Alf 1
Speech Codes Theory of Gerry Philipsen
Chelsie L. Alf
Introduction
Through Gerry Philipsen’s observations of various ethnographies, he discovered that
each culture possesses certain historically and socially constructed systems of rules and
meanings in relation to communicative conduct (Griffin, 2011). He named these patterns that
people follow speech codes. Contrasting speech codes can cause communication barriers and
conflict. Trying to adapt to a culture’s code will usually yield positive communicative results.
Philipsen’s exploration of two drastically different speech codes paints a picture of the ways in
which speech codes serve the people of a community.
Summary
Gerry Philipsen was influenced by anthropologist and linguist Dell Hymes to study
communication practices around the world. He read Hymes’ article “The Ethnography of
Speaking” in which Hymes said in order to study communicative practices of other cultures, it is
necessary to use an ethnological approach. Philipsen took Hymes’ challenge and conducted
much ethnography in search of the explanation of cultures’ communication practices. Philipsen
started his research in the Chicago area with a community he named “Teamsterville.” He
conducted this ethnography for three years in which he talked to the people of the city to
determine the speech codes of Teamsterville residents. Philipsen noticed that although the people
of Teamsterville spoke English, their speech code was much different than his. This sparked
interest in conducting another ethnographic study at the University of California, Santa Barbara
and the University of Washington, Seattle. The speech code he came across he labeled
“Nacirema” (American spelled backward) since their language was common among many
Alf 2
Americans. This type of speech is “generalized U.S. conversation that is carried out at the public
level and at the interpersonal lever in face-to-face interaction” (Griffin, 2011, p.421).
Philipsen had a main goal to craft a theory that would seek to explain the relationship
between communication and culture. This would ultimately help cultural researchers interpret the
way in which people speak. His speech codes theory explains the existence of speech codes, how
to find them in a community, and their influence within a certain culture. In his interpretive
theory which falls under the socio-cultural tradition, he outlined the six general propositions of
the theory.
The first proposition is, “wherever there is a distinctive culture, there is to be found a
distinctive speech code” (Griffin, 2011, p.422). Philipsen found that the codes differed between
Teamsterville and Nacirema. Teamsterville focused mostly on cultural unity and did not
welcome diversity. The Nacirema used speech to show psychological uniqueness. People within
specific cultures take their speech codes for granted; a quality that Philipsen said is very
common.
The second proposition is, “In any given speech community, multiple speech codes are
deployed” (Griffin, 2011, p.423). In Teamsterville, men define their speech by contrasting it
with various codes. The Nacirema also vary in dialogue and move between multiple speech
codes. Dell Hymes also pointed out that a community could be operating under more than one
code meaning that people may be affected by other codes or use more than one.
The third proposition that Philipsen described is, “A speech code involves a culturally
distinctive psychology, sociology, and rhetoric” (Griffin, 2011, p.424). Speech codes will always
depict structures of self, society and strategic action. Speech codes depict individuals in different
ways. For example, the Teamsterville code focused on numerous social roles and steered focus
Alf 3
away from the individual whereas Nacirema code zeroed in on an individual and their
uniqueness. Much like Aristotle’s claims about the importance of rhetoric, every speech code
aims at discovering truth and creating persuasive appeals.
The fourth proposition says, “The significance of speaking depends on the speech codes
used by speakers and listeners to create and interpret their communication” (Griffin, 2011,
p.425). Each culture has the opportunity to decide what their speech means. For instance, the
word communication held high meaning for the people of Nacirema, but the people of
Teamsterville, although they knew the word and used it occasionally, did not regard it as very
important. If outsiders want to learn the code of a culture, they must listen to the culture’s speech
and respond to it.
Next, the fifth proposition states, “The terms, rules, and premises of a speech code are
inextricably woven into speaking itself” (Griffin, 2011, p.427). Philipsen felt that analyzing the
speech of native speakers would present the code of any culture. In addition, totemizing rituals
which involve paying homage to sacred objects through performance of structured sequences,
offer another way to analyze a culture’s speech code. The Nacirema believed the communication
ritual was the most important to solve all problems.
The last proposition says, “The artful use of a shared speech code is a sufficient condition
for predicting, explaining, and controlling the form of discourse about the intelligibility,
prudence, and morality of communication conduct” (Griffin, 2011, p.428). This means that if
cultures are subject to a certain speech code, they still have the ability to resist it.
Metacommunication, talk about talk, is a key feature of the speech codes theory and proposition
six suggests that people can guide metacommunication through the thoughtful use of shared
speech codes.
Alf 4
Just like Philipsen, Dwight Conquergood engaged in performance ethnography which is
“a research methodology committed to performance as both the subject and method of research,
to researchers’ work being performance, and to reports of fieldwork being actable” (Griffin,
2011, p.429). Conquergood believed life to be about “performances about performances about
performances” otherwise known as metaperformances (Griffin, 2011, p.429). He saw rituals,
festivals and games to be metaperformances because the actions were symbolic to the members
who performed them. In addition, performance ethnography almost always occurs among
oppressed or marginalized groups. Usually this is because non-dominant groups have a strong
sense of culture and dignity. Viewing these types of groups can give them more of a voice in
society and help other groups to learn about them.
Interview
In Gerry Philipsen’s interview, Em Griffin was intrigued by Philipsen’s use of
ethnography as a research method (Griffin & Philipsen, 2011). This method is something that
was not very popular when the two graduated from graduate school. Philipsen commented that
he got the idea to do ethnography because it was a practical necessity where he was working in
Chicago after graduate school. He said he either had to adjust to their speech pattern or be a
complete failure. From conducting numerous ethnographies, he drew conclusions to form speech
code theory.
Speech codes are grounded in knowledge from ethnographies and Philipsen said are key
to understanding the world through different lenses (Griffin & Philipsen, 2011). Philipsen
elaborated on his fifth proposition by saying that other speech codes may be unattractive, but
trying to adopt them will only better understanding of a culture. Moral behavior in one
Alf 5
community may be social deviance in another. Making efforts to view the world through various
perspectives helps a person appreciate different cultures.
Philisen also made a distinction that the Nacierma society put a large emphasis on unique
individualism (Griffin & Philipsen, 2011). Griffin related this to communication scholars and
communication departments that focus on interpersonal communication and self-disclosure.
These groups value communication just as the Nacirema valued it as a means of understanding
each other and clearing any confusion among people. Philipsen came from this Nacirema
background, but removed his biases to perform ethnographies and be able to fully enter other
worlds around him and explain their speech codes.
Relationship to other Theories
This theory relates to a few other theories discussed in Communication Theory. In chapter
35 on standpoint theory, Harding and Wood point out that marginalized groups such as women,
the poor and racial minorities are the most important subjects of research in providing the most
accurate view of the world as opposed to the white male. This relates to speech code theory
because marginalized groups are also featured in research mainly due to their strong sense of
culture and dignity. They embody their culture making them good subjects for speech code
research.
Speech codes theory also relates to the chapter on cultural approach to organizations in
which Geertz was an ethnographer and made a thick description of the marginalized group that
he studied just as Philipsen did. More specifically, Geertz found rituals within the culture that
represented multiple aspects of cultural life similar to how Philipsen found the totemizing rituals
sacred to a culture’s speech code. In addition to group membership, communication
Alf 6
accommodation theory states that people will diverge if the group membership matters. This is
relevant to what Philipsen found in his two studied cultures.
In chapter 5 symbolic interactionism,” Mead discusses the importance of shared
meanings in various cultures. Without symbolic interactionism, cultures would not be able to
communicate with each other. Geertz and Pacanowsky describe culture as webs of significance
that bind people together. Philipsen studied the people of Teamsterville and Nacirema who
displayed shared meanings through their speech codes. Different speech codes are what make a
community unique because it is something distinct from other cultures that only the people of
that culture understand.
Critiques of the Theory
Application Log
This theory is very relevant to interpersonal communication. I can apply it to my own life
every time I step outside my comfort zone and deal with people who may use a different speech
code than I am used to. When this happens I have two choices: 1) try my best to conform to the
speech code or 2) continue with my own speech code which I feel comfortable with. The
problem with sticking to what I know is that others may not respond in a positive way. If I
conform to their code, they may favor my efforts to communicate with them in this way
therefore, giving me entrance into their community. Philipsen said that the people of
Teamsterville were very collectivistic and were concerned about other peoples’ nationality and
origin before they accepted them. If I choose to communicate with my own speech code, it may
result in a limited capacity to enter another culture’s world.
Thinking back to my trip to the East Coast this summer, at times I adjusted my
Southeastern Wisconsin accent and grammar usage to mesh with the society as well as to seem
Alf 7
more credible to my boyfriend’s family. On a few occasions, I kept my mispronunciation of
“bag” or “rag” because I felt a little lost in the pace of their society and wanted to own my proud
Wisconsin roots. Changing speech codes takes work and it is easy to slip up. Making an effort
though, made a difference and my boyfriend was quite impressed with me.
Other Theorists’ Critique
Philipsen is critiqued by feminist and critical perspectives that imply he overlooks power
relationships (Griffin, 2011). Specifically, the male hegemony in Teamsterville and the Nacirema
patterns of domination are not further assessed. Philipsen defends himself as an ethnographer
making it his job not to make an issue of something that is not an issue. He is a firm believer that
if power is an issue it will be obvious in the way the culture speaks.
Griffin (2011) appreciates the long-term commitment to participant observation that
Philipsen endured. He does however criticize his notion to generalize his finding across cultures.
Furthermore, Griffin wishes Philipsen would have used more data sets than just the two. His
argument is that the Teamsterville and Nacirema codes are too opposite and it would not be fair
to categorize the world into those two cultural divisions. Griffin does go on to say that he knows
is was not Philipsen’s intention to categorize the cultures into two categories, but there is no
evidence to revoke that. Griffin concludes that his critiques are minor in comparison to
Philipsen’s accomplishments in the field of ethnography. Philipsen has spread awareness of
ethnographical study to other cultural scholars making ethnography more widely known than it
used to be.
My Critique
I agree with Griffin that there are countless other ways to categorize speech codes found
in a community. Perhaps a wider spectrum of data would support his findings better and provide
Alf 8
more classifications. I think providing a description of more speech codes found among cultures
would give the study greater support and yield results that could be relevant to more groups of
people.
I support Griffin’s statement that Philipsen is a dedicated scholar who has devoted
incredible time to his research on speech codes theory. His extensive knowledge gained from
ethnographies has helped expand the field and opened doors to learning different ways in which
people communicate within a culture. The theory helped me realize the abundance of speech
codes I am surrounded by and how understanding those codes and accommodating to them may
help my communication with others.
Overall, the theory is in line with the interpretive tradition. It provides a new
understanding of people by gaining knowledge on various cultures. It clarifies values by bringing
others’ values into the open and analyzing them. Speech codes capture aesthetic appeal and
contain content and styles with which people either relate to or drastically differ from. Even
though the theory does not have extensive pre-existing literature, it sparks a community of
agreement among other scholars who support and are intrigued with the theory. Finally, it
follows the use of qualitative analysis through the use ethnographies to find patterns of codes
among cultures.
Conclusion
Philipsen added great knowledge to the world of communication by recognizing speech
codes among different people. His dedication to the field of ethnography also strengthened the
use of the method for future communication scholars. His findings display to others the ways in
which people interpret and make sense of their own world. Recognizing codes among cultures
will help unite people and break the barriers of miscommunication.
Alf 9
References
Griffin, E.A. (2011). A first look at Communication Theory, 8th Edition. New York: McGrawHill.
Griffin, E.A. (Interviewer), & Philipsen, G. (Interviewee). (2011). Speech Codes Theory.
Retrieved from A first look at Communication Theory web site:
http://www.afirstlook.com/edition_8/theory_resources/Speech_Codes_Theory