Editor for this issue: T. Daniel Seely <dseely
emunix.emich.edu>
r "Reducing" a language to writing seems to me to be an apt, even astute, expression. I don't know what the original metaphor meant, but I take it as an elimination of most prosodic cues. This is where written language differs greatly from spoken language. Presumably, some compensating discipline is put into written language (organisation into sentences etc?), so that intent, often clear in spoken language (to the addressees) by means of prosody, is somehow handled by other means in written language. To appreciate the reduction of prosody in written language, it is revealing to look at the way Bolinger represented the prosody of utterances in his studies of prosody -- and to note that no written language has or will ever adopt such complex conventions. Another meaning of "reduction" to writing may be reducing the amount of variation in written language when compared with intra- and inter-speaker variation in spoken language. I doubt that was the intent of the original metaphor, however. About preserving endangered languages by "reducing" them to writing, I have always assumed that it's as simple as that. I may be wrong, but I cannot think of any cases in which reducing an endangered language to writing had any effect on whether or not it became extinct as a spoken language -- well, maybe it retarded the demise of Latin, but that eventually happened anyway. Instead, linguists appreciate that ancient languages were reduced to writing because they are all extinct as spoken languages now (with ceremonial exceptions, mainly religious, but which might have survived as spoken formulae anyway) and writing provides data on the nature of these languages. There are various arguments, such as the "prestige" of written languages, which are used to rationalise reduction to writing as a means of preserving the languages as spoken as well, but I have not seen any evidence that this works. Correct me if I'm wrong. BenjiMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue