Scribd Logo
Carica

Benvenuto in Scribd!

  • Hallidey, Chapter 7

    Caricato da

    Paul
    12 visualizzazioni10 pagine
    Prosodic Features

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formati disponibili

    PDF o leggi online da Scribd

    Hai trovato utile questo documento?

    Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

    Segnala questo documento
    Prosodic Features

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    12 visualizzazioni10 pagine

    Hallidey, Chapter 7

    Caricato da

    Paul
    Prosodic Features

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    di 10
    Chapter 7 —— Speaking, writing, and learning Differences between speech and writing Taking and writing, then, are different ways of saying. They are different medes for cxpressing linguistic sieanings. To go back €0 Our tri-stratal model of language, from Chapter 2: in language, a network of meanings (‘seinanic* system) is encoded through a network of wordings (‘lexico-grammatical’ system), and the wordings are in turn encased through a network of expressions, The expression, in all cultures, makes use af the medium of sound (‘phonolog.cal’ sysien); in some cultwres if also makes us> of the visual medium Corthographic™ or ‘graphological” system) Can we Say, then, thal talking and’ writing are different ways of expressing (saying) the same meanings (things)? The answer we are suggesting must >e: yes, and na, Yes, it the scnss. that the two are alternat.ve ‘outputs'—alternative realisations of the menning potential of language; anything that can be said in writing can also be said in Language" is mare speaking. and vice versn ‘The two are both language; and language important than either is more important than e:ther, It is a mistake to become too much spoken language or gbsessed with the medium writcen Language. Atche same time {and again for the stme reascn), it is important thar we should recognise that there are specific seiises in which the anewer must be “no”. It is rather like the principle that what is said in any one human language can also be suid in any other, AS a general principle, this is true; and it is a fundamental and significant ruth: all languages lave the same poventlil for expressing human meanings. But in practice each language hes cvolved in its cwn culture; and while every language Is squally well adapted to serve the needs of (i.e. express the meanings of) the culture within which it itself develcped, it is not So well equippes for expressiag the meanings of ancther culture, Aboriginal languages are net, in fact, equipped 10 express the semintics ot Western societies—nor are European languages suited to the meaning styles 0: Aborigines. Each would have to adap: itself in order to wert such different demands, ‘There is an endlogy with speeck and writme We could idenify three respects in which we woulk have to-qualify the generalisation that 92 Spoken language and written language are “saying the samo thingst: 1. Writing does not ineo-porate all the meaning potential of speech: ‘Teleayes out ihe prosodic and paraling sistic contribut ons. There are also certain reciprocal effects: spoken language does net show Sentence and paragraph boundaries, or signal te move into direct quotation. But these are different: itis the signels that are missing, Not the features themsalves. + 2. Speech and Writing are in practice used in differentcontexts, for different: ptrpose}—though obviously with a certain amount of overlap. This is partly a ritual matter, a form of social convertion: such institutions as the applicatior form (‘please submit your request in writing. in triplicate’), the office memorandum, and the “spy for the files’ ere essentially written language rituals—and will renain 50 In ‘the elertronic office of the futtee", cven if uv longer in the form of rays and cabinets full of paper. But x is mainly for the reason for which wrting evolved in the first place: namely, that there are different functions to which each one is appropriate. To that extent, therefore, they are not saying ihe same things. The meanings that are expressed in contexts where writing it used are normally not translated into talk. No doul they could be; but thers would be no point in jt, We do not go around reading the regulations on the airline tiekst aloud. (t is a pity, on cie other hand, that we donot go around reading plays ar retiting poctry aloud—we might get better sounding pucuy if we did.) Similarly we do net write down “he houserold maraperrent eptiversations and service encounters of daily life. which are extremely borng to have to read. Just z¢ in a bilingual culture, the languages are almost always specialised out—ta different activitics, different topizs, different personal relationships: the-e is a point in having two languages bath doing all the same thinge— 30 there would be no pcint in having both speech and writing if the two simply duplicated she functions af each other. 4. Thirdly there is the point made in the last chapter: that speech ancl writing impose different grids on experience. There is a sens: in which they create different realities. Wrising creates a world of things: talking creates a world of happening, The question arises, then. wheiher one is in some sense more *basic’, ‘nearer tc reality’ than the other: and if so, which. This is not an easy question, aid we shall not solve it here. But itdeserves a spocial—if inevitably very aketchy—section of the discussivu Ww iuself Grammatical metaphor Notice that wher we ‘translate’ between speech ard writing, certain types of wording frequently tra np. On the writes sidz, we tond to have rether few different verbs; those that occur, apart from be and its synonyms (reprecent, comprise, form, add up to, corstituic, ct), are often verbs such a5 lead to, catise, follow, allow, derive, cover, an inched, which are the names of cireumsiantiol relations: applause followed che ‘after the “announcement. announcement people applauded" 93 Are there differences in the meanings expressed by spoken aie) we.tten language? Spokea forms are ‘nearer the ‘grammatcal nietaphor” i a fenture of written lag mitaphorical and fess aueiapherical ways o° representing mocaning in the ‘gram this development could lead ‘in view af this developmen: oa different outcome things might turn out differently’ he derived mach satistaction ‘because of this discovery from this discovery he was very satisfied’ her specch covered five points ‘she spoke about live points ‘On the spoken side, we find a greater range of verbs, Thess verbs ars tumed sy the wr.tten version into nouns, many of whick are therefore the names af processes, Like applause, speech, aterecite. and Seitiyfuc- tion in the exampies just cited. In a *more spoke" equivalent, aunomtace- ment, developrent, and discovery might alsu appear a3 Verds: after they had announced (it). people applanced’ in view of what has developed, things might turn out different he was very satisfied hecause he had discovered this There is a sense n which the sooken forms appear to ke nearer the bone. The writen variants have a sort of metaphorical quality about them—except that there is no greater degree of metaphor in their choice of words, which are the same in botk: announce/annonucemsnt, applauselapplauced, discoverfdiscovery. tnd so on. (Members of sich pairs ars ‘the same words” in the sense that they are the same LEXIZAL. vem, differing only in derivation or inflexion ) ‘The metaphor iz in the grammar, Semetking ‘hat sould typcally be represented, given the grammatical system of Rnglish, as a verb, has beer represented instead as a noun. Why do we say thet such things az “announcing”, ‘appiouding’, ‘dis- covering’, “turning out’ would typically be represented as verbs? Beccuse in the semantics of English they are precessos: so¢cbody is doing sume- thing, or something is happening. There is a similar element of geam- ‘matical metaphor in what the written versions have as telr verbs, If ‘one thing ‘followed’ another, but both ‘thirgs’ were in fact everts, tien im the vemantics of English the plenumenon 1s registred as" hat happened, tken this happened’: two processes, related to cach other in time. The typical way of expressing a time relationship between Processes in the grarimar is by a hypotactio or parstactie clause eomplex: after they had anadunend it, people applauded pe they anno.need it, then people applauded 12 Bur by the use.of « grammatical metaphor, the time relation is encoded by a verb, fodlow; a8 if there was ‘ust ane process—a ‘thenring'—instead of two—one of announcing and ane of applauding Lotus make it quite clear tha: exp-essitg something metaptoricelly 's intrinsically neicher better nor worse than expressing it congruently. or ‘literally’. All ase of language embodies a great deal of metnphor, there is no reason to suppose that larguage has eve: been without it, since it became Tengnage as distinet from protolanguage. Ove could soe certain developmen's even in protolanguage as being metaphorical, 0 the extent that Mey involve a tcansfsrence ef meanings. Tlie question is whether metaphor is involved ia the phenomenon we are considering hire; and if so, while each will appear as seciaphorical if viewed Irom the standpoint of the ather, whether there is reason for regarding either ‘one as the more congruent, 94 Here, in fact, there are grouncs for interpreting the variation as metaprocical, ix a way that is quite independent of whether it occurs in speech or in writing. That is to say, an example such as ‘The council’s proposed seplacement of subsidies Ly a loan is incur- ring the bitter resontment of the medical arofessiui. contains a consideratle amount of grammatical metaphor, and we ean produce various less metaphorical versions of it, such as, for instznee, Because the councl is propusing “0 lend money ‘nstead at giving it, (people who work as) dectors are feeling bitterly resentful, Doctors sitteily vescut il that the council is 2ropesing that money should be lent ins:ead of being given. It makes no difference whethe- on a particular oezasion auch a “orm was written or spokea; the point is that the less metaphorical variants tend to.oecur in speech and the more metaphorical onet tele te occur in writing. Hence we can say that written language is assockated with the uss of grammatical metaphor. Atthe samettime, there are many instances of grammatical metaphor that are just as much associated with syeucli, Some of them may iave beén borrowed from writing in the first place; but not necessarily s0— and some arc paitivularly characteristle of speech, such as that by Whicit a process is represented by the combination of a lexically ‘empty’ verb (ave, do, make, rake, go, give) with a noun expressing the event or action: have a bath, inake a misiake, give a growl, and sc on. The same Principle is at work acre as with other nominalising structures: it is possib.e to expand nouns more casily than verbs, ard to say things like make the same silly mistace, gave two or three warning grovls, ave a nice hot bath, whick are wot easy te express with the ve-bs err, growl, and. bothe. Nevertheless this kine of c-03s-codirg in its more complex forms is particularly characteristic of written language, and is ore of the ways it achisves its high lexical density. One point to note shout ir is that it is difficult for young children to understand. We must distinguish, in this respect, ameng three different phenomena: generalication, abstraction, and metephar, sinee they are. mastered at different times ir children's larguage development. 1, Genevalisation; from specific to general. Children have no difficulty ‘with this; a5 s00n a3 they get ints the mother tongue, the fact that they have learnt to name things

    Potrebbero piacerti anche