Relationships Between Speech and Writing

Speech and writing can be two modalities of the same language. They often play complementary roles capable of diversifying communication in language communities that use both. We, as human beings, can trans­

mit meaning with our whole body through gestures, vocalisations, and movements. We can use all of our five senses to engage with the outside world, but in all cultures, verbal expression is the main language sys­

tem of representation. Like speech, writing also constitutes a symbolic

system for representing human thoughts and feelings. It can also be di­

rectly linked to culture—or more cultures—from which it developed and was used over time.¹

2.1. Main Features

I describe herein what makes speech and writing two different modali­

ties of language, beginning with five key points and a list of some spe­

cific characteristics.

(a) Firstly, writing revolutionized our relationship with time. Draw­

ing graphic signs on resistant materials—which vary from culture to culture in a diatopic and diachronic way—creates the impression that a message can be deciphered without limits in time. Thus, it donates the illusion of being able to be permanently detached from it. On the contrary, spoken language is inevitably related to the time factor, since it is transmitted through sound. Indeed, it is impossible to stop or crys­

tallize a sound naturally—without technologic tools—in time, just as it is impossible to block the movement of a material object by visually stop­

ping its trajectory.

(b) Writing is durable and can be planned which counterbalances the ephemerality and spontaneity of speech. Sound can therefore be desig­

nated as “the most real and evanescent of human sensory objects” (Ong, 1967). Writing transforms speech into an object inscribed in space, thus making language more durable, but at the same time “less real and pas­

sive”. From a sensory point of view, the spatialization of the “real” com­

municative event confirms the increasing supremacy of sight at the ex­

pense of hearing.

(c) For spoken language, hearing guides the other senses in commu­

nicative perception, whereas in the written context, sight constitutes the main receiver of communication. One of the main differences between sight and hearing is that the former allows the separation of the com­

ponents of a sensory object, while the latter unifies them by seeking a whole harmony. Speech is more dependent on the context in which the communication happened. On one hand, sight is used in one direction at a time. On the other hand, sound comes simultaneously from all di­

rections. We can immerse ourselves in the sound, but it is impossible to immerse ourselves in the same way in vision (cf. Ong, 1982).

1. If we agree with this assumption, we are not questioning the linguistic arbi­

trariness of sign theorized by Ferdinand de Saussure (1916). We are only assuming that also a graphic sign can never be considered neutral, because it was created and institutionalized in a precise environment, in one—or more than one—specific cul­

ture and language community. For further details, see Presutti (2019) and Cardona (2009).

(d) Writing transforms language communication into an event that is not necessarily collective. By reducing the impact of the time factor, it frees itself from the individual who produces it, as it were, while at the same time attenuating the scope of the interlocutor. Thus, the phenom­

enon of writing becomes an individual experience (Goody, 1977). We may, for example, read or study a text that we have written ourselves.

Its timeless character therein helps to stimulate the creative process and encourages the recognition of individuality.

Another linked difference could be represented by the dichotomy be­

tween noise and silence². In fact, spoken language is necessarily linked with noise and spatial presence of interlocutors, both in terms of pro­

duction and reception, whereas writing and reading can be individual and silent experiences. In the first era of writing in Western societies, the text was very often declaimed aloud—with or without an audience.

After that, as individual reading, both mental and silent, was gradually established, the acoustic component was almost completely lost.

(e) Writing revolutionized mental processes and human modalities related to knowledge. This modality of language froze the form and the content of the message. The fixation of the written text consider­

ably diminished the characteristic oscillations of verbal communication, thus facilitating its institutionalization and creating linguistic models on which society can base itself in both present and future phases. The use of writing also considerably modified the relationship that human thought has with memory and knowledge. Indeed, a writing system makes it possible, for example, to write down useful information to be retained for the near future, leaving the human brain space and energy for other actions. Spelling archiving also leads to an unlimited increase in the amount of relevant information for both the individual and soci­

ety as a whole. Writing therefore develops specific cognitive and social skills that are different from oral communication. Thus, the fields of external memory and rational (self­)controlled thinking—the ability to plan, to reason about abstract issues, to normalize, and to implement procedures—rise considerably.

In order to compare face­to­face dialogue and traditional writing on paper, I consider some features collected by Clark and Brennan (1991).

These two conventional modalities of language show almost opposites characteristics (cf. Table 1). In fact, only the sequentiality feature de­

scribes both speech and writing. The other seven aspects of language are present in just one of two modes. Accordingly, copresence, visibility, audibility, cotemporality, and simultaneity are depicted in a traditional speech dialogue. On the contrary, reviewability and revisability can­

2. This dichotomy was suggested by the French linguist Gustave Guillaume, quoted by Boone and Joly (1994).

not be conformed with the spontaneity and ephemerality of traditional speech.

Table 1. Main features of speech and writing (Clark and Brennan, 1991) Speech Writing

Face­to­face Traditional

Copresence + –

Visibility + –

Audibility + –

Cotemporality + –

Simultaneity + –

Sequentiality + +

Reviewability – +

Revisability – +