Effects of Linguistics on Written Composition
Naomi S. Baron (1981) has commented that since the birth of nineteenth century comparative philology, the position of writing in linguistic analysis has tended to be tenuous at best. Most of the classical linguists made the primacy of speech in linguistic analysis overt and the discipline has tended to restrict its inquiry to spoken language. Written materials have been introduced into analysis only where necessary for diachronic study. Over time, however, says Baron (1981), many linguists have come to the conclusion that spoken, written, and sign languages should be seen as different linguistic means or modes of representing human experiences which people find it necessary to convey to one another. Baron (1981, p. 72) quotes Sapir in defining language as "a purely human and non-instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions, and desires by means of a system of voluntarily produced symbols." As both a formal system and an informal one, language is as productive in the written as in the vocal mode. This report will examine the literature that describes the effects of linguistics on written composition, demonstrating that written composition is as significant a manifestation of language as is speech.
Baron (1981) considers writing to be a durable linguistic visual representation of experience. It is differentiated from speech, also linguistic, but highly ephemeral and capable of auditory representation. Thus, the critical differences between writing and speech are in the areas of durability or permanence and mode of representation. Connor and Kaplan (1986) argued that there is a relationship between rhetorical arrangement and the writer's thought patterns as determined by his native culture. It was Kaplan's posture that linguists needed to reassess the original concept of writing and reflect on its broader application within the field of linguistics. In discussing th...