Coded communities: organizing boundless diversity

ABSTRACT

Communication researchers have used speech codes theory to interpret local conduct. This qualitative meta-analysis draws upon twenty years of peer-reviewed journal articles and books (2000–2019) that specifically use the concept of speech community within research about speech codes. Although speech community is incorporated into one of the six main tenets of speech codes theory, the concept has not been used consistently. After reviewing how speech codes theory researchers use the concept of speech community, I draw comparisons between those who describe mediated and intercultural practices to interrogate the a priori assertion of a speech community. I conclude by arguing that one must understand the particular social relations among speakers before asserting the existence of a speech community.

KEYWORDS:

• Speech community
• speech code
• organizing
• culture
• speech codes theory

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 This paper was inspired by the forthcoming volume by Hart and Philipsen, Contending (with) Codes in a World of Difference.

2 She did not say there were two codes; she said that within one code, there were two rhetorics.

3 This paper references SCT but is primarily concerned with healthcare practices written mostly by practitioners. Therefore, I have not included it in the fuller review above.

4 Although a similar comparison could have been conducted quite fruitfully with Chornet and Parr (2017), and/or Homsey & Sandel.

5 In personal-style societies like the United States, the use of a single speech code does not seem to bind its members more closely together into a single, communal group. Researchers have found many codes being used by different participants in the US. Speakers do not seem to be excluded from the category “American” simply by using alternate codes. Perhaps Bernstein’s notion of a “restricted” code is applicable to this issue, whereby codes themselves help perform the work of including or excluding members (or potential members). That is, taking “restricted code” to specifically mean that users share assumptions about speaking, whereas “elaborated codes” must use language to pin-down more specifically what is meant (Bernstein, 1971). (It is of interest to note that Bernstein’s invention of these terms was based on the notion of a “positional” society).

6 As Institutional Research Boards continue to mandate that researchers identify the people (human subjects) under investigation before research commences, speech community scholars will have to navigate this demand.

7 Hart, personal communication, 4/25/20