Talk:Phonocentrism

Citation needed
Haha, "citation needed" is painfully ironic in this article -Pietro 24.84.229.90 (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, "Citation Needed" jokes never get old IMHO. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Unbalanced
This entry seems to have been heavily edited by some Ong-disciple. Whatever Ong's accomplishments, I don't think his contribution to this debate merits 5 footnotes (4 more than Derrida!), 2 bibliography entries, and 5 in-text references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.220.67.144 (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

edit: graphocentrism
There seems to be a bias built into the discourse article of this article. It seems to serve to obscure an objective sociolinguistic interrogation of the differences of how spoken language and written language function and interact. I think we can look into these distinctions before we get so far down the line into the postmodernist critiques of meaning itself & the semiotics implications. It is an exercise for sociolinguistics.

If the graphocentrism article did a better job at fleshing out the point of view that favors the written over the spoken, then we might be able to find a balance on this. skakEL 16:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If you are interested in this and related topics. please take a look at my recent contribs. You may notice that the article spoken language is very weak. skakEL 16:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)