Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Background concepts and issues
- 1 Introduction: textual dimensions and relations
- 2 Situations and functions
- 3 Previous linguistic research on speech and writing
- Part II Methodology
- Part III Dimensions and relations in English
- Appendix I Texts used in the study
- Appendix II Linguistic features: algorithms and functions
- Appendix III Mean frequency counts of all linguistic features in each genre
- Appendix IV Pearson correlation coefficients for all linguistic features
- References
- Index
3 - Previous linguistic research on speech and writing
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Background concepts and issues
- 1 Introduction: textual dimensions and relations
- 2 Situations and functions
- 3 Previous linguistic research on speech and writing
- Part II Methodology
- Part III Dimensions and relations in English
- Appendix I Texts used in the study
- Appendix II Linguistic features: algorithms and functions
- Appendix III Mean frequency counts of all linguistic features in each genre
- Appendix IV Pearson correlation coefficients for all linguistic features
- References
- Index
Summary
Overall linguistic generalizations
There is a long history of research on the linguistic characterization of speech and writing. Although a variety of approaches has been adopted, the shared goal of most previous studies has been to identify specific linguistic features that distinguish between the two modes. Many studies also offer overall linguistic characterizations of speech and writing. In general, writing is claimed to be:
more structurally complex and elaborate than speech, indicated by features such as longer sentences or T-units and a greater use of subordination (O'Donnell et al. 1967; O'Donnell 1974; Kroll 1977; Chafe 1982; Akinnaso 1982; Tannen 1982a, 1985; Gumperz et al. 1984);
more explicit than speech, in that it has complete idea units with all assumptions and logical relations encoded in the text (DeVito 1966; 1967; Olson 1977);
more decontextualized, or autonomous, than speech, so that it is less dependent on shared situation or background knowledge (Kay 1977; Olson 1977);
less personally involved than speech and more detached and abstract than speech (Blankenship 1974; Chafe 1982; Chafe and Danielewicz 1986);
characterized by a higher concentration of new information than speech (Stubbs 1980; Kroch and Hindle 1982; Brown and Yule 1983); and
more deliberately organized and planned than speech (Ochs 1979; Rubin 1980; Akinnaso 1982; Brown and Yule 1983; Gumperz et al. 1984).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Variation across Speech and Writing , pp. 47 - 58Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1988