Buyse1 Emily Buyse Communication Theory Dr.

Langan 12/12/12 Speech Codes Theory

By Gerry Philipsen

Speech Codes theory, written y !erry "hilipsen, is a theory a out social communication across and within cultural oundaries. #t was inspired y his wor$ in youth ministry near the South side o% Chicago. Speech codes theory was created %or two main reasons. &ne, was to narrow down pre'ious research on the %irst 'ersion on speech codes. "hilipsen started his theory y ta$ing in%ormation %rom a massi'e ody o% %ieldwor$ and %orming a synthesis towards local and sociocultural conte(ts. Secondly, once the in%ormation was distilled it pro'ided a 'ision %or %urther research and discussion )!udy$unst, 2**+, pg. +,-. Throughout his theory "hilipsen analy.es si( propositions pertaining to the di%%erent aspects o% speech codes within a culture and across communities. / speech code is de%ined according to our te(t oo$, A First Look at Communication Theory as, 0a historically enacted, socially constructed system o% terms, meanings, premises, and rules, pertaining to communicati'e conduct1)!ri%%in, 2*12-. #n order to %ully comprehend a speech code it is imperati'e to understand the two2part model o% what ma$es a 0code.1 3irst, a code is something constructed y the o ser'er2analyst to etter understand the communication conduct within a particular community. The second part o% a code is the 0situated resources1 such as sym ols,

Buyse2 meanings, premises, and rules that mem ers use to name, interpret, and 4udge communicati'e conduct )!udy$unst, 2**+, pg. +5-. "hilipsen disco'ers a ma4ority o% the in%ormation %ound in his theory y personal e(perience and his ethnographical studies in an area in near where he wor$ed in Chicago. "hilipsen coined the term, 0Teamster'ille1 to re%er to the lue2collar, low2income, neigh orhood o% primarily whites that according to !erry "hilipsen in his article ased on his study o% Teamster'ille, 0share a cultural outloo$ on communication1 )"hilipsen, 165+-. These shared understandings a out spea$ing are not hard to disco'er when you spend time within the gi'en community ut mem ers within the community would not e a le to 'er ali.e them. /ll mem ers o% Teamster'ille spea$ English ut "hilipsen is set out to disco'er why their speech code was so di%%erent than the one he grew up learning %rom his school, %amily, %riends and 'arious other mem ers o% his community. # am going to ta$e a closer loo$ at the distincti'eness o% speech codes, the implicated meanings ehind them, and how they are ine(plica ly wo'en into spea$ing y closely e(amining propositions one, three, and %i'e. The distincti'eness o% speech codes is highlighted in proposition one which states, 0whene'er there is a distincti'e speech culture, there is %ound to e a distincti'e speech code1 )/l recht, "hilipsen, 1665, pg.17+- The %irst propositions is one o% the most important to understand, $nowing it will set the groundwor$ that all the rest depend on. /ll other propositions rest on this one ecause it states that there is a code within cultures that is distinct. 8ithout propositions one there would e no purpose %or the study at all. /long with setting the groundwor$ %or all theories, proposition one addresses two critical 9uestions, e%ore addressing them we must de%ine culture. The type o% culture than "hilipsen is spea$ing o% is a code not a geographic, political, or social unit. /s a stated earlier a code consists o%, 0a system o% sym ols,

Buyse3 meanings, premises, and rules a out many aspects o% li%e.1 So when culture is mentioned it is not re%erring to a particular time and place ut more so an e(plicit code that was used in particular time and place. :ow that we understand in what conte(t we use when spea$ing o% culture we can as$ two 9uestions o% this distinct speech culture and code. 3irst, 0does e'ery culture include sym ols, meanings, premises and rules a out communicati'e conduct;1 The Second is, 0do such codes di%%er in terms o% the particular words, meanings, premises, and rules a out communicati'e conduct that they include;1 "roposition one, along with !erry "hilipsen would answer oth those 9uestions with the a%%irmati'e. "ropositions one is clear that in any gi'en time and place where there is communication eing conducted people %orm 0codes o% li%e,1 and one cannot help ut %orm sym ols, meanings, premises, and rules %rom those codes. 8hen sym ols, meanings, premises, and rules are %ormed they are always distincti'e. The importance %or scholars, teachers, and practitioners o% communicators to understand this is essential in order to e e%%ecti'e. #n any gi'en time or location where a group in a particular culture has had enough time to %orm speech codes containing sym ols, meanings, premises, and rules they are distinct. This means that any scholar, teacher, or practitioner o% communication who tries to 4oin this distinct culture and communicate e%%ecti'ely, will e mista$en. #n order to enter into a new culture and understand it, or to teach things a out daily li%e, there needs to e some sort o% research in'ol'ed and potentially personal e(perience li'ing within the culture itsel%. !udy$unst claims there is no way %or someone to enter into a culture di%%erent than their own and e a le to interpret the speech codes ecause none are precisely the same )!udy$unst, 2**+, pg. +<-. This is demonstrated throughout the ethnographical study done y "hilipsen in the Chicago su ur o% Teamster'ille. "hilipsen %ound in his study that within Teamster'ille there

Buyse4 was a pattern o% appropriateness to the situational speech eha'ior. "hilipsen studied three situations within their culture= relati'ely large amount o% tal$ y men, minimum amount o% tal$ y men, and those whom which displayed other %orms o% e(pression. The correlation etween amount o% communication and social identity were e(tremely high. Studies showed that according to the tendencies o% Teamster'ille it is most socially accepted to generate the greatest le'el o% tal$ in locations percei'ed as their, 0tur%1 or in a group o% li$e2minded companions whereas a high 9uantity o% tal$ in asymmetrical relationships is highly inappropriate )"hilipsen, 165+, pg. 1>21+-. Distinguisha le speech codes such as these are %ormed due to the psychological, sociological, and rhetorical aspects within a distinct cultural en'ironment. 8ithin these en'ironments according to propositions three "hilipsen states, 0there are speech codes which in'ol'e a culturally distincti'e psychology, sociology, and rhetoric1 /long with a distincti'eness proposition three rings new su stance to the idea o% speech codes. #n other words "hilipsen is saying that understanding speech codes is not the act o% simply coding, encoding, and decoding ut it is how people are constituted, it is the guidelines %or what type o% social interactions people can let themsel'es into and what they can say in them according to social norms )/l recht, "hilipsen, 1665, pg.17<-. The three parts o% proposition three are simpli%ied in Em !ri%%ins oo$ as, the 0sel%, society, and strategic action1 that mem ers o% cultural communities are ound to display )!ri%%in, 2*12, pg. >2>-. #n order %or us to %ully understand his meaning y this we must de%ine psychology, sociology, and rhetoric in light o% speech codes. 3irst, psychology according to the ?erriam 8e ster dictionary is the mental or eha'ioral characteristics o% an indi'idual or group. By de%inition i% we loo$ at psychology and speech codes "hilipsen is strategically using this language to display that speech codes go

Buyse5 eyond all shallow implications and down our minds rooting deep into our 'ery nature as humans eings )!udy$unst, 2**+, pg. ,1-. Secondly, when "hilipsen uses the term 0sociology1 he is re%erring to the use o% speech codes eing the act o% a group as a whole. 8hat mem ers o% speci%ic cultures say is dependent on other mem er o% society and what is seen as accepta le according to the whole group. There are a num er o% implied rules that communities ha'e and mem ers are e(pected to %ollow to e socially e(cepted. 3or e(ample in the 0unwritten code1 o% Teamster'ille, speech is not a 'alued resource %or dealing with people o% lower status@wi'es, children or persons %rom outside o% the neigh orhood and lower on the social ladder. #n contrast, speech is also not resource when dealing with osses, city o%%icials, or any mem ers outside o% the community in a higher status. Speech is reser'ed in Teamster'ille %or symmetrical relationships when the speech participants are matched in age, gender, status, and ethnicity )"hilipsen, 1662-. Lastly, Ahetoric according to Em !ri%%ith in his oo$ is loo$ed at as the 0disco'ery o% truth as well as the persuasi'e appeal1 within speech codes. This Ahetoric or persuasi'e speech is 0the currency o% social interaction when participants ha'e similar social identities, including mem ership in a close2$nit %riendship groupB speech purchases an e(pression o% solidarity or assertion o% status symmetry.1 Seen in Teamster'ille the persuasion 0rhetoric1 towards outsiders when posed with a threat comes across usually as physical de%ense or 'er al putdowns. #n Teamster'ille speech is proper and %unctional in asserting male solidarity, ut not in asserting power and in%luence in interpersonal situations )"hilipsen, 1662-. The psychology, sociology and rhetoric %rom proposition three is seen in an article written y Louisa Edgerly in 2**+ to analy.e the a%termath o% Curricane Datrina in regards to the use o% the terms 0Citi.en1 and 0Ae%ugee.1 By de%inition a citi.en is a legally recogni.ed su 4ect and a re%ugee is a person who has een %orced to lea'e their country in order to escape war,

Buyse6 persecution or natural disaster. The article was in road terms, a de ate o'er the use o% the word re%ugee when it was used to la el 'ictims o% Curricane Datrina. The article %ocused on the meaning o% re%ugee, its appropriateness, and the meaning o% citi.en, which research %ound is the contrasting and e'en pre%erred category to re%ugee. /ccording to the article, 0speech codes theory see$s to unco'er particular, situated and dynamic processes o% meaning2ma$ing as they ta$e place.1 #n the study, Edgerly %ound y a close reading o% the uses and comparison etween the 0citi.en and re%ugee personae1 there is a 'ery distincti'e and representati'e understanding ehind the psychological )notions o% a person-, sociological )relations etween social groups-, and rhetorical )notions o% strategic speech- implication o% oth terms. The most stri$ing psychological suggestion %ound were the 'er s applied to each term. Edgerly writes, that on a consistent asis citi.ens were descri ed in acti'e terms, such as 0gi'ing aid1 and 0 uilding1 the city. #n contrast, re%ugees were almost always descri ed in the use o% a passi'e 'oice, the recipients o% the help that the citi.ens pro'ided. #n most articles the term was used in the conte(t that tal$s down to Datrina re%ugees as helpless, undeser'ing wanderers o% the a%termath, when in reality they still citi.ens. /s %or the sociological implications, it was decided that using the term re%ugee alienates the Datrina 'ictims, ro ing them o% their identi%ication as a true citi.en o% the

Enited States. /s one spea$er put it, 0 #t is not respect%ul to call any o% them re%ugees in their own country. :ot in a place li$e this. :ot in /merica.1 Lastly the article loo$s at the rhetoric %ound y the speech codes used in the a%termath o% this tragedy. Speci%ically, the 0actors1 in this case the go'ernment, media, citi.ens, and re%ugees were studied ased on what our cultures speech codes implies a out their role. Edgerly loo$ed at "hilipsenFs study o% the Gprescripti'e and proscripti'e rules that go'ern the speech o% citi.ens in a pu lic %orum when spea$ers engage in the discourse o% di%%erence, naming or la eling racial or ethic di%%erences etween

Buyse7 participants.1 The conclusion was that y la eling the 'ictims as re%ugees we were ta$ing away an essential part o% eing an /merican citi.en away %rom them, the act o% pu lic spea$ing. This article ser'es to pro'e that speech codes are rooted deep into our psychological, sociological, and rhetorical e(periences speci%ically in this case as /merican citi.ens )Edgerly, 2*11Lastly # want to loo$ at the %i%th proposition o% speech codes that states, 0the terms, rules, and premises o% a speech code are ine(plica ly wo'en into spea$ing itsel%.1 "hilipsenFs %i%th proposition is structured in a way that pushes its readers to as$ themsel'es, 0where should # loo$ %or e'idence o% a speech code and how can # %ind it;1 The answers to these 9uestions are that a speech code is something that can e learned y all who might ha'e a desire to learn them. /s long as you ta$e the time to watch the communicati'e conduct and listen to it, i% you spend time su merged in the culture then you will in %act start to learn the speech codes )!udy$unst 2**+, pg. ,2-. /ccording to "hilipsen in his article, 03inding &neFs 3ooting in a Cultural Terrain1 that an approach should e used the is designed speci%ically to understand that local culture on its own terms. #n this article he uses the e(ample o% a Hapanese man named Aei$o, who is attempting to assimilate into and understand the Enited States. #n order %or Aei$o to learn the speech codes o% the E.S. he needs to %irst o ser'e the conduct, and its entire element. 8hat proposition is strongly implying is that one should not merely rely on a theory a out types o% culture or a hypothesis a out the most important dimension o% social li%e. #n the process o% Aei$oFs o ser'ation, there are %our aspects o% speech codes within cultures that must e paid attention to in order to e success%ul. The things that need to e loo$ed and listened %or are )1the patterns o% communication conduct in their local setting, )2- terms that the people themsel'es in that social world use when tal$ing and thin$ing a out communicati'e conduct, )7- the use o% meta2communicati'e 'oca ulary which is simply words and e(pressionsB and )>- lastly the use o%

Buyse8 a meta2communication 'oca ulary in di'erse %orms o% communication, including ut not limited to rituals myths and stories, social dramas and aligning actions )!udy$unst 2**+-. #n conclusion, communities all ha'e distinct cultural traits most o% which speech code theory argues are em edded deep within each mem er. ?ost times the person doesnFt e'en reali.e something they do or say is a result o% the community they li'e in ecause it ecomes second nature to them. These codes are passed down, socially constructed into a communityFs history and they come with speci%ic em edded rules and purposes. Each culture contains a speech code that is speci%ic to their neigh orhood, group, community, or e'en nation. Each communityFs codes are a matter much greater than speech ut also a matter deeply rooted into their 'ery psychological, sociological, and rhetorical eing. These speech codes are so greatly implanted in each system that it ta$es a long period o% time %or an outsider to %ully grasp the meanings o% certain saying, sym ols, or eha'iors. The only way to understand another community upon which you did not grow up in is y ha'ing the desire to learn, spending a signi%icant amount o% time in that community and good o ser'ation and listening s$ills. # thin$ that !erry "hilipsen does a great 4o with his ethnographic study o% Teamster'ille. Cis theory now has allowed %or many to communicate clearly, and much more e%%ecti'ely across cultural di'ides. /lthough "hilipsen says in his theory that its intent is not to replace the actual time spent in another culture learning %or yoursel%. Aeading a theory a out another personFs culture is not as important as the physical e(perience o% learning it yoursel%. /s shown in the study o% Teamster'ille, you will ma$e em arrassing mista$es, people will ha'e a hard time understanding you at %irst, ut i% you continue to wor$ to rea$ through the cultural di'ide there is wealth in $nowledge eyond measure.

Buyse9 /s !erry "hilipsen says himsel% in the oo$, 0Spea$ing Culturally1I

0the capacity to hear other spea$ers, those who are close to as well as those who are distant %rom oneFs own pre4udices, as spea$ing culturally, seems to me to e a precondition %or any $ind o% intelligent hearing and intelligent practice o% communicati'e conduct1 )"hilipsen, 1662, pg.1>1-.

/l recht J "hilipsen, !. )1665-. Developing communication theories. :ew Kor$= State Eni'ersity o% :ew Kor$ "ress. Edgerly, L. )2*11-. Difference and political legitimacy speakers! construction of !citi"en! and !refugee! personae in talk a#out hurricane katrina$ 8estern Hournal &% Communication, 5+)7-, 7*>2722. doi=1*.1*<*/1*+5*71>.2*11.+51,+7 !udy$unst, 8. )2**+-. Theori"ing a#out intercultural communication . Thousand &a$s= Sage "u lications. "hilipsen, !. )2*1*-. Some thoughts on ho% to approach finding one!s feet in unfamiliar cultural terrain$ Communication ?onographs, 55)2-, 1,*21,<. doi=1*.1*<*/*7,755+1**75+<2>7 "hilipsen, !. )1662-. Speaking culturally . /l any= State Eni'ersity o% :ew Kor$ "ress. "hilipsen, !. )165+-. Speaking &like a man' in teamsterville culture patterns of role enactment in an ur#an neigh#orhood$ Luarterly Hournal &% Speech, ,1)1-, 17.