The 'spoken and written language'-approach

[Wenche Vagle]

Randy Eggert has asked me to explain what I mean by "the spoken and written
language approach", which I mentioned in my introduction:

On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Wenche Vagle wrote:

> For the most part, I rely on methodologies and analytical tools from
> linguistics. I work within the functional linguistic framework
> (associated with M.A.K Halliday's name) - also know as the
> 'sociosemiotic perspective'. In addition, I fetch insights and
> instruments from text linguistics, pragmatics, the 'spoken and written
> language'-approach, ethnomethodological conversation analysis and
> Erving Goffman's sociology.

Eggert asked:

"Could you explain what you mean by "the 'spoken and written language'
approach".  Are you referring to Halliday's approach when you write this?
I'm asking because, from my reading, I have found that there is not a
whole lot of agreement on how to approach the two forms of language, or
even if it is valid to distinguish them beyond the obvious difference of
channel. That is to say, I am not aware of any one approach that I would
call "the" approach.  Is there a particular approach that goes by the name
'the spoken and written language approach' that I'm unaware of.  If so,
I'd be interested in reading about it."

My answer:

No, I am not referring to Halliday's approach here, although his idea about
registers (or language varieties) as probabilistic settings of the semantic
system is highly compatible with the quantitative
language-variation-according-to-use direction that I had in mind. What I am
referring to is not a clearly defined approach, I suppose, but more of a
research field (studies about differences between spoken and written
discourse), so my label was not a good one. A well-known study is Douglas
Biber's "Variation across speech and writing" (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press 1991). Biber has also got a whole lot of more recent
stuff, notably:

Biber, D. 1993. The Multi-Dimensional Approach to Linguistic Analyses of
Genre Variation: An Overview of Methodology and Findings. Computers and the
Humanities, Vol. 26:331-345
Biber, D. & E. Finegan (eds). 1994. Sociolinguistic Perspectives on
Register. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press
Biber, D. & M. Hared. 1992. Dimensions of register variation in Somali.
Language Variation and Change, Vol. 4:41-75
Biber, D. 1995. Dimensions of Register Variation. A Cross-Linguistic
Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

You could also check out an annotated bibliography by W. Chafe and D.
Tannen: The Relation between Written and Spoken Language. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 16:383-407 (1987).

Whether it is valid to distinguish between the two kinds of language beyond
the obvious difference of channel? Both yes and no. A factor that
absolutely has to be taken into account when considering the causes to
variation in language usage is genre. There is no absolute spoken/written
distinction. The relations between speech and writing can better be thought
of as a space with several cross-secting dimensions. Biber has identified a
set of dimensions in his research. I have found a somewhat different
pattern in my radio corpus. But then, the registers of the radio represent
the hybridity of secondary orality:  pre-planned, often scripted, text
performed with written support -- produced and received in distantiated
contexts.


You say that you are interested in the use of deictic expressions in
environments of separation in time and space, particularly in the use of
"you" in written language. Such things belong to the most interesting
aspects of linguistic practices in broadcasting media too. Especially if
you look at it from a historical perspective, since text strategies have
changed a lot over time.

What kind of data are you studying?

With regards,

Wenche Vagle