Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T11:53:49.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The context of oral and written language: A framework for mode and medium switching1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Denise E. Murray
Denise E. Murray
Affiliation:
Linguistics Program, San Jose State University, IBM, Los Angeles Scientific Center
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article demonstrates that our descriptions of orality and literacy – from the traditional dichotomy to the more recent continuum – are inadequate, largely because they are grounded in the Western positivist tradition and use as their typical texts casual conversation and academic writing. The introduction of a new medium of communication, the computer, into the workplace clearly demonstrates that medium of communication is itself a linguistic choice, depending on the context of situation. The article presents a case study identifying those aspects of the context of situation that affect both choice of mode/medium and mode/medium-switching. The article then proposes a framework that expands on previous work that has sought to describe the dimensions involved in the choice of language (e.g., Halliday 1973; Hymes 1972; Jakobson 1960). This framework suggests an integrated approach for examining oral and written language, an approach grounded in the view that literacy and orality are social practices whose forms and functions vary for different social groups. (Literacy, dimensions of sociolinguistics, discourse)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 1988 , pp. 351 - 373
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13:145–204.Google Scholar
Black, S. D., Levin, J. E., Mehan, H., & Quinn, C. N. (1983). Real and non-real time interaction: Unraveling multiple threads of discourse. Discourse Processes 6:59–75.Google Scholar
Buhler, K. (1934). Sprachtheorie. Jena.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In Tannen, D. (ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. 35–53.Google Scholar
Conklin, N. F. (1984). Literacy in interaction: The use of electronic E-Message systems. Paper presented at LSA Meeting, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Economou, D. (1985). Collecting and using authentic conversations in ESL migrant classrooms. Paper presented at A.T.E.S.O.L. 4th Summer School, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. (1957). Papers in linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. A. (1965). Who speaks what language to whom and when? Linguistique 2:67–88.Google Scholar
Giles, H. (1980). Accommodation theory: Some new directions. York Papers in Linguistics 9:105–36.Google Scholar
Goody, J., & Watt, I. (1968). The consequences of literacy. In Goody, J. (ed.), Literacy in traditional societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 53–84.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1971). Hindi-Punjabi code-switching in Delhi. In Gumperz, J. J. (ed.), Language in social groups. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 205–19.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Havelock, E. A. (1963). Preface to Plato. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heath, S. B., & Thomas, C. (1984). The achievement of preschool literacy for mother and child. In Goelman, H., Oberg, A. A., & Smith, F. (eds.), Awakening to literacy. Exeter, N. H.: Heinemann Educational Books. 55–73.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1967). Models of the interaction of language and social settings. Journal of Social Issues 23(2):8–28. (Special issue: Problems of bilingualism, ed. J. Macnamara.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). Models for the interaction of language and social life. In Gumperz, J. J. & Hymes, D. (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 35–71.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statements: Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, T. A. (ed.), Style in language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 350–73.Google Scholar
Kiesler, S., Seigel, J., and McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computermediated communication. American Psychologist 39:1123–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Levodow, N. (1980). Computer conversations: A hybrid of spoken and written English. Paper presented at the Berkeley Sociolinguistic Meeting, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
Malinowski, B. (1923). “The problem of meaning in primitive languages.” In Ogden, C. K. and Richards, I. A. (eds.), The meaning of meaning. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. (1984). Language, register and genre. In Christie, F. (ed.), Children writing: Reader. Geelong: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
Murray, D. E. (1985). Composition as conversation: The computer terminal as medium of communication. In Odell, L. & Goswami, D. (eds.), Writing in nonacademic settings. New York: Guilford. 205–29.Google Scholar
Murray, D. E. (forthcoming). When the medium determines turns: Turn-taking in computer conversation. In Coleman, H. (ed.), Working with language. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Nystrand, M. (1982). Rhetoric's “audience” and linguistics’ “speech community”: Implications for understanding writing, reading, and text. In Nystrand, M. (ed.), What writers know: The language, process, and structure of written discourse. New York: Academic. 1–28.Google Scholar
Olson, D. R. (1977). From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech and writing. Harvard Educational Review 47:257–81.Google Scholar
Olson, D. R. (1981). Writing: The divorce of the author from the text. In Kroll, B. M. & Vann, R. J. (eds.), Exploring speaking-writing relationships: Connections and contrasts. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English. 99–110.Google Scholar
Ong, W. J. (1977). Interfaces of the word: Studies in the evolution of consciousness and culture. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Pattison, R. (1982). On literacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. (1980). Language use in multilingual societies: Some alternate approaches. In Sankoff, G., The social life of language. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 29–46.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1972). Sequencing in conversational openings. In Gumperz, J. J. & Hymes, D. H. (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics. The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 346–80.Google Scholar
Scribner, S., and Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1982). The oral/literate continuum in discourse. In Tannen, D. (ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. 1–16.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1985a). Relative focus on involvement in oral and written discourse. In Olson, D. R., Torrance, N., & Hildyard, A. (eds.), Literacy, language and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 124–47.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1985b). The orality of literature and the literacy of conversation. Paper presented at the Sibyl Walcutt Terman and Frederick E. Terman Conference on Language, Literacy, and Culture: Issues of Society and Schooling, School of Education, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., and Romaine, S. (1985). Some questions for the definition of “style” in sociohistorical linguistics. Folia Linguistica Historica 6:7–39.Google Scholar