f.iii)Relationships and Differences between Spoken and Written Discourse

f.iii)Relationships and Differences between Spoken and Written Discourse

Since many authors have devoted attention to the notion of involvement in connection with spoken and written language, at this point, it is appropriate to summarize the basic relationships and differences between these two types of discourse. As we have seen in previous chapters, most of them concentrate on the interactive nature of spoken language where involvement has striking pragmatic implications. However, involvement in written discourse should not be undervalued either. The subject of this thesis is an analysis of political interviews, i.e. of spoken language. Its distinctive features may be shown more clearly when contrasted with written language. Many studies have dealt with relationships and differences between these two types of discourse (cf. Vachek 1976; Urbanová 2003; Brown and Yule 1983; Chafe 1985; Crystal 2003b, among others). The following part will look at them in detail.

The main differences between spoken and written discourse relate to language use, as Crystal confirms: “These differences are chiefly to do with language use, arising out of the fact that speakers and writers are operating in fundamentally different communicative situations. But there are also several differences in language structure: the grammar and vocabulary of speech is by no means the same as that of writing [...]” (Crystal 2003b:291).

Sometimes it is thought that writing is only “speech written down” but these two genres, though historically related, function as independent methods of communication (Crystal 2003b:291). In accordance with Crystal, Urbanová, drawing on Vachek (1976), claims that “spoken language and written language constitute two different norms, which are not interchangeable” (Urbanová 2003:13). She continues that “spoken utterances are primarily characterized by contracted forms, ellipsis, constant repetitions and restructuring, indistinct text boundaries, frequent pragmatic markers etc. Written language utilizes a set of devices such as text division, explicit cohesion, a higher level of sophistication represented by more elaborate grammatical structures, abstract vocabulary etc.” (2003:13).

Vachek (1976) describes written language as a “system of signs which can be manifested graphically and whose function is to respond to a given stimulus [...] in a static way [...]. Spoken language is a system of signs that can be manifested acoustically and whose function is to respond to a given stimulus [...] in a dynamic way [...]” (Vachek 1976:121). Another feature which Vachek mentions in connection with the description of written language is its “preservability” and “surveyability”, as opposed to “readiness” and “immediateness” of spoken language (1976:412-413).

Brown and Yule (1983:4) explain that spoken and written language impose different requirements on language-producers. These are connected with the fact that speakers may employ various “voice quality effects” and other paralinguistic cues such as facial expressions, gestures, and bodily postures. These features may refine the meaning of the words uttered. Needless to say, writers cannot rely on paralinguistic features. They employ different means such as structuring, punctuation, further comments etc. for emphasis or mitigation of the effect of the words.

In this connection, Chafe (1985:105) states that writing is a “slow, deliberate, editable process” as opposed to speaking which is done “on the fly”. This factor has resulted in Chafe’s distinction that he called “the integrated quality of written language” in contrast with “the fragmented quality of spoken [language].” In addition, he claims that speaking takes place in a setting typical of social interaction and thus it is characterised by a certain degree of involvement, whereas writing is a lonely activity and displays a detached quality (1985:105).

Brown and Yule (1983:4-5) also emphasise that speakers, in comparison with writers, have a more difficult position as far as the monitoring of “the production of communicative systems” is concerned. What is more, the speaker is processing that production under significantly more difficult conditions than the writer. As Brown and Yule put it: “The speaker must monitor what it is that he has just said, and determine whether it matches his intentions, [...]” (1983:4-5). At the same time he must formulate his upcoming utterances and place them into the general pattern of what he intends to convey. Besides, he must observe “not only his own performance but its reception by his hearer” (1983:5). In this respect, the writer is not under constant pressure to keep the talk going as the speaker. The writer may check his writing over, reword it if necessary, look up the precise expression he needs in a dictionary, and even “change his mind about what he wants to say” (1983:5).

A similar observation has been made by Chafe (1985:106-107), who claims that writing is a much slower process than speaking because we have a lot of time to think about how to formulate our ideas into appropriate wording of our sentences. “Writing is in fact free of the constraints imposed by the limited temporal and informational capacity of focal consciousness; we have time to let our attention roam over a large amount of information and devote itself to a more deliberate organization of linguistic resources” (1985:107).

There are, as might be expected, certain assets for the speaker as well. Since he is in immediate contact with his interlocutor, he may observe him and if it is requisite, he can adapt his utterances in order to be more approachable and comprehensible to his conversational partner. The writer has no such advantage of immediate feedback. (Brown and Yule1983:5).

As regards further relationships between speech and writing, Brown and Yule (1983) claim that “whereas in daily life in a literate culture, we use speech largely for the establishment and maintenance of human relationships (primarily interactional use), we use written language largely for the working out of and transference of information (primarily transactional use)” (Brown and Yule 1983:13). On the other hand, they are well conscious of the fact that there are situations in which speech is employed to convey factual pieces of information rather than maintaining personal relationships. These situations comprise, for example, writing down a lecture, telephone numbers and addresses, or occasions when a doctor writes down the patient’s symptoms, a businessman writes down the requirements of his clients etc.

Brown and Yule (1983:14-19) summarise differences in form between spoken and written language in several points which are based on the descriptive work of other scholars. The features that are counted as being characteristic of spoken language are:

much less structured syntax than that of written language - frequent use of incomplete sentences, little subordination, the usage of active declarative forms

the speaker is less explicit than the writer

in spoken language the paratactically organised segments are related by and, but, then, and occasionally by if

In written language, contrariwise, a broad set of metalingual indicators can be found to mark relationships between clauses, e.g. when, while, besides, moreover, in spite of, etc.

They also mention that “heavily premodified noun phrases” are frequent in written language whereas it is scarce to find more than two premodifying adjectives in spoken language and “there is a strong tendency to structure the short chunks of speech so that only one predicate is attached to a given referent at a time” (Brown and Yule 1983:16). In addition, what is typical of speech is rare usage of the passive voice, which commonly occurs in writing, enabling non-attribution of agency. In respect to vocabulary, a rather generalised type of lexis prevails, for example thing, stuff, things like that, nice, do, get, etc. Fillers such as well, you know, I think, if you see what I mean, etc. are employed (1983:17).

As regards the language of political interviews, it displays features of spoken language described by the above-mentioned scholars. The language of politicians is characterised by frequent use of repetitions, pragmatic markers and incomplete sentences. The syntax of sentences is not structured very much and it is less complex than that of writing. Vague expressions such as and stuff like that, something like that, or so, do you know what I mean are used. The use of informal lexis is a sign of the tendency of political language to conversationalization of this type of discourse. This issue will be discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 3.5.

As already mentioned, spoken and written language interrelate. For instance, there can be a written discourse that is intended for speaking such as prepared speeches or television and radio newsreading. Conversely, there is a form of “written dialogue”, such as questionnaires and registration forms that are dialogic in form. They represent a rather unusual kind of dialogue because there is only one participant who asks all the questions (Crystal 2003b:294).

To conclude, both types of communication have their advantages and one cannot say that writing is more important or more perfect than speaking. Urbanová (2002:12) mentions that nowadays there are so-called hybrid forms of communication which contain a symbiosis of spoken and written discourse. They are frequent because of the great influence of media language, such as the language of newspapers, the language of broadcast media, and the language of advertising. Hybrid forms of communication can also be regarded as a consequence of new forms of communication, such as the Internet and mobile phone.

The following subsection will return to the concept of involvement and examine another approach to this notion as it was described by Chafe.