The Linguistic Relationships of Spoken and Written Nukulaelae

This study is an investigation of the structural relationships between spoken and written Nukulaelae Tuvaluan, a Polynesian language spoken in a restrictedly literate society in the Central Pacific. The results of a factor analysis of the frequency of co-occurrence of 42 linguistic features across a computerized corpus of naturalistic spoken and written texts show that three dimensions must be identified to account for variation between Nukulaelae registers: attitudinal vs. authoritative discourse; informational vs. interactional focus; and rhetorical manipulation vs. structural complexity. Contrary to claims advanced for English and tacitly for speaking and writing in general, spoken Tuvaluan is not necessarily more involved, less complex, and more context-dependent than written Tuvaluan. These characteristics are a function of the communicative norms at play in each register. The structural relationships of spoken and written language must be explained in terms of the social context of orality and literacy in different literacy traditions, rather than the cognitive demands of language production and comprehension in the spoken and written modes.*

[1]  M. Cole,et al.  The psychology of literacy , 1983 .

[2]  W. Chafe,et al.  Properties of spoken and written language. , 1987 .

[3]  N. Besnier,et al.  Literacy and feelings: The encoding of affect in Nukulaelae letters , 1989 .

[4]  S. Heath,et al.  Ways with Words: Language, Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms , 1985 .

[5]  S. Jacobs.  Narrative, Literacy and Face in Interethnic Communication , 1981 .

[6]  D. Tannen.  Oral and Literate Strategies in Spoken and Written Narratives. , 1982 .

[7]  M. Poole,et al.  A Comparison of Oral and Written Code Elaboration , 1976, Language and speech.

[8]  J. Long.  Confirmatory Factor Analysis , 1983 .

[9]  Marianne Mithun.  When Speakers Write , 1985 .

[10]  J. Goody.  The Domestication of the Savage Mind , 1982 .

[11]  J. T. Irvine.  Formality and Informality in Communicative Events , 1979 .

[12]  Gisela Redeker,et al.  On differences between spoken and written language , 1984 .

[13]  Douglas Biber,et al.  Variation across speech and writing: Methodology , 1988 .

[14]  Aaron V. Cicourel,et al.  Text and Discourse , 1985 .

[15]  W. Ong,et al.  Orality and literacy : the technologizing of the word , 1982 .

[16]  F. Niyi Akinnaso,et al.  On The Differences Between Spoken and Written Language , 1982 .

[17]  Paul Kay,et al.  Language Evolution and Speech Style , 1977 .

[18]  G. Leech.  Style in fiction : a linguistic introduction to English fictional prose / Geoffrey Neil Leech , 1981 .

[19]  B. Street.  Literacy in Theory and Practice , 1984 .

[20]  Elinor Ochs.  Ergativity and Word Order in Samoan Child Language , 1982 .

[21]  Penelope Brown,et al.  Speech as a marker of situation , 1979 .

[22]  Elinor Ochs,et al.  Planned and unplanned discourse , 1979 .

[23]  Andrew Pawley,et al.  Natural selection in syntax: Notes on adaptive variation and change in vernacular and literary grammar☆ , 1983 .

[24]  J. Gumperz,et al.  On the Similarities Between Spoken and Written Language , 1985 .

[25]  D. Hymes.  Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach , 1974 .

[26]  D. Tannen,et al.  The Relation Between Written and Spoken Language , 1987 .

[27]  J A DeVito,et al.  Levels of abstraction in spoken and written language. , 1967, The Journal of communication.

[28]  Jack Goody,et al.  The interface between the written and the oral , 1989 .

[29]  Joseph A. DeVito,et al.  Comprehension factors in oral and written discourse of skilled communicators , 1965 .

[30]  D. Olson.  From Utterance to Text: The Bias of Language in Speech and Writing , 1977 .

[31]  D. Biber,et al.  Investigating macroscopic textual variation through multifeature/multidimensional analyses , 1985 .