Editor for this issue: Andrew Carnie <carnie
linguistlist.org>
I agree with Feargal Murphy's and B Wald's comments about "hypotaxis". Surely we don't need to go back to Akkadian and Ancient Greek for speculations about the complexity of syntax prior to the invention of writing. What about the Vedic texts and other ancient oral literature, preserved orally for centuries before being written down verbatim? There are also hundreds of languages in the world that were not written until quite recently, and even where there is a writing system, very few speakers can be called literate. Texts which have been published in these languages were first collected orally, so that the occurrence of hypotaxis in such texts cannot be attributed to the influence of a non-existent written tradition. Besides, it does not make sense that the act of writing down speech should in itself lead to a significant change in syntactic organization. The history of writing systems shows that they had very mundane beginnings and that the earliest ones were not intended to represent all the complexities of speech. Moreover, the idea that syntax became complex only with writing denigrates the possibilities inherent in human speech and the capabilities of both speaker and hearer. The long, involved, syntactically complex, periodic sentence much admired by 19th century writers was originally an imitation of similar complexity in Latin and Greek oratory, an oral medium. Speeches by Cicero and other famous orators were preserved in writing so that others could study them and become orators too. In Western culture the preeminence given to the written word for many centuries and especially in our day, has downgraded oral performance, but in areas where the spoken word is still the norm at the highest level it is possible to witness complex feats of oral composition. I say this from having lived in a Native community, heard oratory in both the local and the dominant language, and attended many functions where government officials cut a very mediocre figure next to practiced Native orators, whose skill and even artistry is both very conscious and much appreciated by their audience. The same is true of traditional story-tellers and epic-reciters in areas where those oral traditions are alive and well. The popularization of writing may have extended possibilities that existed already, both in the structure of the languages and in high-level oral practice (by stretching the limits of performance through the help of visual clues), it cannot have created them. Marie-Lucie Tarpent Mount Saint Vincent University Halifax, N.S. B3M 2J6 CanadaMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue