In the Speech Codes Theory, Gerry Philipsen notes how speech codes vary across different cultural communities and that each social community has its own unique speech code. An example of this can be seen in the Wake Forest University Community, as in our fight song we sing “Rah Rah, Wake Forest Rah.” In this fight song, we bring school pride and camaraderie to the minds of the student body/ alumni singing it due to the shared understanding of what the repeated “rah’s” mean. When a member of the Wake Forest community greets me with a “Rah,” I understand that it is synonymous with a hello, cloaked in school pride. I can reply back with a “Rah” and we share the understanding of what the exchange means, whereas someone outside our social group would not understand this speech code.

LYRICS:

“O’ Here’s to Wake Forest
A glass of the finest
Red ruby rhenish filled up to the brim
Their sons they are many
Unrivaled by any
Who’s hearts overflowing we will sing a hymn
Rah, Rah, Wake Forest, Rah
Old Alma Mater sons are we
We’ll herald the story and die for her glory
Old Gold and Black is ever waving high.”

source:http://www.lyricsondemand.com/

In chapter 33, Phillipsen talks about Speech Codes Theory, which is the focus on different types of dialogues among different cultures. Speech codes refer to “a historically enacted, socially constructed system of terms, meanings, premises, and rules pertaining to communicative conduct” (421). Phillipsen’s theory deals with trying to understand the way other people speak. For example, I experienced the difference of cultures when I moved from California to North Carolina. I would get mocked by my teammates when I would say “sick” or “gnarly” and I would laugh at them when they said “y’all” while I would say “you guys.” There are many different types of slang that I see throughout the Wake Forest campus on a daily basis.

Genderlect is a term suggesting that masculine and feminine styles of discourse are best viewed as two distinct cultural dialects. Woman use rapport talk which seeks to establish connection with others. Whereas men use report talk which seeks to command attention, convey information, and win arguments. An example of this is the talk that occurs in most male locker rooms. In this scene from the movie John Tucker Must Die, John is caught expressing his “manhood” through report talk with his teammates in this locker room.

John Tucker Must Die Fart Scene – YouTube

The Genderlect Styles Theory of Deborah Tannen states that, while most people do not acknowledge it, “male-female conversation is cross-cultural communication” (435). Tannen explains that these differences, which stem from “men’s efforts to dominate women” is the root of Genderlect differences, which suggests that male and female “styles of discourse are best viewed as two distinct cultural dialects” (436). Tannen also breaks down communication into Rapport Talk and Report Talk. Rapport Talk, which is the common conversational style of women, “seeks to establish a connection with others,” while Report Talk, which is common among men, “seeks to command attention, convey information, and win arguments. Many of Tannen’s views on these discrepancies are evident in the break up scene from the movie “The Break Up.” When arguing over doing the dishes, Jennifer Aniston exemplifies how women attempt to disclose more during their fight, by providing long-winding explanations for why they should do the dishes immediately, as well as how and why other actions have hurt her feelings. In return, Vince Vaughn reveals a typical male response, as he uses limited words in his response and attempts to gain control over the situation by using terms that offer little in the way of compromise, as well as through yelling. Such occurs throughout the conversation, namely when Vaughn simply states that he “hates the ballet” and shows no intent in attending, even when Aniston says that’s what she wants to do and claims that he never is willing to spend time with her doing activities she enjoys. Further, Vaugn’s failure to make eye-contact during the beginning of the fight and instead focus on his video game reflect Tannen’s assertion that women offer more eye-contact and head nodding during conversation, which provide supportive listening. Finally, the scene as a whole reveals Tannen’s views on conflict, as Vaughn is quick to make the argument turn into a full-blown conflict, which ends in the couple breaking up. As well, Vaughn is the first to raise his voice level, call his girlfriend rude names and belittle her, and finally suggest that she “show [him] a little appreciation,” when in reality he is the one in the wrong and should be apologizing.

The Break Up – Kitchen Fight Scene

Genderlect theory discusses the speech pattern differences between males and females. They differ in the way that they approach issues, converse, deal with stressors, and tell stories. An example of the difference between males and females in dealing with conflict can be seen in the sitcom “Everybody Loves Raymond” where the main characters, Raymond and Deborah, disagree on why their son Michael thinks he lives in an angry family. Ray and Deborah, who are married, each accuse each other of being the reason why Michael thinks his family is angry. Ray claims that Deborah’s argumentative style is characterized by arguing loudly, whereas Deb claims that Ray just avoids issues and tries to pacify the children instead of addressing the problem. They each approach the issue differently and see different reasons for why Michael believes his family is angry based on their gendered perspectives.

Speech Code is a historically enacted, socially constructed system of terms, meanings, premises, and rules pertaining to communicative conduct. An aspect of the Speech Code Theory is the communication ritual. This ritual follows a typical sequence and is used to come together to express individuality, affirm each other’s identities, and experience intimacy. The sequence is Initiation, acknowledgement, negotiation, and reaffirmation. This sequence reminds me of when a friend goes to complain about a problem they are having a roommate. They first voice that they need to work through a problem by initiating a conversation. The friend then acknowledges that they are going to listen by offering them a seat or maybe some food. They then talk with openness to hearing feedback, whether or not they will use it. Finally they reaffirm whether or not they agree about the issue, they are still friends and committing to hearing what the other has to say.

In chapter 34, Tannen defines gerderlect as “a term suggesting that masculine and feminine styles of discourse are best viewed as two distinct cultural dialects.”What Tannen is saying is that the two have different styles of discourses; however, one is not more significant than the other. She also talks about the five different social phenomena that helps distinguish the difference between men and women. These include storytelling, listening, speaking patterns, conflict, and asking questions. One couple that demonstrates this theory is the iconic television couple from the show “Friends” was Ross and Rachel. The couple had a big blowup while they were dating and decided to “take a break.” However, going off Tanen’s theory, this meant two different things to Ross and Rachel. To Rachel this meant that they were still dating, while Ross believed they were not together and therefore it was far game to be with other people. The different discourse proves the two were not on the same page.

Speech Codes Theory of Gerry Philipsen states that speech codes are unique to specific cultures. Philipsen defines speech codes as “a historically enacted, socially constructed system of terms, meanings, premises, and rules pertaining to communicative conduct” (421). Further, Philipsen states six propositions that apply to all speech codes. These are that “whenever there is a distinctive culture, there is to be found a distinctive speech code” (422), that “in any given speech community, multiple speech codes are deployed” (423), that “a speech code involves a culturally distinctive psychology, sociology, and rhetoric” (424), that “the significance of speaking depends on the speech codes used by speakers and listeners to create and interpret their communication” (425), that “the terms, rules and premises of a speech code are inextricably woven into speaking itself” (427), and, finally, that “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” (428). When applying Speech Codes Theory, and namely the “Substance of Speech Codes” (424) to a clip from the Movie the Wolf of Wall Street, the reader can see many of Philipsen’s assertions in action, especially that when examining the speech codes of the Wall Street executive played by Matt McConaughey, these speech codes reveal structures about the self, society, and strategic action present on Wall Street. In regard to psychology, McConaughey’s speech codes, including his use of drugs, alcohol, and frequent referencing to money reveal that Wall Streeter’s have addictive, selfish, type-A personalities. In regards to sociology, McConaughey’s disruptive humming, thumping on his chest, and bragging about how much he is drinking reveals how speech codes on Wall Street are used as a way to draw attention to oneself and compete to be top-dog in this ever-competitive world. Finally, through McConaughey’s continued discourse regarding vile and immoral topics and ideas, the viewer learns that the rhetoric of Wall Street’s speech codes lacks any honor or dignity, and instead contains persuasive appeal rewarding debauchery and greed. Through this telling scene, the viewer can apply Philipsen’s theories regarding speech codes and watch first-hand how they reveal many aspects about the world of Wall Street, as unsettling as these revelations may be.

Wolf of Wall Street Scene

Genderlect of Deborah Tannen is defined as “a term suggesting that masculine and feminine styles of discourse are best viewed as two distinct cultural dialects.” According to Tannen, communication styles of men and women are distinct, but one is not superior to the other. In Legally Blonde, Elle goes on a date with her boyfriend, Warner. Throughout the date, Elle believes that Warner is going to propose to her. While he is talking, she reveals that she is listening by agreeing with everything that he is saying and contributing to the conversation. This type of conversation reveals rapport talk, “the typical conversational style of women, which seeks to establish connection with others” (438). Even though Elle is agreeing with what Warner is saying, she does not know that he plans on breaking up with her. Warner explains that he has a reputation to uphold with his family and needs to continue his life at Harvard, focusing on his career and status. This demonstrates Tannen’s theory because it shows that women have a desire for connection while men have a desire for status. Warner breaks up with Elle because he needs to impress his family and have a successful career.

Warner breaks up with Elle

Speech code refers to “a historically enacted, socially constructed system of terms, meanings, premises, and rules pertaining to communicative conduct” (421). Philipsen describes the six propositions of speech codes: 1) wherever there is a distinctive culture, there is to be found a distinctive speech code. 2) In any given speech community, multiple speech codes are employed. 3) a speech code involves a culturally distinctive psychology, sociology, and rhetoric. 4) The significance of speaking depends on the speech codes used by speakers and listeners to create and interpret their communication. 5) The terms, rules, and premises of a speech code are inextricable woven into speaking itself. 6) 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. When reading about Speech Codes Theory, I thought of one of my good friends at Wake Forest who lives in London, England. She often says phrases that I have never heard before and therefore, do not understand. Last semester, we had a class together. Before class, she would ask me “have you prepared for the lesson?” I did not understand what she meant because my other friends usually ask, “have you done the homework for class?” Additionally, when I was talking on the phone to one of my friends from Ireland, I asked how she was doing. She replied “all right,” however, I thought she meant “alright” and asked what was wrong. She explained that “all right” means everything is perfect. Furthermore, she explained that when you like someone, you can say that they are “all right.”