Application of
Speech Codes
Theory
(The Ethnography of Communication)
by Jeff Collett
Gerry Philipsen attempts to explain and categories people into different categories based on their speech codes. A speech code is a system of socially constructed symbols and meanings, premises, and rules pertaining to communicative conduct. These speech codes group people by their social class, economic class, age and location.
Although his speech code theory gives a basic foundation of speech codes, I feel that there needs to be more than two groups to group everyone into. I realize he only has so much time to do an in-depth study on a certain group/community, but there needs to be more. I have counter examples of his theory.
In my experiences of this past summer I feel that his Speech Code Theory is not solid. I worked at a factory ( Jackson Tube Service) this summer that would be classified as his Teamsterville people. I also worked at the Piqua Country Club. This group of people would be defined as his Nacirema. The diverse group of people really didn't have that many differences in speech codes, but yet I would classify them as different cultures. One of the Propositions I feel is weak is:
Proposition 1: Wherever there is a distinctive culture, there is to be found a distinctive speech code.
In my argument, I compare the culture of the typical factory worker that I worked with to the typical person I was subjected to at the country club. The factory workers were white and black males from the ages of twenty-five to thirty. They all have a maximum of a high school education and most of which are on their second or third marriage. They make around thirty- thousand dollars a year (more if they work a lot of overtime.) The other group I was subjected to was at the Country Club were white males between the ages of twenty-seven to forty. They have a college education and even more. Most are reputable businessmen, doctors, and lawyers. They make anywere from eighty thousand to multiple millions a year. When it comes down to it these two groups of men have the same speech codes. I detected no difference in meanings, or rules of their speech. They both talked about anything and everything and used the same dialect and profanity. There were exceptions. For example, if a doctor was talking to another doctor or a lawyer to another lawyer there was a distinct dialect between them, but that was within the same profesion with their own language. Maybe the two groups aren't so different after all. Maybe one can't define a certain speech code to one specific area or culture.
So in light of all that I learned, I would conclude by saying that Gerry Philipsen needs to define the distinct groups better and definitely add more.
