Timeline for Why does linguistics focus on spoken languages rather than written ones?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 26, 2016 at 11:18 | comment | added | Tilo Wiklund | @jlawler The question was not about one form historically predating the other and as far as I am aware neither Derrida nor any scholar within his tradition have made any claims of written languages (at least in the narrow sense it is usually understood) predating spoken ones chronologically. | |
| Dec 23, 2016 at 20:09 | comment | added | jlawler | It's not an attitude; it's a fact. Spoken language is around a million years old, while writing of any kind dates from (being generous) ten thousand years ago. That's two orders of magnitude, not attitude. Derrida and his ilk are appropriately ignored by linguists. Facts come first, no matter how pretty the theory looks. | |
| Oct 16, 2011 at 10:18 | comment | added | Tilo Wiklund | @Gaston Ümlaut: It is precisely that attitude towards language (I'd say including the notion of an "internal" language) that people like Derrida have criticised. I'm not arguing for or against this view here (if I were I'd be very much on the side of people like Derrida, but this is not a discussion forum) but just mention that this phenomenon has been studied, has an established name and that not everyone "agrees" with it. | |
| Oct 16, 2011 at 3:06 | comment | added | Gaston Ümlaut | @TiloWiklund But spoken language is primary to written. All writing systems are parasitic on language, most (maybe all) being systems for representing the phonemes of a given language. Linguists take the view that even spoken language is secondary, it being the knowledge inside the head that is truly primary--it is this knowledge that mathematical linguistics tries to model. | |
| Oct 14, 2011 at 22:48 | comment | added | Tilo Wiklund | Note that an alternative does not need to subjugate spoken language to written. I would say that both examples I stated earlier, rather, choose not to make such a judgement. (That's not to say that the comment on graphocentrism isn't relevant though.) | |
| Oct 14, 2011 at 16:01 | comment | added | Leah Velleman | You'll sometimes hear the alternative referred to as graphocentrism. Outside of linguistics, "first world" culture tends to be pretty intensely graphocentric -- most non-linguists in, say, the US will feel like "Well, of course the real form of English is its written form! That's why illiterate people talk funny!" I don't think there's such a thing as "Graphocentric Linguistics," though. Basically whatever a graphocentric researcher does, we're likely to say "Dude, that's not linguistics you're doing." | |
| Oct 14, 2011 at 9:06 | comment | added | Tilo Wiklund | I do not have great insight into linguistic practice, so take what I say with a grain of salt. That said I think there are at least two traditions which could reasonably be posed as alternatives. There is a study of language related to mathematical logic/formal language theory where one can study languages as certain kinds of formal structures. Alternatively it doesn't strike me as unreasonable to use semiotics as a "foundational theory" and consider linguistics as studying sign systems which certain "linguistic" qualities. | |
| Oct 14, 2011 at 2:05 | comment | added | Mitch | I didn't realize the historical thread. Are you aware of what alternatives to this attitude might be? | |
| Oct 14, 2011 at 1:05 | history | edited | Tilo Wiklund | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 47 characters in body
|
| Oct 14, 2011 at 0:54 | history | answered | Tilo Wiklund | CC BY-SA 3.0 |