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 Acts and
Perlocutionary Acts. Austins's theory emphasizes on 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 of what is said
'It's hot in here' could be:
- an indirect request for someone to open the window
- 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 ad-hoc
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
under-pinning 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 N-double-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 a 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 a 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 code-switching, 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. His 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, however unconscious, had specific triggers, including the need to encode
information about the social relationships underpinning the discourse. As Deborah
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 a 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 of the University of Southern
California.
- Her book " You Just Don't understand Women and men in conversations"
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 to
acknowledge and accept the communicative culture of the other.







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.