User talk:Languageleon

Why would you want to talk to me?

Linguistics: Speech and writing
Hi Garik. While I understand that informal written language is language nonetheless, isn't the primary reason why spoken language is thought of as "more important to linguistic study" that it is natural language, whereas the written language is arbitrary assigned to language and is usually dictated by those in power (ie, the standard language speakers)? Thanks for your time. Languageleon (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Languageleon. Actually, I'm not sure that is a very important reason. Now, orthography is certainly heavily standardised, but not all writing follows standard spelling rules, and sometimes the level of standardisation only goes as far as spelling in any case: written language can be nothing more than a representation of spoken language, sometimes word for word. Moreover, spoken language may be just as strongly standardised as written language. Now, it is true that writing allows speakers to take a lot more time over formulating what they want to say, and also allows readers considerably more processing time. This has certainly had its influence on written language; and some of that influence has extended to spoken language. Overall, though, the main reasons for focussing primarily on speech is that speech (and signing) is developmentally and evolutionarily older than writing. That said, it may be worth adding that a more tentative version of what you put; maybe something like "Owing to the context in which it appears, writing tends more than speech to conform to standardised rules"? garik (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. In my studies, it always seemed to be the reason why writing was never quite as "important" as speech, but they may have just simplify it for us undergrads! Languageleon (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm open to discussion though! The more I think about it, the more I think something probably should be included on this, although I can't think exactly how best to put it: it's too simplistic to say that written language is heavily standardised and spoken language isn't. garik (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright! Well, I suppose I shouldn't have used "standard" as my exact terminology. My intent was to point out that written language is not a natural-occurring phenomena--instead, it is a symbolic art form created by human thought. Humans didn't decide to start speaking; they did, however, decide to start writing. I only brought up the point of "standard" because there is a "correct" way and an "incorrect" way of writing, whereas linguistics places no value on spoken language. I hope I'm being clear--that isn't always one of my strong suits! Languageleon (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that linguistics passes no value judgements on written language either. For those who do, there is a "correct" and an "incorrect" way of speaking, just as much as there is for writing. The fact that humans didn't decide to start speaking, but did decide to start writing, is a separate issue, which is already addressed in the article. garik (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "...the fact that humans didn't..."

Haha.

 Supriya  11:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)