Advertisement

The Impact of Literacy on the Conception of Language: The Case of Linguistics

Chapter
Part of the Springer Series in Language and Communication book series (SSLAN, volume 23)

Abstract

In recent years, we have witnessed a rapid increase in the number of books and papers dealing with differences between speech and writing, or between orality and literacy, and with the alleged social and psychological consequences of these differences (for references, see e.g. Street, 1988). Very broadly stated, we could say that after a long period of ignoring or belittling differences between speech and writing (the latter was considered basically as a trivial recording or representation of the former), media theorists as well as linguists, psychologists and anthropologists (e.g. McLuhan, Ong, Goody, Olson) started to claim that differences between speech and writing were fundamental and very important, causing far-reaching differences between oral and literate cultures. Later on, in the last few years, we have seen the antithesis of this, scholars claiming that there are many different kinds of literate and oral cultures and that relatively few, if any, properties of these cultures could be derived from the media as such (e.g. Street, 1984, 1988). It seems probable that many scholars who are conversant with the full complexity of the issues involved will opt for a synthesis; most, if not all, differences are thoroughly culture-specific and dependent on technologies, social organizations, and cultural traditions which cannot be understood as simple effects of the use of different media (speech vs. writing), and yet many of these differences are not accidental, given some of the inherent features of universal or prototypical uses of speech and writing. For example, there are bound to be some consequences of the fact that speech is multimodal (i.e., not only oral-acoustic but accompanied by various nonvocal signals) and temporally distributed, whereas writing is unimodal (visual) and spatially organized; or the fact that conversation in face-to-face encounters is highly interactional and the exchange of written messages usually much less interactional (the communication process often being unidirectional).

Keywords

Literal Meaning Linguistic Analysis Language Science Literate Culture Linguistic Meaning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  2. Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
  3. Cooper, W. E. (1980). Syntactic-to-phonetic coding. In B. Butterworth (Ed.), Lan-guage production, Vol.1: Speech and talk (pp. 297–333 ). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Denes, P., & Pinson, E. (1963). The speech chain. Baltimore: Bell Telephone Laboratories.Google Scholar
  5. Ducrot, O. (1972). Dire et ne pas dire. Principes de semantique linguistique. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
  6. Ehri, L. (1985). Effects of printed language acquisition on speech. In D. Olson, N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Literacy, language, and learning. The nature and consequences of reading and writing (pp. 333–367 ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Harris, R. (1980). The languagemakers. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  8. Harris, R. (1981). The language myth. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  9. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Linell, P. (1982). The written language bias in linguistics. SIC 2. Linköping: Department of Communication Studies.Google Scholar
  11. Linell, P. (1985). Language and the communication of emotion. In S. Bäckman & G. Kjellmer (Eds.), Papers on language and literature. Presented to Alvar Ellegârd and Erik Frykman (pp. 264–273 ). Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
  12. Linell, P. (1986). Problems and perspectives in the study of spoken interaction. In L. S. Evensen (Ed.), Nordic research in text linguistics and discourse analysis (pp. 103–136 ). Trondheim: TAPIR.Google Scholar
  13. Olson, D. (1987). The world on paper. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  14. Ong, W. (1982). Orality and literacy. The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Parkinson, G. H. R. (1977). The translation theory of understanding. In G. Vesey (Ed.), Communication and understanding (pp. 1–19 ). London: Hassocks.Google Scholar
  16. Polanyi, M. (1978). Personal knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  17. Read, C. (1971). Preschool children’s knowledge of English phonology. Harvard Educational Review, 41, 1–34.Google Scholar
  18. Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor — a case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–324 ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Rommetveit, R. (1988). On literacy and the myth of literal meaning. In this volume.Google Scholar
  20. Rommetveit, R., & Blakar, R. (Eds.). (1978). Studies of language, thought and verbal communication. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Säljö, R. (1988). A text and its meanings: Observations on how people construe what is meant from what is written. In this volume.Google Scholar
  22. Saussure, F. de. (1916/1964). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
  23. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Street, B. (1988). Literacy practices and literacy myths. In this volume.Google Scholar
  26. Vološinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language. (L. Matejka and I. R. Titunik, Trans.). New York: Seminar. ( Original work published 1930 )Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1988

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations