Running Head: Greek Life Communication

Greek Life Communication: The Potential for Exclusion Due to Cultural Speech Codes Emily Koll, Dana McGrath, Erika Plaza, Jorge Lozano Queens University of Charlotte Emily.koll@qmail.queens.edu April 20, 2011

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION Table of Contents Title Page Table of Contents Abstract Introduction Literature Review The Creation of Meaning Philipsens Speech Code Theory Slang: Definition and Support Study Defining College Slang Impact of Slang on the Formation of Perception and Identity Speech Codes and Social Support Networks: Sororities and Fraternities Research Questions Methodology Focus Group Objective Participants and Procedure Variables Hypotheses Focus Group Design Results Greek-Affiliated Focus Group Speech Codes Historical Context

1 2 4 5 6 6 6 8 9 10 10 11 11 11 12 12 13 14 14 14 14 15

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION Cultural Context Identity Relationships with non-Greek affiliated persons Non-Greek Affiliated Focus Group Word Association Relationships with Greek life-affiliated persons Analysis Conclusion Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C References

3 15 16 16 17 17 21 22 25 27 28 31 33

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION Abstract

Greek life on the Queens University of Charlotte campus consists of five chartered sororities: Alpha Delta Pi, Phi Mu, Chi Omega, Kappa Delta, and Alpha Kappa Alpha, as well as two chartered fraternities: Pi Kappa Phi and Phi Kappa Sigma. These seven Greek organizations are all based on nationally accepted fraternal organizations and follow the tenets placed by these national governing bodies. As such, members of all of these organizations are required by some means to study the national history of their Greek affiliation, and these studies assist in the creation of chapter-based speech codes. Additionally, the specific members of the Greek organizations in Queens University of Charlotte can assist in the creation of chapter specific speech codes and attitudes. Sororities and fraternities have long been associated with an air of exclusivity, and a contention explaining this perceived exclusion can be, in part, the different speech codes utilized by members of Greek life and members of the general population. The study will look to results of a focus group including members and non-members of Greek organizations on the Queens campus to prove the existence of general Greek as well as chapter-specific speech codes and the potential impact that those speech codes have on the Queens community at large.

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION Introduction

The Speech Code Theory of Gerry Philipsen aims to explain the relationship between communication and culture in a given society. Individuals follow the system of meanings and rules that help construct the communication within the culture. Furthermore, each society contains subcultures. These subcultures branch out from the broader culture and construct various sorts of dialects. The differences in the structures of meaning within each subculture affect, to some extent, the communication between individuals of these subcultures. In reflection of Philipsens Speech Code Theory, the researchers of this study seek to define the differences of culture and communication within the community of Queens University of Charlotte. Although there are many subcultures which branch from the whole of the Queens culture, the researchers of this study hope to identify the structures of communication of the population of fraternity and sorority members, heretofore generally referenced as members of Greek life. Greek life on the Queens campus uses generally known words in different ways. The operational definition of certain words, as could be understood within the broad culture of Queens, is conceptualized by those affiliated within the Greek life subculture to meet different meanings. The researchers understand that these conceptual meanings have been formed through the structures of communication of the Greek life subculture by way of word usage and association, historical reference, identity and social support. However, these structures of communicative conduct may have created a language barrier as well as a cultural barrier between members of the Queens community who are affiliated with Greek life and those who are not affiliated with Greek life. The researchers will examine ways in which communication is affected between the Greek and non-Greek life subcultures by considering the role of speech codes in constructing relationship barriers and the potential exclusivity that could result.

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION Literature Review The Creation of Meaning

The world moves forward in time, and more knowledge is gained. This knowledge creates a transfer of reliance upon what the human being can see and hear into the ways in which humans talk and communicate. Humankind has come to rely less upon the laws of nature and more upon the rules of language in order to understand the truths of the world. The social sciences have become more interpretive and focus upon meaning, definition and implication. Dettering (1965) discusses the reality that man is a symbolic animal (Dettering, 1965). There is no escape from reality, as people need to escape into reality. Throughout the years, humankind has learned the verbal and behavioral games of language. Many people have adopted the verbal and behavioral games as they are, without even the slightest realization of the adoption as it follows with the assimilation with ones own culture. The symbols of culture and language have very distinct purposes. Humans can analyze the symbols in regards to grammar and logic or they can attempt to understand the power of language (Dettering, 1965). Dettering (1965) notes that language holds power in the way people either master or cooperate with one another. A message can have so many different meanings and varied contexts, which makes it quite difficult to find underlying truths when none is universally accepted (Dettering, 1965). Philipsens Speech Code Theory The Speech Code Theory, in the work of ethnographer Gerry Philipsen, discusses the ability for persons to acquire specific speech codes, or means of communication among a specific population and culture, and how these various speech codes relate meaning to and from participants (Philipsen, n.d.b). A speech code is a system of socially constructed symbols and meanings, premises, and rules pertaining to communicative conduct (Philipsen, 2009). In the

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION

development of Philipsens Speech Code Theory, his definitive goal was to note the relationship between communication and culture. He suggests that one can learn about a locally distinctive cultural code of communicative conduct that can be found expressed in the communicative conduct of the people whose speech one is trying to comprehend (Philipsen, 2009). The theory is based on distinct speech codes that Philipsen was studying: Nacirema code and the Teamsterville code. Teamsterville, a speech code of the urban population of an Illinois-based community, differed greatly from the general precepts of the Nacirema speech code, the dialect of choice for most educated Americans (Philipsen, n.d. b). The Teamsterville code included a dislike and consequential unwillingness to speak to interlopers, a feeling of superiority toward African American and Hispanic dialects, and also a grudging inferiority to the traditional speech of the Nacirema population (Philipsen, n.d.b). The theory, however, is applicable to more than the Teamsterville study. The ideas of the theory can and have been used to create explanations for various dialects based on cultural and geographic differences. Essentially, when one embarks into a new cultural setting the goal is for one to listen within surroundings for the common, local cultural code of communication that is being used. Before stepping foot into an unknown culture it is important to recognize Philipsens five propositions: In any clear organization or cultural environment, there is a developed speech code that is used within the specified culture; In each and every culture with its own speech code, there is substance to the code, which reveals distinctive social behaviors, actions, psychological structures, and rhetoric from the culture;

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION

The speakers and listeners of the speech code within a culture determine the significant meanings of the code, as they are the ones who create, practice, and respond to such speech codes to ultimately determine the interpretation of what is spoken;

Researchers must take note of the environment in which the researcher, as an outsider of a culture, observes and analyzes native speakers in occurrences in order to understand the usage of the speech code and how the location and premises of the native speakers can account for the speech code;

The researcher must take into account the underlying meanings of a speech code and how to use it well as a common part of ones speech to socialize with the speech code to communicate with locals for acceptance (Philipsen, n.d.a).

Slang: Definition and Support Study Arthur Plotnik (2006) explains how slang, as a type of speech code, can be an art with an aim to please an audience. Furthermore, slang can be applicable in its uses for a longer amount of time than expected. In some cases, slang created more than thirty years ago can be both relevant in the modern world while still having retained its original meaning. As explained by Marcel Danesi (2010), slang can be a means of encoding more information into language, essentially creating a richer medium of communication. Along the same lines, collegiate students implement slang in hopes of gaining control of the social world. This slang can also be used to gauge social competency by how some individuals can fit in with the common culture and others stand out. All of these are skills gained through human linguistic competence, the way humans use and create language (Danesi, 2010).

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION

Danesi (2010) also explains that the creation of slang is not a new concept. In fact, anthropologists have coined the term world magic, explained as a perception of how powerful language really is. Social rituals of all types and across time have utilized slang to cement the idea that social interaction and specialized language are linked and that sometimes people believe that words contain magical powers within groups (Danesi, 2010). In a Finnish study of two separate towns, boys and girls, aged 15 to 19 were asked to write down slang words in a given amount of time and these were counted (Forsskhl, 2001). The results of the study reveal that the number and variety of slang words generated by those teenagers were drastically different between the two towns. However, the boys and girls did share similar scope within the slang words. For example, the girls were more likely to share nice slang words. The study provoked the question of who can define nice and whether the participants chose to answer words in accordance to what they believed was expected of them (Forsskhl, 2001). Some of the conclusions reached by the study suggests support for the old girls are nice and boys are bad mentality, but the themes clearly reveal that both of the towns use of slang covers the same semantic domains. The patterns of this study support the quantitative findings of a study completed a decade earlier (Forsskhl, 2001).

Defining College Slang One of the seminal works pertaining to collegiate use and creation of slang was a 1926 study of the use of slang in the University of Kansas by undergraduate students. This study showed the use of terms that, while having meaning outside of that university, were distinctly understood differently by the students of the university. In looking back on this and other similar

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION

10

studies, Hummon (1994) defines college slang as, oral, informal, highly expressive language that is created and used primarily by students as a part of undergraduate life. Hummon (1994) also posits that while slang is created by undergraduate students, it is based on subcultures within that greater community, and the forms of college slang can be divided into true collegiate slang and local college slang. However, of greatest importance to this study, Hummon (1994) questions if college slang is truly shared by all members of a university or if it could be due to various ideocultures on the campus, such as athletic teams and fraternities. Impact of Slang on the Formation of Perception and Identity As Linn (2000) discusses in his Dialects are Equally Valid, the speech codes which people learn as children and use in adolescence and adulthood are a strong piece of their identities. In his study of the Iron Range dialect in Minnesota, Linn (2000) describes the use of the particular dialect as a means of maintaining cultural identity for the people of the region. The dialect was originally an amalgamation of the various languages of the immigrants who worked the mines of the Range as the residents began to attempt a basic understanding, not of standard English, but of the needs of those who lived around them (Linn, 2000). According to Linn (2000), the people of the Iron Range, while looked down upon by other Minnesota residents, have attained great success despite their use of non-standard English. Speech Codes and Social Support Networks: Sororities and Fraternities Woodward and Rosenfeld (1996) discuss the framework of social support that Greek organizations provide for college students. According to their research (Woodward & Rosenfeld, 1996), Greek organizations are considered important social support networks. Fraternities and sororities on college campuses fulfill college students desires for relationships and serve as

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION outlets of expression to lighten the burden of daily stressors (Woodward & Rosenfeld,

11

1996). Greek organizations provide a comforting environment for the college student, where he or she is able to receive sympathy and understanding in a set group of people. The group ensures acceptance and support in any circumstance. The social support networks link the students to feelings of belonging and social integration (Woodward & Rosenfeld, 1996). The existence of social support networks in Greek organizations strengthens the possibility of the existence of Greek life subculture speech codes. From the Greek life subculture, there may be an establishment of the speech codes with which the subculture is better able to communicate. Research Questions RQ1: What are examples of the speech codes used on Queens campus by the Greek life subculture? RQ2: How do the historical factors from specific Greek life chapters on Queens campus impact the development of speech codes? RQ3: To what extent do speech codes within Greek life chapter subcultures affect communication between other fraternities and sororities on Queens campus? RQ4: To what extent do speech codes within the Greek life subculture affect communication with the non-Greek life subcultures present in the Queens community? Methodology Focus Group Objective With two focus groups we hope to recognize existent speech codes in the Greek life subculture on the Queens University of Charlotte campus. We will analyze how speech codes came to be through history, new context, and assimilation of Greek life members. We contend to

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION

12

find an exclusivity factor concerning the effects of the use of Greek life speech codes in communication. This exclusivity factor we hope will be apparent in friendships between Greek life members as well as between Greek and non-Greek life members because of existent Greek life speech codes. Participants and Procedure In order to understand the specific historical and cultural factors of speech codes for Greek life members and the effects of Greek life speech codes on friendship exclusivity, we will utilize the focus group for our research. Focus Group 1 will represent the Greek life subculture. Focus Group 2 will represent the non-Greek life subculture. We will purposively attempt to select one member from each fraternity and sorority in the Queens University of Charlotte community to participate in Focus Group 1. We will purposively select individuals from various non-Greek life subcultures for Focus Group 2. Non-Greek life subculture representation in Focus Group 2 will include individuals from athletic teams, clubs and organizations, spiritual life, and academic programs of the Queens University of Charlotte community. Both focus groups will be asked questions regarding their perception of the meanings and understandings of Greek life speech codes. FOCUS GROUP 1: One representative from each Greek chapter: Alpha Kappa Alpha, Kappa Delta, Phi Mu, Chi Omega, Alpha Delta Pi, Pi Kappa Phi, and Phi Kappa Sigma. FOCUS GROUP 2: Representatives from other on-campus groups: Non-Greek life Athletes, Non-Greek life Club & Organization members, Non-Greek life Teaching Fellows, Non-Greek life Spiritual Life members, and Non-Greek life general academics-only students. Variables

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION

13

Predictor Variable exposure to Greek life histories, exposure to existent Greek life speech codes Outcome Variable Use of Greek life speech codes, Greek and non-Greek friendship exclusivity Hypotheses A student who becomes affiliated with a sorority or fraternity in the Queens University of Charlotte community will assimilate to and promote the existent speech codes within his or her Greek life subculture. There are various words and phrases that represent commonly understood meanings for members of the Greek life subcultures. The assimilation and common understandings of the speech codes between members of Greek life subcultures will directly affect communication with members of non-Greek life subcultures. H1: The more exposure and information of Greek life chapter history that is available to members of specific Greek life chapters on Queens campus, the more likely the impact of historical factors on the development of speech codes. H2: The less involved Greek life members are with inter-Greek life activities (mixers, Homecoming, Greek Week, Rush Week, etc.), the more likely the existence of gaps in communication by the cause of different speech codes. H3: The less involved the non-Greek life members are with Greek life members and activities, the more likely the existence of confusion when communicating with Greek life members. H4: The more exclusive Greek life members are toward non-Greek life members concerning friendships, the more limited the transmission of speech code communication between Greek life members and non-Greek life members.

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION

14

H5: The more exclusive non-Greek life members are toward Greek life members concerning friendships, the more limited the communication between non-Greek life members and Greek life members. Focus Group Design Participants in Focus Group 1 were asked questions regarding the availability and absorption of historical and cultural factors within their specific Greek life chapter as well as questions regarding friendship exclusivity toward other Greek life members and non-Greek life members. Participants in Focus Group 2 were asked questions regarding their understanding of words and phrases used by Greek life members as well as their friendship exclusivity toward Greek life members.

Findings Greek-Affiliated Focus Group Speech Codes Throughout the focus groups, word association was implemented to obtain a baseline between Greek and non-Greek affiliated persons and their word choices. During these separate group sessions, words such as sister and brother, as well as pledge and whites were discussed. In the Greek-life-affiliated focus group, most of the participants associated such familial words with Greek life relationships. However, there are other words which participants of Greek life on Queens campus utilize in different ways. For example, words such as pledge may mean the traditional denotative verb use of to promise. However, within Greek life, pledge can be the person who

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION

15

is seeking entrance into the Greek house, the person whom has promised to remain in the chapter and initiate. There were also many words that the Greek houses created for their use within the campus. Phrases such as wear your whites have become a means for sororities to convey that members need to dress in white attire, specifically for initiation purposes. Other additions to the Greek Speech Code are words such as Big and Little. These words are meant to be condensed from big brother/sister and little brother/sister, and convey a relationship, either real or perceived, to others in the community. However, all of the representatives conceded each chapter on campus has its own speech codes, which the houses implement in inter-chapter communication. Historical Context: Many participants noted the prevalence of passing down speech codes during newmember education programs. All of the houses discussed some type of education program, whether it be weeks of in-person classes, the use of manuals, and tests. Words such as Ultimate Respect, for example, are taught in the Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity in the Associate Education program through their written manual. This manual includes national history, chapter-specific history, as well as information on the individual members of the chapter. Many of the Greek life representatives also stated that their houses used initiation as a means of telling their new members the intricacies of the symbols and rituals of the house. The majority of the houses also use a system of debriefing for the information learned during the primary education and initiation processes. Cultural Context

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION

16

In some Greek houses, such as the Phi Mu chapter on the Queens University of Charlotte campus, members create speech codes through cultural cues among other members. These cultural cues can be inside jokes and memories from chapter events, personal stories, et cetera. However, this type of speech code creation and infiltration was only referenced in the findings by the representative of the Phi Mu chapter. Identity The representative of the Pi Kappa Phi brotherhood stated that the men hoping to become a full member refer to themselves as associates. This name refers to the new identity given to the members for the nine weeks of their education program. All of the houses have some form of a separate name for new members, and all agreed that this reference provides new members with a new sense of identity within the house. Additionally, the representative of the Kappa Delta sorority stated that she believes the education of the new members to the rituals and secrets of the house provides them with a sense of inclusion within their new chapter and with their new brothers and sisters. Another piece of the identity creation provided by the Greek houses is the implementation of chapter ideals by new members. As the Pi Kappa Phi representative stated, certain phrases, such as Ultimate Respect as well as Sub Rosa demands the new members to carry[ing] themselves a little differently because you are a new identity. Youre an associate of a new organization so that is your identityin reality, if you become an associate and actually live for it, you do turn into a whole new person. Even if you were close, there are things that are gonna change about how you go about your daily life. Relationships with non-Greek affiliated persons

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION

17

While many of the representatives stated that they believe the majority of their friends are not Greek-affiliated, one of the representatives said that her situation is the opposite. She stated that she initially made friends within her house due to the inability to break into pre-formed cliques on campus. She did cite, however, the recruitment rules for the sororities on campus as a means of further dividing Greek-affiliated women from the new freshmen and transfer students each year. This rule only allows normal social contact between the sorority sisters and any potential new members. This contact cannot be for extended periods of time nor concerning discussion of Greek life without at least one member from another sorority present. This can lead to a feeling of exclusion for these new women in the first few weeks of school. The representatives of Alpha Kappa Alpha and Kappa Delta stated that they believed non-Greek persons on campus can feel excluded even after this initial awkward period during recruitment. The representative from Alpha Kappa Alpha sees exclusion in the word choices because many of the words used by members of Greek life are not common nor do they use common meanings. According to her responses, she grew up in an environment in which her mother, an alumna of the Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority, used the words and phrases associated with the sorority on a regular basis. This immersion assisted the representative by allowing her to feel like a part of the sorority earlier than others may have felt included due to the speech code discrepancy between Greek life and the general community on the campus of Queens University of Charlotte. Non-Greek Affiliated Focus Group: Word association

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION A word association activity was used to initiate the non-Greek life focus group

18

conversation. The researchers of this study, two of whom are Greek-life affiliated and two of whom are non-Greek life affiliated, brainstormed to compile a list of words and phrases that have been heard or that were felt to be connected to the Greek life speech codes used on the Queens University of Charlotte campus. Participants were asked to share with the group the first words to come into their minds when they heard the following words: Family, brother, sister, big, little, pledging, initiation, house, badge, pin attire, and whites. The results showed that the non-Greek life students associated these Greek life words or phrases with other words that did not connect directly with the Greek life subculture. Family Participants in the non-Greek life focus group associated the word family with words that are associated with the general understanding of connectedness to others. Although the word family is paralleled in the Greek-life subculture with different ideas of its meaning, the nonGreek students were reminded of things such as their parents, siblings, cousins, friends, house, and suitemate. Brother and Sister The words brother and sister identify fellow members in a Greek-life fraternity or sorority setting. The non-Greek focus group participants found other meanings for brother such as my brother, best friend, close, and annoying. Words associated with the word sister included twin, and eight, with the latter referring to the age of one of the participants bloodrelation. The words that were connected to brother or sister in the non-Greek life group were

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION

19

more related to the dynamics of the home or their closest relationships than they were with Greek-life affiliation. Big and Little The words big and little identify the individuals who are chosen as mentors and close-partnered members in ones fraternity or sorority. The non-Greek life focus group participants did not associate the words big and little with Greek-life affiliation. Instead, ideas of family were mentioned, such as big sister and little sister, or little brother. The facilitators mention of little also initiated the discussion of words such as midget and Chihuahua, both of which are unassociated with the Greek-life subculture and speech codes. Pledging Greek-life members who use the common speech codes associate pledging with ones initial interest and/or dedication to becoming a member of Greek life. Non-Greek life participants associated this example with formal and governmental words, referring to the Pledge of Allegiance, commitment, law, code, and presidency. Negative connotations were also noted in the discussion of the amount of time consumed in the action of pledging. Initiation Greek-life members of the Queens University of Charlotte community relate initiation to the formal dedication of ones membership in a fraternity or sorority. This stage of membership may require knowledge of the fraternity or sororitys history and culture as well as other information regarding the Greek organization and its official members. Greek life members at Queens are prohibited from engaging in physically or emotionally destructive activities, which

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION can be commonplace in the initiation of newly dedicated Greek life members at other

20

universities. The non-Greek life focus group participants did associate the given example with some words that could have closely related to the Greek-life associations. However, besides the mention of the beginning of something, the non-Greek-associated words included negatively perceived words such as harassment and hazing. House Non-Greek life members did not associate the given example as directly connected to Greek-life membership. The words mentioned by the focus group related to the popular medical drama on television, themes of togetherness, financial commitments, and physical locations. Badge At the mention of the given example, the participants of the focus group discussed themes and commitments and affiliations to groups other than Greek-life organizations. Law enforcement, military organizations and groups such as Boy scouts and Girl scouts were associated with the given example. Pin Attire The facilitator of the non-Greek focus group had to repeat the given example due to a general feeling of confusion in the room after the first mention of this common Greek life phrase. After a few seconds of thought, the non-Greek life focus group participants concluded that pin attire was associated with things that are dressy, uppity and fancy. Whites

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION

21

The given example initiated discussion of purity, cleanliness, and social events where only white clothing can be worn, such as white affairs or white parties. There was no mention of Greek-life members and the events for which Greek-life members are required to wear white clothing. It can be understood from these findings that words that are commonly understood through specific meanings in the Greek life subculture do not correlate with the same meanings that the non-Greek life members associate with the same given examples. Even so, many times if the non-Greek life members relate to words as having similar meanings, the association of the word or phrase is generally negative. Relationships with Greek life-affiliated persons In regards to the speech codes and relationships with Greek life members, the non-Greek life focus group participants were aware of some of the perceived meanings that Greek life attributed to an amount of words that were included in the word association. When asked to elaborate upon the ways in which the participants gained knowledge of the meanings of these specific words or phrases, participants responded according to their exposure to Greek life members and events. One participant discussed how he attends Greek life events and meets with fraternity members to better understand the subculture. Many participants noted that if they were confused with the use of a certain word or phrase by a Greek life member, then they would probably ask for the meaning of the word to understand the context of the usage. The exposure to the Greek life speech codes depended upon the openness of the non-Greek individual in creating relationships with Greek life members. In regards to the use of the words specifically, the non-Greek life focus group noted several issues apparent in their relationships with Greek life members. Participants in the non-Greek life focus group attributed certain stigmas and

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION

22

limitations to the use of words generally associated with Queens Greek life by non-Greek life members. One participant discussed that he would not be willing to use any of the speech codes and risk having the label of a fraternity member cast upon [him]. Others concluded that the use of Greek life speech codes is acceptable only in certain situations. Situations include when one is discussing the little, or mentored individual, of a Greek life member, it is appropriate to refer to that person as little or by his or her given name, but not to address the individual as little. It was generally concluded by the majority of the group that the use of Greek life speech codes is appropriate when discussing with others who understand the certain meanings of such words, whether that be Greek life members or non-Greeks who have a strong understanding of the Greek life subculture due to involvement with and exposure to Greek life members. One participant explained her perception that it would be considerably disrespectful to use words that are meant for Greek life use if one is not dedicated by membership in a Greek organization, but she admitted that this factor applied more so in the setting of a different university where Greek life membership is more exclusive than that of Queens Greek life. Analysis Through the two separate focus groups, the goal of the research was to prove two distinct aspects of the speech codes theory as it pertains to Greek life on the Queens University of Charlotte campus. The first aspect is that speech codes are created through historical and cultural factors, and would therefore be understandable only to those involved in Greek life or involved with a specific sorority or fraternity. Through the Greek life focus group, though one of the houses represented did acknowledge the use of cultural cues in her chapter, the majority of speech codes, presumably, come from the history, both public and private, of the various sororities and fraternities. These forms of history, specifically the public history, are passed on

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION

23

from one designated member of the house to others through classes or through a manual given to those who wish to initiate. The private forms of history and meaning are reserved for fully initiated members of the Greek life chapter. While many of the Greek life terms are easily accessible for the members of all the different chapters, there are some words and phrases used differently by the various groups. A noticeable difference comes into play when members of the Panhellenic Sororities (Phi Mu, Kappa Delta, Chi Omega, Alpha Delta Pi) and the Pan Hellenic Sorority (Alpha Kappa Alpha). These two separate groups of sororities are operated by different national governing bodies, and, therefore, there are major differences between the types of chapters on the Queens campus. One of the major dissimilarities between the types of sororities is the amount of history and dialect kept a secret among the members of the Pan Hellenic Alpha Kappa Alpha chapter. However, despite these intrinsic differences, members of the sororities and fraternities seem to all speak various nearly-identical dialects of the same language. However, responses from the non-Greek focus group seem to suggest a wide gap between the participants of Greek life and the Queens community as a whole. The non-Greek life students provided many examples of the reasons for which they were favorable or unfavorable toward the Greek-life subculture. A slightly negative feeling was felt by the majority toward the entire Greek-life subculture. It was found in this study that the speech codes and words used were not the main cause of this connotation, but more so the culture of Greek-life was what drew up the negative feelings. The non-Greek life focus group participants reported that a majority of their group of friends at Queens is also non-Greek life affiliated. One focus group member mentioned that she does have a large group of Greek-life friends, so she would consider her friendship pool to be about half non-Greek and half Greek. She did include

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION

24

that her non-Greek and Greek life friends mix well and do not have any issue when everyone congregates socially. However, exclusivity and other factors were associated with the Greek-life subculture in the opinion of some of the non-Greek life focus group participants. Focus group participants mentioned the Greek-life members wearing their letters in public as a general factor of communicating exclusivity. Although it was decided that the wearing of the letters of the Greek organization was not an extremely important factor, it did contribute to a feeling that a non-Greek is not included in the group. Also mentioned were certain jokes used by the sororities or fraternities that are related to common experiences during times of pledging and initiation in which all of the people affiliated can understand. Those who are non-Greek either ignore the joke and move on, or ask for an explanation of the joke. Another negative feeling toward the Greek-life subculture was due to themes and ideas surrounding the Greek-life sponsored events on campus. The events discussed were those which all students, both non-Greek and Greek, are invited. The question was whether the non-Greek students would be likely to attend a Greek-sponsored event. Responses included a general idea that the participants would not be likely to attend a Greek-sponsored event open to all students due to other commitments, lack of an amount of friends who would be likely to attend the event, and a lack of desire to be associated with anything that has to do with Greek-life due to the general negative perception of non-Greeks toward the Greek-life subculture. The non-Greek focus group participants also discussed the way the Greek-sponsored events are advertised gives a certain air of exclusivity. One participant elaborated that the way she perceives the Greek-sponsored events is that a non-Greek student is not really welcome, and if she were to attend, she would not feel like she belonged there. Other ideas discussed were the sense that Greek-life members come across as very themed individuals. One focus group participant elaborated that she felt the days

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION

25

on which Greek-life members dressed the same or in certain attire, they seemed tacky or silly, almost like it was more of a Halloween activity than a group activity. It should be noted that many of these discussions were aimed toward sorority involvement, and fraternities were generally thought to be more welcoming to non-Greeks. A few of the focus group participants mentioned that they have been invited to the formal dances of the fraternities and felt like they were more accepted as friends by the men who are affiliated with Greek life. The general findings of the non-Greek life focus group were that the speech codes were not the main factor affecting communication between members of Greek-life and members of non-Greek life. The stronger factors that affected communication were the feelings of exclusivity and the general negative perception of the non-Greek population at Queens toward the Greek-life subculture. Conclusion Overall, Greek life and non-Greek life students of the Queens University of Charlotte community were found to have both collaboration and confrontation from Greek speech code usage. There was an obvious comfort level with Greek life members to use speech codes for conversation with other Greek life members. However, to speak with another Greek life member, one is assuming he or she is fully initiated and has assimilated enough into the subculture to fully understand Greek life speech codes, especially chapter-specific terms. However, there can be an adjustment in language for conversations between Greek life members and non-Greek life members to foster better understanding, but this process can be simply overlooked by some members of Greek life. If need be, depending on the interest level of the non-Greek individual,

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION

26

he or she could ask about the specific word or phrase that was unfamiliar to him or her. The strongest efforts could focus on increasing the awareness, interest and feelings of welcome for non-Greeks into Greek life-sponsored activities. This would help to abbreviate or eliminate the negative perceptions of Greek life by non-Greeks on Queens campus. From there, stronger relationships could be established and greater collaboration could be reached. Our main obstacle was gathering participants for the Greek life focus groups. Both fraternities were represented for the Greek-affiliated discussion, yet only three out of the five sororities were present at the focus group. We were limited from achieving chapter specific speech codes and points of views from the two absent sororities (Alpha Delta Pi and Chi Omega) which could have shown different results in the correlation between the culture of the chapters and the communication with the rest of the Queens community. Also noted are the issues of non-Greek life focus group participants sharing experiences and knowledge about Greek organizations at other universities, which do not pertain directly to our research of Queens Greek life. Such issues were consciously considered in compiling the results of the research. For this study we suggest further observational research of communication between the Greek life members and the non-Greek life members in isolation, as well as in blended environments, to examine speech codes used in verbal action. To overcome the relationship barriers and potential exclusivity that results from the formation of subculture speech codes will require a great amount of tolerance and cooperation from all sides. We would hope our research to be helpful in identifying the different subcultures and issues between them. Our work can act as the stepping stone to the greater understanding of how to bring together the separated subcultures of Queens University of Charlotte to improve the community as whole.

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION Appendix A Greek Terms: Family Brother Sister Big Little House Bid Pledging/Pledge Initiation/Initiate Legacy Whites Pin Attire Badge Recruitment/Rush Abbreviated Names: KD, ADPi, Chi O, Skulls, Pi Kapps Chapter-Specific Terms: Hawaiian Club Skull Session Sub Rosa Ultimate Respect Associate AOT LIOB Chapter Development Probate Sor

27

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION

28

Appendix B

Informed Consent
Queens Greek Life Speech Codes Communication Study

Project Title and Purpose: You are invited to participate in a research study entitled Queens Greek Life Speech Codes Communication. This is a study to examine how Queens students interact with one another using speech codes as part of their communication.

Investigator(s): This study is being conducted by students in a Communications Research class at Queens University of Charlotte as part of a group project under the direction of Dr. Daina Nathaniel in the Communications Department.

Description of Participation: In this study you will be asked to answer from a list of questions that can lead to further discussion in other areas. You are asked to be open in opinion, ask questions and comment on topics. Names are asked to not be used when providing examples and names will not be used in findings. Given information will be distinguished by a number for non-Greek participants and only representation of the sorority or fraternity name for Greek participants. This focus group will be voice recorded and transcribed for documentation of the discussion.

Length of Participation Your participation in this project will take approximately 45 minutes to one hour. If you decide to participate, you will be one of approximately 20 participants in this study. Participants in Greek life have been selected to fulfill requirements to have fair representation from each fraternity/sorority by contacting Greek presidents. Participants in non-Greek life have been selected to fulfill requirements to have a diverse representation of other different organizations from the Queens University of Charlotte student population as well as an equal representation of men and women.

Risks and Benefits of Participation: There are no risks known at this time associated with participating in the study. However, there may be risks which are currently unforeseeable. The only benefit of

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION

29

participation in this study is the knowledge you will gain about the topic being investigated. You will receive a complete description of the study when you are finished participating. The results of the study will only be used for this class project. You may obtain a copy of all results by contacting Dana McGrath at her e-mail: dana.mcgrath@qmail.queens.edu anytime after April 20, 2011. You will not receive financial reimbursement for your participation.

Volunteer Statement You are a volunteer. The decision to participate in this study is completely up to you. If you decide to be in the study, you may stop at any time. You may skip any item you do not wish to answer. You will not be treated any differently if you decide not to participate or if you stop once you have started.

Confidentiality: All information you provide will be kept confidential; numbers, only, are used as identification, no names will appear with the data. All data files will be destroyed at the end of the project.

Fair Treatment and Respect: Queens University of Charlotte wants to make sure that you are treated in a fair and respectful manner. Contact the Universitys Institutional review Board (Dr. Lily Halsted at 704.688.2841) if you have any questions about how you are treated as a study participant. If you have any questions about the project, please contact Dr. Cherie Clark at 704.337.2479.

Participant Consent: I have read the information in this consent form. I have had the chance to ask questions about this study, and those questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I am at least 18 years of age, am an emancipated minor*, or my guardian has signed below, and I agree to participate in this research project. I understand that I will receive a copy of this form after it has been signed by me and the researcher.

________________________ Participant Name (PLEASE PRINT)

_____________________________ Participant Signature

_____________ DATE

______________________________________ Researcher Signature

_____________________ DATE

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION

30

*Emancipated Minor (as defined by NC General Statute 7B-101.14) is a person who has not yet reached their 18th birthday and meets at least one of the following criteria: 1) has legally terminated custodial rights of his/her parents and been declared emancipated by a court; 2) is married, or 3) is serving in the armed forces of the United States.

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION

31

Appendix C Focus Group Questions 1. Did you use specific words or phrases after joining your current sorority/fraternity that you did not use before you joined Greek life? 2. Did you personally add any words or phrases to the common vocabulary of your fraternity/sorority? 3. How many times a day do you think you use a word or phrase that only people within your Greek affiliation would understand? 4. In what ways is the historical background of your fraternity or sorority presented to you at the time of initiation (Studying a book, taught by veteran members, required readings, etc.)? 5. What are examples of some of the words or phrases that you believe are used specifically in communication between yourself and other Greek Life members? 6. When communicating with non-Greek life members about Greek life matters, do you feel the need to explain some of the words or phrases you use in the conversation? If so, could you provide a specific situation? 7. How many close friendships do you hold with non-Greek life members (meeting outside of classes, eating together, etc.)? 8. How many close friendships do you hold with Greek life members (meeting outside of classes, eating together, etc.)? 9. TRUE OR FALSE: If I am assigned a group project in a class where there are both Greek life and non-Greek life members, I am more likely to choose a non-Greek life member.

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION

32

10. Please rate the likelihood of your participation in Greek-life sponsored events/activities: a. Extremely likely b. Somewhat likely c. Neutral d. Somewhat unlikely e. Extremely unlikely

GREEK LIFE COMMUNICATION

33

References

Danesi, M. (2010). The forms and functions of slang. Semiotica, 182(1-4), 507-517. doi:10.1515/semi.2010.069 Dettering, R. (2006). Fifty Years Ago in ETC, Volume 14, Number. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 63(4), 461-463. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Forsskhl, M. (2001). Girls' slang and boys' slang: two towns in Finland visited. NORA: Nordic Journal of Women's Studies, 9(2), 98-106. doi:10.1080/080387401753355326 Hummon, D.M. (1994). College slang revisited: language, culture, and undergraduate life. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(1), Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2943878 Philipsen, Gerry. Chapter thirty-two: speech codes theory. University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. (n.d.a) Retrieved from http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/cohort/theory/ch32.pdf Philipsen, Gerry. (2009). Some thoughts on how to approach finding ones way in unfamiliar cultural terrain. Retrieved from http://gerryphilipsen.com/wp-content/ uploads/2009/08/CM-manuscript-2009.pdf Philipsen, Gerry. Speech codes theory. (n.d.b). Retrieved from http://gerryphilipsen.com/ speech-codes-theory Plotnik, A. (2006). Get down with some slang: When a sentence needs attitude, slang can bring it on. Writer, 119(10), 15-16. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Woodward, M. S., & Rosenfeld, L. B. (1996). Sex differences in social support in sororities and fraternities. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 24(4), 260. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.