John Langshaw "J. L.

" Austin

Biography:

1911-1960 - Born in Lancaster in 1911, died in 1960.

- Enjoyed classical scholarship at Balliol College, Oxford.
- A lieutenant colonel who served in the British Intelligence
-

Corps, MI6 during World War II.

President of the Aristotelian Society (1956 1957)
Philosopher of Language
Whites Professor of Moral Philosophy at Oxford University

Theory:
He is most famously known for his development of the Theory of
Speech Acts which includes 3 general types of speech acts: Locutionary
Acts,

Illocutionary

emphasizes on

Acts

and

Perlocutionary

Acts.

Austins's

theory

a speech act as a minimal functional unit in human

communication. Just as a word (refusal) is the smallest free form found in

language and a morpheme is the smallest unit of language that carries
information about meaning (-al in refuse-al makes it a noun), the basic
unit of communication is a speech act (the speech act of refusal).

Speech Act Theory

According to J. L. Austin (1962), when speaking (or writing, for that

matter), we perform various acts: locutionary acts, illocutionary acts,
and perlocutionary acts. The difference between locutionary and
illocutionary acts is sometimes referred to as, respectively, the difference
between saying and doing. Thus, if I utter Leave, I am on one level
producing an imperative sentence having a specific form (the base form
of the verb with an implied you) and meaning (e.g. depart). This is the
locutionary force of this utterance, what has thus far in this chapter been
referred to as being a component of grammar. Additionally, I have
intentions when uttering this sentence, specifically I am using what is
known as a directive to get someone to do something. This is the
illocutionary force of the utterance. But utterances also have effects on
the individuals to whom they are directed: uttering Leave may have the
effect of actually causing an individual or individuals to leave, it may
upset them, it may have no effect, etc. This is considered the
perlocutionary force of the utterance.
According to Austin's theory (1962), what we say has three kinds of
meaning:
1.

propositional(locutionary) meaning - the literal meaning of

what is said
It's hot in here.
2.

illocutionary

meaning -

the

social

function

said
'It's hot in here' could be:
- an indirect request for someone to open the
window

of

what

is

- an indirect refusal to close the window because someone is

cold
- a complaint implying that someone should know better than to
keep the windows closed (expressed emphatically)
3.

perlocutionary meaning - the effect of what is said

'It's hot in here' could result in someone opening the windows

Although speech act theorists have proposed these three general
types of speech acts, they are primarily interested in speaker intentions:
the illocutionary force of utterances. To study this facet of human
communication, various types of speech acts have been proposed. Below
are five described in Austins (1962) and Searles (1969) theory on
speech acts:
Assertives/Representatives: Utterances reporting statements of fact
verifiable
as true or false (e.g. I am old enough to vote; Columbus discovered
America in 1492; Water freezes at zero degrees centigrade)
Directives: Utterances intended to get someone to do something
(e.g. Stop shouting; Take out the garbage)
Commissives: Utterances committing one to doing something (e.g.
I promise to call you later; Ill write your letter of recommendation
tomorrow)
Declarations: Utterances bringing about a change in the state of
affairs (e.g. I now pronounce you husband and wife; I hereby sentence
you to ten years in jail)
Expressives: Utterances expressing speaker attitudes (e.g. Thats a
beautiful dress; Im sorry for being so late)

A speech act can be explicit or implicit, direct or indirect, and

literal or non-literal. If a speech act is explicit, it will contain a
performative verb, a verb that names the speech act and has a very
specific structure. For instance, even though both of the examples below
are apologies (a type of expressive), only the first example contains a
performative verb:
I was abominably ill-mannered, and I apologize.
(BNC AN8 1949)
You guys Im sorry that I was late
(MICASE SGR200JU125)
Apologize is a performative verb because it literally names the
speech act that the sentence represents. In addition, it is in the present
tense and occurs with a first person pronoun. Note that if the subject and
verb tense are changed, a very different sentence results, one in which
no real apology is being made by the speaker but instead an apology
given by somebody else at some other time is described:
He apologized for all the harm hed done.
While You guys Im sorry that I was late is also an apology, here the
apology
is implicit because the verb am (contracted in Im) does not fit the
structural
definition of a performative verb: the naming of the speech act is
conveyed by the adjective sorry, not the verb am.
Additional examples of performative verbs are given below for each
of

the five types of speech acts:

Assertives/Representatives
We affirm the importance of this principle.
(BNC CLY 473)
I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis.
(Egidio Terra, Lexical Affinities and Language Applications,
unpublished doctoral dissertation. etd.uwaterloo.ca/etd/elterra2004.pdf
accessed June 18, 2008)
Directives
Pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081, dated September 21, 1972, and
in my capacity as Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, I hereby order you as Secretary of National Defense to
forthwith arrest or cause the arrest and take into your custody the
individuals named in the attached lists ...
(www.lawphil.net/executive/genor/ go1972/genor_2-a_1972.html,
accessed July 27, 2006)
Commissives
okay um, now I promise to, give out the uh, the the uh, take home
essay, final, assignment, today
(MICASE LES315SU129)
I pledge to recycle as much waste as possible at home and/or I
pledge to help organise recycling at work or at school/college.
(BNC G2V 2448)
Declarations

I declare the meeting closed.

(BNC GUD 618)
Expressives
I thank you all again for the very hard work and real effort put into
our business at all levels through 1992 without which we would not be
able to have the confidence to face the coming year.
(BNC HP4 1215)
We congratulate Mr. Hay on this well deserved honour.
(BNC GXG 624)
Speech acts can also be either direct or indirect. A speech act is
direct if its intent is clearly conveyed by the words and structure of the
utterance. For instance, each of the three examples below is a directive.
Thats enough go away
(SBCSAE)
Will you go away
(SBCSAE)
Im really uncomfortable with your being here now
(invented example)
However, only the first example is a direct speech act because the
directive, go away, is in the form of an imperative sentence, a form
conventionally associated with a directive. The other two examples are
indirect. The second sentence is a yes/no question. Typically, such
structures elicit a yes or no response. But in this context, the speaker is
asking an individual to leave but in a less direct manner. The third

example is even more indirect. It is in the form of a declarative sentence,

a form most closely associated with, for instance, a representative. But in
the appropriate context, this example too could have the intent of asking
someone to leave, though its high level of indirectness would certainly
leave room for ambiguity and potential misinterpretation.
In English, indirectness is very common with directives and is
typically associated with yes/no questions, particularly those of the form
could you or would you:
Okay would you open the front uh the screen door for me please
(SBCSAE)
Could you grab me a box of tea
(SBCSAE)
In other cases, declarative sentences are used that contain modal
verbs of varying degrees of indirectness. By using the modal verb should
in the example below, the speaker is suggesting fairly strongly that the
addressee take an introductory composition class.
You should take Intro Comp next semester.
(MICASE ADV700JU047)
However, if might want to/wanna is used instead, the command
becomes more of a suggestion:
Well you might wanna major in English
(MICASE ADV700JU047)
Indirectness in English, as will be demonstrated in a later section, is
very closely associated with politeness, since issuing a directive requires
various strategies for mitigating the act of trying to get someone to do

something, an act that can be considered impolite if not appropriately

stated.
Finally, speech acts can be literal or non-literal. Many figures of
speech in English are non-literal in the sense that the speaker does not
really mean what he/she says. It is quite common in English for
individuals to postpone saying or doing something by uttering an
expression like Ill explain why in a minute (BNC F77 450). However, the
person uttering this example does not literally mean that his/her
explanation will be forthcoming in precisely sixty seconds. Likewise, in
Yes I know its taken me forever to write you (ICE-GB W1B-001 106), the
speaker uses forever as a means of acknowledging that his/her letter has
been long forthcoming; in and I mean theres millions of ligaments and
millions of tendons you know well not millions but I mean (SBCSAE), the
speaker actually explicitly states that his utterance is non-literal: the
human body does not really contain millions of ligaments or tendons.
In other cases, literalness can be more ambiguous. For instance, its
quite common to open a conversation with an expression such as So how
are you or Hows everything. However, the person uttering these
examples does not necessarily want to know how the addressee is
feeling. And embarrassment can result if the addressee does indeed
respond by telling the speaker how badly, for instance, he/she is feeling.
The utterance We live close enough for goodness sake lets get together
one night (BNC KBK 3549) is similarly ambiguous. Does the speaker really
want to get together with the addressee, or is this simply a way of closing
a conversation?
Felicity/Appropriateness Condition
For a speech act to be successful, it needs to satisfy a series of
conditions referred to as either felicity or appropriateness conditions.
Austin and Searle (1969) proposes four such conditions: propositional

content, preparatory, sincerity, and essential. To understand how these

conditions work, it is useful to see how they apply to a very common type
of speech act, the apology.
Propositional condition: Any speech act has to have propositional
content, i.e., be expressed in a form conventionally associated with the
speech act. Apologies, as noted earlier, are typically marked with either
the performative verb apologize or an expression such as Im sorry.
Preparatory condition: Before making an apology, the speaker
obviously has to believe that he/she has done something requiring an
apology.
Sincerity condition: A key component of any apology is that the
speaker be sincerely sorry for what he/she has done. However, if a
statement is made in a work context, where the speaker is higher on the
power hierarchy than the people to whom the apology is directed, many
might doubt the speakers sincerity and dismiss the apology as
perfunctory, i.e. as something said by a superior in passing. Obviously,
whatever interpretation is made would be heavily dependent on the
superiors relationship with her workers, their past perceptions of
her/him, and so forth.
Essential condition: If the apology is not perceived as sincere, then
the speech act will ultimately fail: while it may have the form of an
apology and be directed towards some past situation requiring an
apology, if it is not accepted as an apology, the speech act becomes
meaningless.
Although all speech acts must satisfy each condition to be
successful, many speech acts are distinguished by the different ways that
they satisfy the individual conditions.
Contribution:

Austins theory contributed to a better understanding of

Speech Acts and Communication done by people in a socially
influenced context. Accordingly, Austins

Speech Act Theory is a

thought provoking issue which has attracted the interest of philosophers

of language and linguists from diverse theoretical persuasions. Manifold
aspects of the theory are being debated such as the classification of
speech acts, the relationship between speech acts and culture, and the
acquisition of speech acts by children, which proves how this area of
language research still provides room for developments and new insights.

Noam Avram Chomsky

Biography:

1928-Present - Born in Philadelphia in 1928.

- From 1951 to 1955 he was a junior fellow of the Harvard
-

University Society of Fellows,

completed his Ph.D. in linguistics in 1955.
Took up a post in the Department of Modern Languages and

Linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1955.

From1958 to 1959 he worked at the Institute for Advanced

Study at Princeton.
From 1966 to 1975 he held the Ferrari P.Ward Professorship of

Modern Languages and Linguistics, and was

appointed Institute Professor of Massachusetts Institute of

Technology in 1976.
Hailed as the father of modern linguistics.

Theory:
He is most famously known for his development of the "Universal
Grammar" theory of language development which includes 5 features:
Language Acquisition Device, Generative Grammar, X-Bar Theory,
Government and Binding/Principles and Parameters and Minimalist
Program. Chomsky's theory proposes that the human brain contains a

predefined mechanism (universal grammar) that is the basis for the

acquisition of all language. In can be supposed that the brain can be
thought of as a kind of partially programmed machine ready to be
configured. The configuration comes from encounters with the perceived
world through the senses, and thus the corresponding language pattern
forms.
Universal Grammar
The grammatical properties shared by all human languages. When
the

American

linguist

Noam

Chomsky

introduced

his

innateness

hypothesis in the 1960s, he was arguing that important parts of the

structure of human languages are built into our brains at birth. Since
about 1980, Chomsky has been elaborating his position and arguing that
certain fundamental principles for constructing sentences can be found in
all languages and must be part of our genetic endowment, present from
birth. These principles he collectively terms universal grammar.
Naturally, Chomsky attempts to formulate these principles within
his own theoretical framework, although that framework has changed
dramatically over the years. The principles are necessarily rather
abstract, having to do with things like how far apart two linguistic
elements can be within a sentence when they are linked in some way.
Chomsky and his followers are convinced that such principles
genuinely exist, and much of their work has been devoted to uncovering
them. But this has proved to be difficult: proposed principles are
endlessly reformulated to cope with recalcitrant data, and a number of
apparent counterexamples are dealt with by appealing to various
theoretical gadgets which allow the principles to be violated in certain
circumstances. Critics are often deeply suspicious of these seemingly adhoc manoeuvres, and some of them doubt whether the principles of
universal grammar are really there at all.

Language Acquisition Device

A hypothetical mental organ dedicated to the acquisition of a first
language. In the 1960s, the American linguist Noam Chomsky began
developing his innateness hypothesis, by which we are born already
knowing what human languages are like. Chomsky further elaborated his
hypothesis by arguing that children must possess a language acquisition
device, or LAD, a specific mental organ (a structure in the brain) which is
dedicated to extracting from haphazard and often degenerate speech the
generalizations required for the child to construct the necessary rules of
phonology and grammar.
Chomskys argument was an argument from necessity: because of
the seemingly formidable obstacles to language acquisition explained in
that entry, there simply must be some specialized neurological structure
which can extract generalizations and construct suitable rules, even rules
which are not overtly illustrated by the speech the child hears. But the
LAD is purely hypothetical: no one has yet identified any areas or
structures in the brain which seem to have the required characteristics,
and there is no shortage of critics who see the LAD as a fantasy.
In recent years, Chomsky himself has seemingly abandoned his
claims for the LAD in favour of an even stronger claim: he now believes
that so much information about the nature of human language is already
present in our brains at birth that all the child has to do is to set a few
switches to the correct values for the language being acquired. This is
his parameter-setting model, and it too is deeply controversial.
Generative Grammar
A grammar of a particular language which is capable of defining all
and only the grammatical sentences of that language. The notion of
generative grammar was introduced by the American linguist Noam

Chomsky in the 1950s, and it has been deeply influential. Earlier

approaches

to

grammatical

description

had

focused

on

drawing

generalizations about the observed sentences of a language. Chomsky

proposed to go further: once our generalizations are accurate and
complete, we can turn them into a set of rules which can then be used to
build up complete grammatical sentences from scratch.
A

generative

grammar

is

mechanical

and

mindless;

once

constructed, it requires no further human intervention. The rules of the

grammar, if properly constructed, automatically define the entire set of
the grammatical sentences of the language, without producing any
ungrammatical garbage. Since the number of possible sentences in any
human language is infinite, and since we do not want to write an
infinitely long set of rules, a successful generative grammar must have
the property of recursion: a single rule must be allowed to apply over and
over in the construction of a single sentence.
Chomsky himself defined several quite different types of generative
grammar, and many other types have more recently been defined by
others. A key characteristic of any generative grammar is its power: the
larger the number of different kinds of grammatical phenomena the
grammar can handle successfully, the more powerful is the grammar. But
and this is a fundamental point we do not want our grammars to have
limitless power. Instead, we want our grammars to be just powerful
enough to handle successfully the things that actually happen in
languages, but not powerful enough to handle things that do not happen
in languages.
Within certain limits, all the different kinds of generative grammar
can be arranged in a hierarchy, from least powerful to most powerful; this
arrangement is called the Chomsky hierarchy. The goal of Chomskys
research programme, then, is to identify that class of generative
grammars which matches the observed properties of human languages
most perfectly. If we can do that, then the class of generative grammars

we have identified must provide the best possible model for the
grammars of human languages.
Two of the most important classes of generative grammars so far
investigated

are

(context-free)

phrase

structure

grammar

and

transformational grammar. The second is far more powerful than the first
and arguably too powerful to serve as an adequate model for human
languages while the first is now known to be just slightly too weak (and
has been modified).
(Special note: in recent years, Chomsky and his followers have
been applying the term generative grammar very loosely to the
framework called Government-and-Binding Theory [GB], but it should be
borne in mind that GB is not strictly a generative grammar in the original
sense of the term, since it lacks the degree of rigorous formal underpinning which is normally considered essential in a generative grammar.)
X Bar Theory
A system of syntactic description based on the notion that every
constituent has a head element. The X stands for any lexical head, such
as N (noun), V (verb) or P (preposition), and the bar refers to the
notational symbol placed over the X-element to indicate the other
elements of the construction: N or N2, which can read as N bar and Ndouble-bar. The system asserts that every syntactic category is complex.
Even nouns with no other element count as noun-phrases by virtue of
having a zero entry for the bar element. This forces the analyst to treat
every construction as having a head.
X-bar theory consists of three basic syntactic assembly rules, which
allow an enormous number of permutations, since they are recursive.
First, an X-bar consists of an X (a head) plus any number of complements.
Second, an X-bar can consist of an X-bar and an adjunct, in any sequence
(this gives the recursive property). Last, an X-Phrase consists of an
optional specifier and an X-bar, in any sequence. To give an example

involving the last of these rules, a simple noun phrase like this fat book
consists of a N-bar (fat book) plus a specifier (this). The N-bar phrase
itself consists of another N-Bar (the head book with a zero bar element)
plus a specifier (fat). The system especially when drawn as a tree
gives the rules for constituent structure. The other rules, and all of them
applied to verb-phrases and prepositional phrases, can be used to
generate the syntactic sequences of, it is claimed, all the languages of
the world. Almost all current theories of grammar employ some variant
on this system.

Government and Binding Theory

A particular theory of grammar, the descendant of transformational
grammar.

During

the

1960s

and

1970s,

Noam

Chomskys

transformational grammar went through a number of substantial

revisions. In 1980, Chomsky gave a series of lectures in Pisa outlining a
dramatic revision of his ideas; these lectures were published in 1981 as a
book, Lectures on Government and Binding. The new framework
presented there became known as the Government-and-Binding Theory
(GB) or as the Principles-and-Parameters approach.
GB

represents

great

departure

from

its

transformational

ancestors; while it still retains a single transformational rule, the

framework is so different from what preceded it that the name
transformational grammar is not normally applied to it.
As the alternative name suggests, GB is based squarely upon two
ideas. First, the grammars of all languages are embedded in a universal
grammar, conceived as a set of universal principles applying equally to
the grammar of every language. Second, within universal grammar, the
grammars of particular languages may differ only in small and specified

respects; these possible variations are conceived as parameters, and the

idea is that the grammar of any single language will be characterized by
the use of a particular setting for each one of these parameters. The
number of available settings for each parameter is small, usually only two
or three.
GB is a modular framework. Its machinery is divided up into about
eight distinct modules, or components. Each of these modules is
responsible for treating different aspects of sentence structure, and each
is subject to its own particular principles and constraints. A sentence
structure is well formed only if it simultaneously meets the independent
requirements of every one of the modules. Two of those modules those
treating government and binding (the possibility that two noun phrases in
a sentence refer to the same entity) give GB its name.
Just like transformational grammar, GB sees every sentence as
having both an abstract underlying structure (the former deep structure,
now renamed D-structure) and a superficial structure (the former surface
structure, now renamed S-structure). There is also a third level of
representation, called logical form (LF). Certain requirements apply to
each one of these three levels, while further requirements apply to the
way in which the three of them are related.
The motivation for all this, of course, is the hope of reducing the
grammars of all languages to nothing more than minor variations upon a
single theme, the unvarying principles of universal grammar. But the task
is far from easy, and Chomsky, confronted by recalcitrant data, has been
forced into the position of claiming that the grammar of every language
consists of two quite different parts: a core which alone is subject to the
principles of universal grammar and a periphery consisting of
miscellaneous language specific statements not subject to universal

principles. This ploy has been seen by critics as a potentially catastrophic

retreat from the whole basis of the Chomskyan research programme.
GB was an abstract framework to begin with, but it has become
steadily more abstract, as its proponents, confronted by troublesome
data, have tended to posit ever greater layers of abstraction, in the hope
of getting their universal principles to apply successfully at some level of
representation. Critics have not been slow to see this retreat into
abstraction as a retreat from the data altogether, that is as an attempt to
shoehorn the data into a priori principles which themselves are
sacrosanct. The more outspoken critics have declared the GB framework
to

be

more

religious

movement

than

an

empirical

science.

Nevertheless, GB has for years been by far the most influential and
widely practised theory of grammar in existence.
Recently, however, Chomsky has, to general surprise, initiated the
Minimalist Program (original US spelling), in which almost all of the
elaborate machinery of GB is rejected in favour of a very different
approach.
Minimalist Program
A version of generative grammar proposed by Noam Chomsky in
the mid-1990s. The emphasis in developing transformational and
representative rules should be on making them as economical as
possible. In other words, no rules should be redundant, and every rule
should be interpretable in the sense here of rendering a final linguistic
form. The deep structure and surface structure levels of traditional
generative grammar and in Government-and-Binding Theory are removed
to leave only the logical form and the phonetic form.
Transformational-generative grammar in the hands of Chomsky can
be seen either as a unified and principled theory developing with

substantial shifts from the 1960s to the present, with Minimalism as its
latest version, or as a set of radically different revisions that each amount
to an abandonment of the previous system. Several features remain
consistent, however, to do with the emphasis on syntax and phonology,
the emphasis on generative rules, and the delineation away from the
sociolinguistic or performative context.
Contribution:
Chomskys theory contributed to the understanding of First
Language Acquisition as well as the underlying structures of
Grammar. Accordingly, Chomsky enlightened the world with his notion
that at birth our mind is not a blank slate as what the behaviourist has
posited but rather suggested that grammar is hard-wired into the brain
with sets of parameters. Through Universal Grammar, Chomsky helped us
understand different aspects of how children learn language. Chomsky's
theories explain how quickly children learn language. Further, his
influence has left its mark on mathematical linguistics, historical
linguistics, theories of language acquisition, anthropology, the study of
human cognition, biology, philosophy and the philosophy of science,
artificial intelligence, logic, music theory, literary theory, law and
theology, among other fields.

John J. Gumperz

Biography:

1922-2013 - Born in Hattingen in 1922, died in Santa Barbara in

2013.
- Earned a bachelors degree in chemistry from the University of Cincinnati
-

in 1947.
Received a Ph.D. in Germanic linguistics from Michigan in 1954.
Conducted field work in India in 1955.
Professor of Anthropology/Professor Emeritus of

the

University of California at Berkeley.

Theory:
He is most famously known for his research on Interactional
Sociolinguistics which includes 5 elements involved in any verbal
communicative event: (the speaker, the listener, the context, the
message, and the channel) using the macrosociological factors to
interpret the microconversational effects. Gumperz' research focused
mainly

on

the

complex

nature

of

intercultural

and

interethnic

communication which is contrary to structuralists, who presuppose that

human communication takes place in an ideal and nonproblematic
context where there is almost no risk of misunderstanding. He is also
notable for his research on Code switching.

Works on Interactional Sociolinguistics, Code Switching,

Contextualization Clues and Discourse Strategies
After his fieldwork in India, he shifted from purely dialectologist
research to conversational analysis, yet without overlooking his early
research interests. One of his

most influential books,

Discourse

strategies, which appeared in 1982, is a product of both theoretical

research in conversational analysis and his long years of fieldwork in
India, Europe, and the United States, where he scrutinized both
interracial and interethnic conversations. His main concern was with how
the participants in a certain conversation behave according to their
interpretation of the communicative intent. To answer this concern, he
developed the theory of contextualization cues, which he defines in
Discourse strategies (p. 131) as any features of linguistic form that
contributes to the signalling of contextual presuppositions. These
features

may

be

prosodic,

morphological,

syntactic,

lexical,

or

phonological. They may include other conversation behaviors such as

turn-taking or code-switching. In the majority of the cases, these cues
indicate how the speakers understand every part of the talk as being
sequentially connected to both what has been said before and what is
going to be said after. When the speakers fail to grasp and use the
contextualization cues appropriately, misunderstanding could result and
in some cases the communication line may break down even if the
speakers shared other linguistic features. Learning another language
does not guarantee effective communication unless the speakers are
able to interpret the contextualization cues appropriately to keep
redefining the context. Contextualization cues, then, are interpretive cues
that guide the speakers in their inferential effort in any communicative
event similar, in this sense, to the Gricean Maxims of conversation (Grice
1975). While the Gricean Maxims are theoretically applicable to universal

communication, the contextualization cues may exist across cultures but

they are still partly culture bound and even conversation-bound.
Gumperzs interpretation of code-switching as a contextualization
cue has been very significant in shaping later research on this complex
sociolinguistic phenomenon. He claims the existence of two types of
code-switching:

situational

code-switching

and

metaphorical

code-

switching. The first is produced when the codes used by the speakers
change according to the redefinition of the situation in which they are
involved. A common example is when a monolingual speaker joins a
conversation already started by bilingual speakers; they would switch to
his or her language so as not to exclude him or her. Metaphorical codeswitching, on the other hand, is caused by the change in the topic of the
conversation without changing the situation. In the following example
(Gumperz 1982a:77), the switch to Hindi by speaker B shows the rupture
with the formal conversation that he was carrying out with speaker A. The
change in the topic of the conversation stands behind the switch and not
the change in the speakers since speaker C was present from the
beginning.
A group of Hindi speaking graduate students are discussing the
subject of HindiEnglish code-switching:
A: Sometimes you get excited and then you speak in Hindi, then again
you go on to English.
B: No nonsense, it depends on your control of English.
B: [shortly thereafter turning to a third participant, who has just returned
from answering the doorbell] Kn hai bai (who is it)?
One of the main explanations for the occurrence of code-switching
is the in-group vs. out-group theory as elaborated by Gumperz (1972,
1982a). He refers to code-switchers as the individual speakers who, for

different reasons, find themselves living in an ethnically and culturally

diverse setting. This includes the case of immigrants who usually manage
to keep their first language (L1) to communicate among themselves in
their restricted speech communities, but who find themselves using the
majoritys language, generally the official language of the host country,
basically at work and education. Within the boundaries of the ingroup,
the individual speaker tends to use the we code, i.e. the L1 of his or her
own speech community. An example is Spanish for the Puerto Rican
community in New York extensively studied by Gumperz and others.
During the interaction with members of the out-group, i.e. members of
the majority or any other speech community, the tendency is to use the
they code, which is the majority language.
In some cases, the continuous switch back and forth between two
codes can be an indicating strategy of the speakers neutrality with
regard to contending parties or ideologies that are associated with
different codes. On the other hand, religious or political issues, among
others, are often discussed in the code that is most often associated with
them.
In his later book edited with S.C. Levinson, Rethinking linguistic
relativity, Gumperz revisits his theory of contextualization cues to
comment on the relationship that language has with thought and culture
and the way it shapes our conception of the world. The editors signal the
changes in the understanding of the Sapir- Whorf hypothesis and its
implication for the theories of linguistic relativity. Here again, Gumperz
manages to give equal importance both to the macrosociological and
cultural factors and the very specific microconversational features in
each communicative event.
Contribution:

Gumperz works contributed to the benefit of the study

of sociolinguistics, discourse

analysis, linguistic

anthropology,

and urban

anthropology.

studies show exchanges in a

range of social situations

and it is especially concerned

with discourse as it occurs

across cultures, seeking to

pinpoint the sources of the

misunderstandings that can

arise. Accordingly, he

also showed that code

switching,

unconscious,

triggers,

including

need to encode information

about

the

relationships

the discourse. As Deborah

had

specific

underpinning

His

however
the
social

Tannen posits, He was one of the first people to look at how language is used by people
in their everyday lives.

Stephen Krashen

Biography:

1941-Present - Born in Chicago in 1941.

- Spent two years in the Peace Corps in Ethiopia where he
-

taught eighth grade English and science.

Krashen pursued a Ph.D. in Linguistics at the University of
California, Los Angeles, culminating with his 1972 dissertation
"Language and the Left Hemisphere."

Took up a Ph.D. in Linguistics at the University of California,

Los Angeles in 1972.

Joined the USC School of Education in 1994.
Published over 350 papers and books, and has presented
keynote and plenary addresses at the National Association for

Bilingual Education, and many other conferences.

A professor of Linguistics at the CUNY Graduate Center and
the Linguistics Department of the University of Southern
California.

Theory:
He is most famously known for his Theory of Second Language
Acquisition (SLA), which comprises 5 hypotheses: Acquisition-Learning
Hypothesis, the Input Hypothesis, Monitor Theory, the Affective Filter, and
the Natural Order Hypothesis. Dr. Krashen puts great emphasis on the
nature of non-English acquistion and a rejection of common beliefs such
as the need for conscious grammatical rules or tedious drill.
Theory of Second Language Acquisition
The Acquisition-Learning distinction is the most fundamental of
all the hypotheses in Krashen's theory and the most widely known among
linguists and language practitioners.
According to Krashen there are two independent systems of second
language performance: 'the acquired system' and 'the learned system'.
The 'acquired system' or 'acquisition' is the product of a subconscious
process very similar to the process children undergo when they acquire
their first language. It requires meaningful interaction in the target

language - natural communication - in which speakers are concentrated

not in the form of their utterances, but in the communicative act.
The 'learned system' or 'learning' is the product of formal
instruction and it comprises a conscious process which results in
conscious knowledge 'about' the language, for example knowledge of
grammar rules. According to Krashen 'learning' is less important than
'acquisition'.
The Monitor hypothesis

explains

the

relationship

between

acquisition and learning and defines the influence of the latter on the
former. The monitoring function is the practical result of the learned
grammar. According to Krashen, the acquisition system is the utterance
initiator, while the learning system performs the role of the 'monitor' or
the 'editor'. The 'monitor' acts in a planning, editing and correcting
function when three specific conditions are met: that is, the second
language learner has sufficient time at his/her disposal, he/she focuses
on form or thinks about correctness, and he/she knows the rule.
It appears that the role of conscious learning is somewhat limited in
second language performance. According to Krashen, the role of the
monitor is - or should be - minor, being used only to correct deviations
from 'normal' speech and to give speech a more 'polished' appearance.
Krashen also suggests that there is individual variation among
language learners with regard to 'monitor' use. He distinguishes those
learners that use the 'monitor' all the time (over-users); those learners
who have not learned or who prefer not to use their conscious knowledge
(under-users); and those learners that use the 'monitor' appropriately
(optimal users). An evaluation of the person's psychological profile can
help to determine to what group they belong. Usually extroverts are
under-users, while introverts and perfectionists are over-users. Lack of
self-confidence is frequently related to the over-use of the 'monitor'.

The Natural Order hypothesis is based on research findings

(Dulay & Burt, 1974; Fathman, 1975; Makino, 1980 cited in Krashen,
1987) which suggested that the acquisition of grammatical structures
follows a 'natural order' which is predictable. For a given language, some
grammatical structures tend to be acquired early while others late. This
order seemed to be independent of the learners' age, L1 background,
conditions of exposure, and although the agreement between individual
acquirers was not always 100% in the studies, there were statistically
significant similarities that reinforced the existence of a Natural Order of
language acquisition. Krashen however points out that the implication of
the natural order hypothesis is not that a language program syllabus
should be based on the order found in the studies. In fact, he rejects
grammatical sequencing when the goal is language acquisition.
The Input hypothesis is Krashen's attempt to explain how the
learner acquires a second language. In other words, this hypothesis is
Krashen's explanation of how second language acquisition takes place.
So, the Input hypothesis is only concerned with 'acquisition', not
'learning'. According to this hypothesis, the learner improves and
progresses along the 'natural order' when he/she receives second
language 'input' that is one step beyond his/her current stage of linguistic
competence. For example, if a learner is at a stage 'i', then acquisition
takes place when he/she is exposed to 'Comprehensible Input' that
belongs to level 'i + 1'. Since not all of the learners can be at the same
level of linguistic competence at the same time, Krashen suggests
that natural communicative input is the key to designing a syllabus,
ensuring in this way that each learner will receive some 'i + 1' input that
is appropriate for his/her current stage of linguistic competence.
Finally,

the

fifth

hypothesis,

the Affective

Filter hypothesis,

embodies Krashen's view that a number of 'affective variables' play a

facilitative, but non-causal, role in second language acquisition. These

variables include: motivation, self-confidence and anxiety. Krashen claims

that learners with high motivation, self-confidence, a good self-image,
and a low level of anxiety are better equipped for success in second
language acquisition. Low motivation, low self-esteem, and debilitating
anxiety can combine to 'raise' the affective filter and form a 'mental
block'

that

prevents

comprehensible

input

from

being

used

for

acquisition. In other words, when the filter is 'up' it impedes language

acquisition. On the other hand, positive affect is necessary, but not
sufficient on its own, for acquisition to take place.
The Role of Grammar in Krashen's View
According to Krashen, the study of the structure of the language
can have general educational advantages and values that high schools
and colleges may want to include in their language programs. It should
be clear, however, that examining irregularity, formulating rules and
teaching complex facts about the target language is not language
teaching, but rather is "language appreciation" or linguistics.
The only instance in which the teaching of grammar can result in
language acquisition (and proficiency) is when the students are
interested in the subject and the target language is used as a medium of
instruction. Very often, when this occurs, both teachers and students are
convinced that the study of formal grammar is essential for second
language acquisition, and the teacher is skillful enough to present
explanations in the target language so that the students understand. In
other words, the teacher talk meets the requirements for comprehensible
input and perhaps with the students' participation the classroom
becomes an environment suitable for acquisition. Also, the filter is low in
regard to the language of explanation, as the students' conscious efforts
are usually on the subject matter, on what is being talked about, and not
the medium.

This is a subtle point. In effect, both teachers and students are

deceiving themselves. They believe that it is the subject matter itself, the
study of grammar, that is responsible for the students' progress, but in
reality their progress is coming from the medium and not the message.
Any subject matter that held their interest would do just as well.
Contribution:
Krashens theory contributed to the understanding of the
Second Language Acquisition. Accordingly, Krashen believes that
there is no fundamental difference between the way we acquire our first
language and our subsequent languages. He claims that humans have an
innate ability that guides the language learning process. Infants learn
their mother tongue simply by listening attentively to spoken language
that is (made) meaningful to them. Foreign languages are acquired in the
same way.

Deborah Tannen

Biography:

1945-Present - Born in New York in 1945.

- Tannen graduated from Hunter College High School and
completed her undergraduate studies at Harpur College (now
part
-

of Binghamton

University)

with

B.A.

in

English

Literature.
Earned a Masters in English Literature at Wayne State
University. Later, she continued her academic studies at UC
Berkeley, earning an M.A. and a Ph.D. in Linguistics.A
professor of Linguistics at the CUNY Graduate Center and the
Linguistics

Department

the

University

of

Southern

California.
Her book " You Just Don't understand Women and men in
conversations"

of

highlighted

gender

differences

in

communication style to the forefront of public awareness.

A professor of Linguistics at the Georgetown University
College of Arts and Sciences and a McGraw Distinguished
Lecturer at Princeton University and was a fellow at the
Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in
Stanford, California, as well as a resident at the Institute for
Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.

Theory:
She is most famously known for her Difference Theory and the
Genderlect Styles, which includes 6 categories: Status vs. support,
Independence vs. intimacy, Advice vs. understanding, Information vs.
feelings, Orders vs. proposals, Conflict vs. compromise and 7 styles:
Connection vs. status, Rapport vs. report, Public Speaking vs. private
speaking, Telling a story, Listening, Asking Questions and Conflict;

Dr.

Tannen examines the effect that gender has on language use and
emphasizing cross-gender communication, the male and female genders
are often presented as being two separate cultures thereby having
difference.
Difference Theory
Status versus support
Men grow up in a world in which conversation is competitive - they
seek to achieve the upper hand or to prevent others from dominating
them. For women, however, talking is often a way to gain confirmation
and support for their ideas. Men see the world as a place where people
try to gain status and keep it. Women see the world as a network of
connections seeking support and consensus.
Independence versus intimacy
Women often think in terms of closeness and support, and struggle
to preserve intimacy. Men, concerned with status, tend to focus more on
independence. These traits can lead women and men to starkly different
views of the same situation. Professor Tannen gives the example of a
woman who would check with her husband before inviting a guest to stay
- because she likes telling friends that she has to check with him. The
man, meanwhile, invites a friend without asking his wife first, because to

tell the friend he must check amounts to a loss of status. (Often, of

course, the relationship is such that an annoyed wife will rebuke him
later).

Advice versus understanding

Deborah Tannen claims that, to many men a complaint is a
challenge to find a solution: When my mother tells my father she doesn't
feel well, he invariably offers to take her to the doctor. Invariably, she is
disappointed with his reaction. Like many men, he is focused on what he
can do, whereas she wants sympathy.
Information versus feelings
A young man makes a brief phone call. His mother overhears it as a
series of grunts. Later she asks him about it - it emerges that he has
arranged to go to a specific place, where he will play football with various
people and he has to take the ball. A young woman makes a phone call it lasts half an hour or more. The mother asks about it - it emerges that
she has been talking you know about stuff. The conversation has
been mostly grooming-talk and comment on feelings.
Historically, men's concerns were seen as more important than
those of women, but today this situation may be reversed so that the
giving of information and brevity of speech are considered of less value
than sharing of emotions and elaboration. From the viewpoint of the
language student neither is better (or worse) in any absolute sense.
Orders versus proposals

Women often suggest that people do things in indirect ways let's, why don't we? or wouldn't it be good, if we...? Men may use,
and prefer to hear, a direct imperative.
Conflict versus compromise
In trying to prevent fights, writes Professor Tannen some women
refuse to oppose the will of others openly. But sometimes it's far more
effective for a woman to assert herself, even at the risk of conflict.
This situation is easily observed in work-situations where a
management decision seems unattractive - men will often resist it
vocally, while women may appear to accede, but complain subsequently.
Of course, this is a broad generalization - and for every one of Deborah
Tannen's oppositions, there are and will be, men and women who are
exceptions to the norm.
Professor Tannen concludes, rather bathetically, and with a hint of
an allusion to Neil Armstrong, that: Learning the other's ways of talking
is a leap across the communication gap between men and women, and a
giant step towards genuine understanding.
Genderlect Styles
Connection vs. status
According to Tannen, women seek connection in conversation while
men are concerned primarily with status. They are always hard at work to
preserve their position in the hierarchy. She posits that a womans desire
for intimacy threatens the male independence and his need to be one up.
She however states that sometimes men want intimacy and women
want power also, but it isnt always possible.

Rapport vs. report

Tannen defines rapport talk as a typical conversation style of
women, which seeks to establish a connection with others and report talk
as a typical monologue style of men, which seeks to command attention,
convey information, and win arguments.
In order to state that women focus on intimacy and men focus on
power, Tannen analysizes conversations between men and women.
Tannen focuses on speakers from feminine cultures and masculine
cultures to identify their core values. She believes that the linguistic
differences between the two verifies her statement.

Private speaking vs. public speaking

According to folk wisdom, women talk more than men do. On the
other hand, Tannen states that men use words as weapons. Mens rare
exposure of his personal life is done over competitive situations (jogging,
watching football, etc.). Behind close doors, men no longer feel the urge
to protect themselves with words.
Telling a story
In conjunction with Narrative Paradigm, Tannen agrees that stories
reveal much about a persons hopes, needs, and values. In men, focusing
to preserve their hierarchy status, they tell jokes and stories. This is their
way of saying Can you top this?, which holds your attention. Their
stories often portray themselves as heroes, overcoming great obstacles
on their own which may be construed as their disposition in achieving
status.

Women, on the other hand,

express their desire for connection

when telling stories about others, often sharing stories of foolishness and
downplaying themselves.
Listening
Throughout conversation, Tannen states taht women offer head
nods, eye contact and react with small responses to show theyre
listening.
To men however, agreeing means to put himself in a vulnerable
position, or a one-down stance. Because of their lack of agreement,
women usually think men arent listening.
Women see cooperative overlap that is a supportive interruption
often meant to show agreement and solidarity with the speaker, as a
means of agreeing and supporting, however, men see it as an attempt to
steal power.
It is therefore believed that the differences in style of conversation
are the root of irritation between males and females.
Asking Questions
According to Tannen, women ask questions in order to establish a
connection

with

someone.

Women

often

tag their opinions

with

questions. These questions are short questions at the end of a

declarative statement, often used by women to soften the sting of
potential disagreement or invite open, friendly dialogue. (e.g. Look at
our Christmas tree, isnt it so pretty?)
On the other hand, a man asking questions is, in his eyes showing
ignorance and weakness, (e.g. Asking for directions.)
Conflict

According to Tannen, men are comfortable with confrontation because

this is their chance to win an argument. Women, however, avoid conflict
because this is a chance of threatening her connection with someone.
Another conflict between men and women is when a woman tells a
man what to do. This also threatens the mans need to feel in control of
the situation.
Understanding each other
Tannen mentions sensitivity training as an effort to teach men how
to speak in a feminine voice. Assertiveness training is an effort to teach
women how to speak in a masculine voice. She believes there is hope for
men and women to bridge their communication gap through these
trainings.
Contribution:
Tannens

theory

contributed

to

the

understanding

of

Language and Gender. Accordingly, Tannen believes the goal of

difference/genderlect theory is to acknowledge and appreciate the
language of

the opposite sex

and achieve mutual respect

and

understanding. So to speak, in contrast to feminist viewpoints that

criticize

men

for

inferior

communication

that

represses

women,

Genderlect Theory simply identifies the differences between men and

women

and

encourages

both

communicative culture of the other.

to

acknowledge

and

accept

the

Works Cited
Brown, K. (2005). Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Elsevier.
Brown, K. (2010). Concise Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language and
Linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier.
Malmkjr, K. (2012). The Routledge Linguistic Encyclopedia. New York:
Routledge.
Meyer, C. F. (2009). Introducing English Linguistics. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Routledge, S. C. (2009). Key Ideas in Lingustics and Philosophy of
Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Stockwell, R. T. (2007). Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics. New
York: Routledge.
Strazny, P. (2005). Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Fitzroy
Dearborn.