Agar points out that discourse is how people actually talk in ordinary situations. So, if we actually talk one way, why do we judge it by written standards? Why use the traditional sentence grammar of English that we use to judge writing for speaking? Is this a fair judgment? For example, it would be strange if this entry had a few ums and uhs, but if I did the same when speaking, there would not be the same reaction. So, why do we use traditional sentence grammar to judge speaking? My question stems beyond our conversations about the standard language or standard English. I'm asking why even use a written form as the basis of judgment for a spoken form? And anyways, didn't speaking come first? As in, if we spoke before we wrote, why are our speaking norms not our writing norms? Thinking globally, what about cultures who have different writing systems, where for instance one figure/symbol might represent an entire idea instead of letters that make up words.
Comments (1)
I agree with you about written and spoken language standards. We should judge our written language differently from our spoken language because I think hearing words makes all the differences than reading workds. When we speak we don't necessarily have time to process everything as it is being spoken to us so there is time for ums or pauses. Yet, when we write something down we are able to go back and read it several times so putting ums in is odd to us when we are given the time to process everything more quickly. However, I think we use the written standard simply just to have something to follow. It is easier for everyone to understand each other when there is some sort of standard to follow whether we follow it by the book or divert slightly it is there to aid us in some way.
Posted by Courtney Rademacher | April 4, 2008 2:34 PM
Posted on April 4, 2008 14:34