
Gahagan, D. M. and G. Gahagan
1970 Talk Reform: An Exploratory Programme
for Infant School Children. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Garretson, Wynona S.
1962 "The consensual definition of social
objects." The Sociological Quarterly
3: 107-113.
Ginsburg, Herbert
1972 The Myth of the Deprived Child. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Gluksburg, S. and J. Danks
1974 Experimental Psycholinguistics.
Halsted.
New York:
Goldberg, Miriam
1967 "Methods and materials for educationally
disadvantaged youth." Pp. 369-397 in
A. Harry Passow, et al., (eds.) Educational
of the Disadvantaged. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Goldstein, Kurt
1940 Human Nature in the Light of Psychopathology.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Goldstein, Kurt and Martin Scheerer
1941 "Abstract and concrete behavior." Psychological Monographs 53: Number 2.
Halliday, M.A.K.
1966 "Grammar, society and the noun."
Inaugural lecture delivered at University
College, London.
195
Hasan, R.
1968 "Grammatical cohesion in spoken and written
English." Part I, Nuffield Programme in
Linguistics and English Teaching, Paper
Number 7. London: Longmans.
Hawkins, Peter
1969 "Social Class, the nominal group and
reference." Language and Speech 12: Part 2,
Head, Henry
1929 Aphasics and Kindred Disorders.
Macmillan.
New York:
Henderson, Dorothy
1951 "Contextual specifically, discretion and
cognitive socialization." Sociology 4:
Number 3.
Herndon, J.
1968 The Way It Spozed to Be.
Simon and Schuster.
New York:
Hollingshead, A. B.
1957 Two Factor Index of Social Position.
Mimeographed, copyrighted publication.
Houston, Susan H.
1969 "A sociolinguistic consideration of the
black English of children in northern
Florida." Language 45: 599-607.
Houston, Susan H.
1970 "A reexamination of some assumptions about
the language of the disadvantaged child."
Child Development 41: 947-963.
Houston, Susan H.
1973 "Black English."
45-48.
Psychology Today 6:
Hunt, J.M.
1967 "Poverty versus equality of opportunity."
Pp. 47-64 in Vernon L. Allen (ed.)
Psychological Factors in Poverty. Chicago:
Markham.
196
Hurs+., C. and W. L. Jones
1966 "Psychosocial concomitants of substandard
speech." Journal of Negro Education.
Fall: 409-429.
Jensen, Arthur
1969 "How much can we boost IQ and scholastic
achievement?" Harvard Educational Review
39: 1-123.
John, Vera P.
1963 "The intellectual development of slum
children." American Journal of Orthopsy
chiatry 33: 813-822.
Johnson, Kenneth
1969 "Pedagogical problems of using second
language techniques for teaching standard
English to speakers of nonstandard Negro
dialect." Florida FL Reporter, Special
Anthology Issue, Alfred C. Aarons, et al
(eds.) 7: 78-80.
Kendler H.H. and T.S. Kendler
1962 "Vertical and horizontal process in problem
solving." Psychological Review 69: 1-16.
Kochman, Thomas
1969 "Social factors in the consideration of
teaching standard English." Florida FL
Reporter, Special Anthology Issue, Alfred
C. Aarons, et al. (eds.) 7: 87-88.
Kochman, Thomas
1969 "Culture and communications: implications
for Black English." Florida FL Reporter,
et al. (eds.) 7: 89-92.
Kohl, Herbert
1967 Thirty-six Children. New York:
American Library.
New
197
Krauss, R. and G. S. Rotter
1968 "Communication abilities of children as
a function of frequency of usage in social
interaction: a preliminary study.
Psychonomic Science 1: 113-114.
Kuhn, Manford H. and Thomas S. McPartland
1954 "An empirical investigation of selfattitudes." American Sociological
Review 19: 68-76.
Labov, William
1966 The Social Stratification of English in
New York City. Washington: Center for
Labov, William
1967 "Some sources of reading problems for
Negro speakers of non-standardEnglish."
Pp. 140-167 in Alexander Frazier (ed.)
New Directions in Elementary English.
Champaign: National Council of Teachers
of English.
Labov, William
1969 "The logic of nonstandard English."
Florida FL Reporter, Special Anthology
Issue, Alfred C. Aarons, et al (eds.)
7: 60-74.
Labov, William
1970 The Study of Nonstandard English.
Champaign: National Council of Teachers
of English.
Labov, William
1972 Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, William and P. Cohen
1967 "Systematic relations of standard and nonstandard rules." Project Literacy Reports,
Number 8. Ithica: Cornell University.
198
Labov, William, P. Cohen, C. Robins and J. Lewis
1968 "A study of non-standard English of
Negro and Puerto Rican speakers in New
York City." Final Report, U.S. Office of
Education Cooperative Research Project,
Volume 2, number 3288. Mimeographed.
Columbia University.
Lawton, Denis
1968 Social Class, Language and Education.
Leaverton, Lloyd
1971 "Should nonstandard speech patterns be
used in the urban language arts curriculum?"
Paper presented at the English: Black and
White Conference, Purdue University.
Lenneberg, Eric H.
1964 "The capacity for language acquisition."
Pp. 579-603 in Jerry A. Fodor and Jerrold
J. Katz (eds.) The Structure of Language.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Luckman, Thomas
1975 The Sociology of Language.
Bobbs-Merrill.
Indianapolis:
Luria, Alexander R.
1959 "The directive function of speech in development and dissolution." Word i5:341-365.
Luria, Alexander R.
1960 "Verbal regulation of behavior." Pp. 359423 in Mary A. Brazier (ed.) The Central
Nervous System and Behavior, Third Macy
Conference. New York: Josiah Macy, Jr.
Foundation.
Luria, Alexander R.
1961 The Role ofSpeech in the Regulation of Normal
Behavior. New York: Pergamon.
199
Macauley, Ronald K.
1976 "Social class and language in Glasgow."
Language in Society 5: 173-188.
Malmstrom, Jean
1969 "Dialects-updated." Florida FL Reporter
et al. (eds) 7: 47-49.
Mead, Geoge H.
1934 Mind, Self and Society. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
The
Mead, George H.
1936 Movements of Thought in the Nineteenth
Century. Chicago: The University of
ChicagoPress.
Mead, George H.
1956 The Social Psychology of George H. Mead.
Anselm Strauss (ed.) Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Menyuk, Paula
1970 "Language theories and educational
practices." Pp. 190-211 in Frederick
Williams (ed.) Language and Poverty.
Chicago: Markham.
Newcomb, T.
1950 Social Psychology, New York:
Rinehart and Winston.
Holt,
Pasomanick B. and H. Knoblock

1955 "Early language behavior in Negro children
and the testing of intelligence." Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology 50:
401-402.
Philips, S.
1970 "Acquisition of rules of appropriate speech
usage." Monograph Series on Language and
Linguistics 23: 77-102. J. Alatis
(ed.) Georgetown University.
200
Raph, Jane B.
1965 "Language characteristics of culturally
disadvantaged children: review and
implications." Pp. 183-208 in
Perspectives in the Education of Disadvantaged Children. Milly Cowles (ed.)
Cleveland; World Publishing.
Reese, H.N.
1962 "Verbal mediation as a function of age
level." Psychological Bulletin 59:
502-509.
Resnick, M.B., G. Weld and J. Lally
1969 "Verbalizations of environmentally deprived
twoyear olds as a function of the presence
of a tester in a standarized test situation."
Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Educational Research Association.
February. Los Angeles.
Robinson, W.P.
1965 "The elaborated code in working class
language." Language and Speech 8:243-252.
Robinson, W.P. and C. Creed
1968 "Perceptual and verbal discriminations of
'elaborated' and 'restricted' code users."
Language and Speech 11: Part 3.
Rushton, James and George Young
1975 "Context and complexity in working class
language." Language and Speech 18: 366-387.
Sapir, Edward
1921 Language: An Introduction to the Study of
Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company
Schatzman, L. and A. Strauss
1955 "Social Class and modes of communication."
American Journal of Sociology 60: 329-338.
201
Schuell, Hildred
1965 Differential Diagnosis of Aphasia with the
Minnesota Test. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Schuell, Hildred
1974 Aphasia Theory and Therapy: Selected
Lectures and Papers of Hildred Schuell.
Luther F. Sies (ed.) Baltimore: University Park Press.
Seitz, Victoria, et al.
1975 "Effects of place of testing on the
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test scores
of disadvantaged Head Start and nonHead Start children." Child Development
46: 481-486.
Stewart, W.A.
1965 "Urban Negro speech: sociolinguistic
factors affecting English teaching."
In Proceedings of Conference on Urban
School Dialects and Language Learning.
Champaign: National Conference of
teachers ofEnglish.
Stewart, W.A.
1969a "On the use of Negro dialect in the teaching of reading." Pp. 156-219 in Joan C.
Baratz and Roger W. Shuy (eds.) Teaching
Black Children to Read. Washington:
Center for Applied Linguistics.
Stewart, W.A.
1969b "Urban Negro speech: sociolinguistic
factors affecting English teaching."
Florida FL Reporter, Special Anthology
Issue, Alfred C.Aarons, et al. (eds.)
7: 58-59
Somerville, Mary Anne
1974 "Language of the disadvantaged: toward a
resolution of conduct." Journal of Negro
Education 43: 284-301.
202
Somerville, Mary Anne and John F. Jacobs
1972 "The use of dialect in reading materials
for black inner city children." Negro
Educational Review 23: 13-23.
Sudnow, David (ed.)
1972 Studies of Social Interaction.
Free Press.
New York:
Sullivan, Harry S.
1953 The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry.
New York: Norton.
Thayer, Horace S.
1973 Meaning and Action: A Study of American
Pragmatism. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Tough, Joan
1970 An Interim Report of a Longitudinal Study.
University of Leeds, Institute of Education,
Language, and Environment.
Turner, Geoffrey and R. Pickvance
1971 "Social class differences in the expression
of uncertainty in five-year-old children."
Language and Speech 14: Part 4.
Williams, Frederick (ed.)
1970 Language and Poverty.
Chicago: Markham.
Williams, Frederick
1971 "Social dialects and the field of speech."
Pp. 1-12 in Roger W. Shuy (ed.) Sociolinguistics: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective. Washington: Center for Applied
Linguistics.
Williams, Frederick and Rita Naremore
1969 "Social class differences in children's
syntactic performance: a quantitative
analysis of field study data." Journal
of Speech and Hearing Research 12: 778-793.
203
Wolfram, Walter A.
1969 A Sociolinguistic Description of Detroit
Negro Speech. Washington: Center for
Vygotsky, L.S.
1962 Thought and Language.
New York: Wiley.
Vygotsky, L.S.
1966 "Play and its role in the mental development of the child." Soviet Psychology
12: 62-76.
Yoneura, Margaret
1969 Developing Language Programs for Young
Disadvantaged Children. New York:
Teachers College Press
BIOGRAPHY OF THE AUTHOR

Gary L. Siegel was born on August 20, 1943
Illinois.
in Highland,
He grew up in Lebanon, Illinois, and atten-
ded St. Henry Prep High School and Junior College in

Belleville, Illinois.
He received a B.A. from Our
Lady of Snows Scholasticate in Pass Christian, Mississippi in 1966 and an M.A. in Sociology from St. Louis
University in 1969. He worked in educational research
for the Central Midwestern Regional Educational Laboratory in St. Louis from 1968-1970. He was a Graduate
Fellow in the Sociology Department at Saint Louis
University in 1971-1972. He was an Instructor and
Assistant Professor in the Sociology Department at the
University of Scranton 1972-1975.
He has taught at
Forest Park Community College in Saint Louis since 1975.

Married to Margaret (nee) Sheahan, he has a daughter,
Catherine.

Out

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Out

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

78-14,639

SIEGEL, Gary Lee

University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48ioe

() Copyright by Gary Lee Siegel 1977

LANGUAGE AND THE ORGANIZATION

A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate

COMMITTEE IN CHARGE OF CANDIDACY

I would like not only to acknowledge, but

CONCEPTUAL AND EMPIRICAL FRAMEWORK

IV. A PILOT STUDY: GIVING GEOGRAPHICAL

Language, Codes and the

2. Language Mode and Task Enactment .

3. Task Enactment of Directions

Task Enactment for Four Task

5. Language Mode Used for Tinker

6. Language Mode Used for Four

7. Language Mode and Social Class . .

Social Class of Directors and

Social Class of Directors and

Social Class of Directors and

13. Language Mode of Directors of

Language Mode of Directors of Different

Language Mode of Directors of

Social Class and Ethnicity of

Task Enactment (of Adequate and

Task Enactment of Adequate and

Task Enactment of Adequate and

Task Enactment by Actors of

Task Enactment by Actors of

Task Enactment of Tinker Toy

Task Enactment of Puzzle Tasks

Task Enactment by Middle and Lower

Task Enactment by Black and White

Task Enactment by Black and White

Task Enactment by Lower Cliss Black

Task Enactment by Actors of

Adequacy of Directions and Frequency of Task Enactment for Oral

Language Mode of Written and Oral

Language Mode Used by Black Directors

Task Enactment by High School Lower

Task Enactment by High School Middle

Task Enactment by Grade School Lower

Task Enactment by Grade School

Frequency of Task Enactment and

Adequacy of Directions Given by

Adequacy of Directions Given by

Task Enactment of Adequate-Plus

Task Enactment of Adequate Adult

Judged by the standards of the educational

system, the language of such children, more than

Much of the current interest in the language

guishes a "restricted code" and an "elaborated

Bereiter and Engelmann

(1966), for example (cf. also: D.M. and G. Gahagen,

and Blank and Soloman, 1968), stress programs

of direct linguistic instruction.

Interest in the connection between social class,

There has also been

considerable research in the United States on the

fortunately, there is little research dealing with

It is a central tenet of the

social sciences that the bulk of human behavior

And it has been