Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Duality in language
Why isn’t written language like spoken language? Why don’t we write like we speak, and speak like we write? At a conference, if someone reads a written speech, we can instantly discern the essay-like quality, even if you’re only listening to a recording and have no visible clues. Same goes for conversational writing in print. Are these two forms converging or diverging? If converging, towards which form?
I’ll wager that as more and more writing is produced for limited audiences within specific time ranges — you’re unlikely to be reading this two days later — the writing itself is freed from having to establish context, and hence can assume the casualness of the spoken form. And yet, spoken language is typically looser, using more filler words to convey the same content. This may have to do with how we understand when listening vs reading. Therefore we’re seeing a convergence that tends towards the spoken form, but not a complete loss of the written form.
Makes sense?
I’ll wager that as more and more writing is produced for limited audiences within specific time ranges — you’re unlikely to be reading this two days later — the writing itself is freed from having to establish context, and hence can assume the casualness of the spoken form. And yet, spoken language is typically looser, using more filler words to convey the same content. This may have to do with how we understand when listening vs reading. Therefore we’re seeing a convergence that tends towards the spoken form, but not a complete loss of the written form.
Makes sense?
arucard2 — Jul 11, 2006 10:53:01 AM — # ↩
It relates the way we think to the constructs/limitations of the language. I can relate written form to a well formed thought process, converted to writing. While, spoken language, I would assume, is more impulsive in nature. It would be interesting to know which section of the brain is used to perform the respective functions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-Whorf_hypothesis
http://www.usingenglish.com/speaking-out/linguistic-whorfare.html
Ok, I'll stop blabbering. :)
lost_almost — Jul 11, 2006 12:12:14 PM — # ↩
mona1610 — Jul 11, 2006 12:15:51 PM — # ↩
Are these two forms converging or diverging?
converging, and this is most apparent in presentation slides / learning management systems (with voice-overs). The focus there is to maximize on the audience / users' listening as well as reading abilities at the same time, which is quite bothersome, bcoz we're naturally not good at doing both these things simultaneously. hence the need for a language that speaks as it is written, or vice versa. Such a convergence will naturally reduce the strain on your attention span.
If converging, towards which form?
I'd like to rephrase that qs as: 'what governs this new form?' and if i were as naive as when i started my career, i'd rattle off a whole lot of style guides. But frankly it depends entirely on the writer's / presenter's skill to present effective content which is also user-centeric. Its more on the writer's personal style how the gap between listening and reading is bridged. But style is always an evolving thing, and if you look for consistency across various writers / styles, there's always going to be a trade-off. So my guess is that while the natural convergence between the two would tend towards casual, a delibrate move to standardize the same would probably result in something more prude.
hasina — Jul 11, 2006 12:57:20 PM — # ↩
if we wrote like we spoke more often then margrit kennedy's 'Interest and Inflation Free Money' wouldnt be the only piece of non-fiction i've ever really read from cover to cover.
www.iyerup.com she also writes like she speaks for people to read off as speeches
Anonymous — Jul 13, 2006 7:53:50 PM — # ↩
One of the main reasons that got me into blogging is because I thought I converse well (...ahem...) and hence can't I write in the same manner ?! Trust me, the last couple of months of blogging has been a struggle - an enjoyable and learning one nevertheless.
More often than not, when one speaks, the context,audience, mood and tone automatically tame the content and the flow. To replicate it in writing seems to be a lot more tougher.
Uday