* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 21.1692

Wed Apr 07 2010

Sum: Relationship Between Spoken and Written Grammar

Editor for this issue: Danielle St. Jean <daniellelinguistlist.org>


To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.cfm.
Directory
        1.    Mark Brenchley, Relationship Between Spoken and Written Grammar

Message 1: Relationship Between Spoken and Written Grammar
Date: 05-Apr-2010
From: Mark Brenchley <schlemihlgmail.com>
Subject: Relationship Between Spoken and Written Grammar
E-mail this message to a friend

Query for this summary posted in LINGUIST Issue: 21.876
Two months back, I submitted a query to The LINGUIST List,
requesting information on the relationship between speech and writing.
Unsurprisingly, responses from The LINGUIST List were swift, allowing
me to put together a small but useful bibliography of texts. That
bibliography is detailed below, and the texts are sorted below
according to subject: 1.) Texts on Spoken Language, 2.) Texts on
Spoken and Written Language, and 3.) Texts on Written Language.

1.) Texts on Spoken Language:
Aijmer, K. (1996) Conversational Routines in English - Covention and
Creativity. London: Longman.

Brazil, D. (1995) A Grammar of Speech. Oxford: OUP.

Brown, G. (1977) Listening to Spoken English. London: Longman.

Brown, G. (1996) Speakers, Listeners & Communication - Explorations
in Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: CUP.

Bublitz, W. (1988) Supportive Fellow-Speakers and Cooperative
Conversations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Carter, R. & McCarthy, M. (1997) Exploring Spoken English.
Cambridge: CUP.

Coulmas, R. (1981) Conversational Routine - Explorations in Standard
Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. Den Haag:
Mouton.

Miller, J. & Weinert, R. (1998) Spontaneous Spoken Language: Syntax
and Discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, QCA (2004) An Introduction to
the Grammar of Talk. London: QCA.

2.) Texts on Spoken and Written Language:
Aijmer, K. (2004) Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Biber, D. (1988) Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Biber, D. (1995) Dimensions of Register Variation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Biber, D. & Finegan, E. (1989) Drift and the Evolution of English Style -
A History of Three Genres. Language 65(3); pp 487-517.

Biber, D. & Finegan, E. (1994) Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register.
Oxford: OUP.

Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Reppen, R. (1998) Register Variation and
English for Specific Purposes, in Corpus Linguistics: Investigating
Language Structure & Use. Cambridge: CUP; pp 135-171.

Biber, D., Finegan, E., Johansson, S., Conrad, S. & Leech, G. (1999)
Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.

Chafe, W. (1982) Integration and Involvement in Speaking, Writing and
Literature. in Tannen, D. (ed) Spoken and Written Language: Exploring
Orality and Literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Chafe, W. (1994) Discourse, Consciousness and Time: The Flow and
Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Halliday, M. K. A. (1985) Spoken & Written Language. Geelong: Deakin
University Press.

Myhill, D. (2009) From Talking to Writing: Linguistic Development in
Writing. British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II
(6); pp 27-44.

Quirke et al. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English
Language. London: Longman.

Scholes, R. J. (1993) Literacy and Language Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Spolsky, B. & Hult, F. M. (2010) The Handbook of Educational
Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Tannen, D. (1982) Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality
and Literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Tannen, D. (1986) Languages and Linguistics - The Interdependence
of Theory, Data, and Application. Georgetown University Press.

3.) Texts on Written Language:
Haegeman, L. (1987) Register Variation in English - Some Theoretical
Observations. Journal of English Linguistics 20; pp 230-248.

Haegeman, L. (1987) Complexity and Literary Prose - Some
Suggestions for Formalization. Language and Style 20; pp 214-222.

Haegeman, L. (2006) Subject Omission in Present-Day Written English
- On The Theoretical Relevance of Peripheral Data. Revista di
Grammatica Generativa 31.

Kaur, M. (in press) Syntactical Analysis of Learner Corpus.

Knoch, U. (2010) Diagnostic Writing Assessment. Oxford: Peter Lang.

Linell, P. (2005) The Written Language Bias in Linguistics. Oxon:
Routledge.

Massey, A. J. & Elliott, G. L. (1996) Aspects of Writing in 16+ English
Examinations between 1980 and 1994. Cambridge: University of
Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate.

Myhill, D. (2008) Towards a Linguistic Model of Sentence Development
in Writing Language & Education 22(5); pp 271-288.

Olson, D. R. (1985) Literacy, Language,and Learning: The Nature and
Consequences of Reading and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Pontecorvo, C. (1997) Writing Development. Amsterdam, Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, QCA (1999) Improving Writing.
London: QCA.

Verhoeven, L. (1994) Functional Literacy: Theoretical Issues and
Educational Implications. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Overall, there does not appear to be much contemporary research into
the developing relationship between speech and writing within
education, though Debra Myhill at Exeter is an exception. I also note
that one of the respondees, Katharina Schwabl, is about to start a PhD
at the University of Graz into preschool knowledge of linguistic variation
between spoken and written language. Manvender Kaur has also
supplied an interesting paper offering an intuitive analysis of corpora
using part-of-speech tagging, which may prove useful.

Many thanks to all those who took the time to reply to my query. In
particular, I would like to say thank you to the following individuals:
Chris Cleirigh, Bruce D. Despain, Zenzi M. Griffin, Hilary Franklin,
Liliane Haegeman, Manvender Kaur, Natalia Kotsyba, James Li, Philip
McCarthy, Chad D. Nilep, Cornelia Pareskevas, Aleyz Rouchdy, Doris
Schonefeld, Thorsten Schroter, Katharina Schwabl, and William
Sullivan.
Linguistic Field(s): Discourse Analysis
                            Language Acquisition
                            Syntax
                            Text/Corpus Linguistics

This Year the LINGUIST List hopes to raise $65,000. This money will go to help 
keep the List running by supporting all of our Student Editors for the coming year.

See below for donation instructions, and don't forget to check out our Space Fund 
Drive 2010 and join us for a great journey!

http://linguistlist.org/fund-drive/2010/

There are many ways to donate to LINGUIST!

You can donate right now using our secure credit card form at  
https://linguistlist.org/donation/donate/donate1.cfm

Alternatively you can also pledge right now and pay later. To do so, go to: 
https://linguistlist.org/donation/pledge/pledge1.cfm

For all information on donating and pledging, including information on how to 
donate by check, money order, or wire transfer, please visit: 
http://linguistlist.org/donation/

The LINGUIST List is under the umbrella of Eastern Michigan University and as 
such can receive donations through the EMU Foundation, which is a registered 
501(c) Non Profit organization. Our Federal Tax number is 38-6005986. These 
donations can be offset against your federal and sometimes your state tax return 
(U.S. tax payers only). For more information visit the IRS Web-Site, or contact 
your financial advisor.

Many companies also offer a gift matching program, such that they will match 
any gift you make to a non-profit organization. Normally this entails your 
contacting your human resources department and sending us a form that the 
EMU Foundation fills in and returns to your employer. This is generally a simple 
administrative procedure that doubles the value of your gift to LINGUIST, without 
costing you an extra penny. Please take a moment to check if your company 
operates such a program.

Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!


Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue




Please report any bad links or misclassified data

LINGUIST Homepage | Read LINGUIST | Contact us

NSF Logo

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.