Writing as a sociolinguistic object (TPCS 42, 2012) (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Sociolinguistics of Writing in a Global Context: Objects, lenses, consequences
Journal of Sociolinguistics 17(4), 2013
In this paper, we argue that writing has largely been ignored as a significant empirical object of study in sociolinguistics. Pointing to the consequences of the specific ways in which writing has been positioned historically within sociolinguistics, we discuss the need to re-imagine writing as an object of study and problematize the dominant lenses through which writing is understood and analyzed. We draw on recent work to illustrate three key challenges that need to be addressed: firstly, to move beyond a default position on writing in terms of ‘standard’ and ‘error’; secondly, to extend the analytic gaze beyond a monomodal orientation towards writing; and thirdly to avoid the privileging of single moments and sites of production. We conclude by giving an overview of the papers in the special issue and the ways in which they seek to reorient sociolinguistics towards the study of writing.
Writing as a sociolinguistic object
Writing has never been a core object of sociolinguistics, and this paper argues for a mature sociolinguistics of writing. Seen from a sociolinguistic viewpoint, writing needs to be seen as a complex of specific resources subject to patterns of distribution, of availability and accessibility. If we take this approach to the field of writing, and unthank the unproductive distinction between 'language' and 'writing', we can distinguish several specific sets of resources that are required for writing: from infrastructural ones, over graphic ones, linguistic, semantic, pragmatic and metapragmatic ones, to social and cultural ones. These resources form the 'sub-molecular' structure of writing and each of them is subject to different patterns of distribution, leading to specific configurations of writing resources in people's repertoires. Thus, we can arrive at vastly more precise diagnostic analyses of 'problems' in writing, and this has a range of important effects.
‘Writing system typology’, thus far, is closely associated with a descriptive classification of writing systems focusing on the linguistic level (phonemic, syllabic, morphemic) that the basic units of writing systems relate to – their main underlying criterion, thus, is ‘dominant level of representational mapping’ (cf. Joyce/Meletis in press). Such typologies have been used to show how writing systems function at their core as well as to highlight both similarities and differences between them. Arguably, however, due their narrow scope, many potentially relevant features and parallels remain blind spots. These start already at the structural level, as the restricted focus on the relation between writing and language results in a disregard of systematic structural features that are intrinsic to writing systems, i.e., not determined by their relation to language. These include, for example, allography, i.e., systematic variation of variant units in writing, or graphotactics, the rules of how units of writing may combine to form larger units (such as written words, sentences, etc.). Notably, a restriction to structure dismisses paramount questions concerning the use of writing systems, e.g., how they are processed and used for communication, bringing to the fore psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives. Potential criteria for possible psycholinguistic typologies of writing include, for example, spacing between graphemes or written words, or the visual complexity exhibited by the script used for a writing system. A candidate for a sociolinguistic typology is the degree of normativity and prescriptivism characterizing a literate culture, which is established, among other things, by asking if and how the writing system in question is orthographically regulated and how this affects users’ literacy practices and ideologies pertaining to writing. Since, in a comprehensive and integrated theory of writing, a writing system must always simultaneously be considered as a system with its own idiosyncratic features, a semiotic system relating to a given language, a graphic medium that must be physiologically and cognitively processed, and a communication tool and a cultural technique embedded in a given context and culture, structural, psycholinguistic, and sociolinguistic perspectives arguably should never be adopted completely divorced from each other (cf. Meletis 2020). This talk aims not only to present different structural and use-based typologies of writing that go beyond those brought forth by ‘traditional’ writing system typology but also to show how they are connected and interact with each other and, importantly, how this can increase our know¬ledge of the fundamental nature of writing. REFERENCES Joyce, Terry & Dimitrios Meletis (in press): Alternative criteria for writing system typology. Cross-linguistic observations from the German and Japanese writing systems. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft Special Issue. Meletis, Dimitrios (2020): The nature of writing. A theory of grapholinguistics (= Grapholinguistics and Its Applications; 3). Brest: Fluxus Editions. DOI: 10.36824/2020-meletis.
Writing is an utterly multifaceted subject. This is echoed by the interdisciplinarity of grapholinguistics, a young field of study invested in all questions pertaining to writing. As one of the modalities of language, writing is undeniably a linguistic subject. However, the most dominant paradigms of linguistics initially neglected questions of writing; thus, the systematic study of those questions had a delayed start and is, to this day, not as well-established as other linguistic subfields. Against this background, it is astonishing how fine-grained grapholinguistic, and especially gra¬phe¬matic, research has become. It must be noted, however, that this research is influenced largely by structuralism and thus focuses on the (static) description of writing as a system, neglecting questions of its use in the process. By contrast, use comes to the forefront in psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic approaches to writing. Phenomena studied by psycholinguistics include processes of reading and writing, literacy acquisition, and disorders of reading and written expression, while the sociolinguistic study of writing has focused, among other things, on the social functions of writing (and its various registers), practices of literacy, and, crucially, ideologies associated with writing. In practice, systematic, psycholinguistic, and sociolinguistic aspects interact and together shape both how writing is structured and how it is used (and how these two factors, in turn, affect each other). To reflect reality in grapholinguistic theory, the systematic, psycholinguistic, and sociolinguistic perspectives should converge. Notably, exchange between these perspectives and the scholars who adopt them has been scarce. Arguably, for the sake of writing as a subject, such exchange is necessary and will likely uncover many (new) questions that have yet to be negotiated. This workshop seeks to make this exchange possible. In featuring talks from international experts covering all three mentioned perspectives, a full(er) picture of the study of writing is expected to emerge. Scholars are invited to present their research in their field of expertise, focusing also on what it can contribute to an overall theory of writing and indicating possible important interfaces with the other perspectives. This will hopefully generate stimulating discussion(s) about the current state and, most importantly, the future of grapholinguistics and a theory of writing.
Working towards a more complete sociolinguistics
This Response to the Special Issue of JOS ‘The sociolinguistics of writing in a global context: Objects, lenses, consequences’ argues that: a. There are good reasons for bringing more linguistically and more ethnographically orientated work closer together at the present time. b. The challenges Lillis and McKinney identify for work on writing also apply to sociolinguistic work more generally (i.e. the traditional monomodal approach to writing, the tendency to construct writing as an object of study in terms of relatively inert texts and the strong standard and error discourse.) c. The construction of writing as an ideological semiotic object within the articles in this Special Issue illuminates questions which have long preoccupied the New Literacy Studies concerning the local/global opposition and the epistemological divide between texts and practices. The Response also reconsiders Lillis and McKinney’s overall aim for the Special Issue and highlights some unresolved questions
1993
This paper reviews and summarizes research studies in writing and related language areas that help educators to understand how writing is socially based. The purpose of the paper is to cast classroom practice in the variously dim and gleaming lights of research and theory, linking practice, research, and theory by looking with a close-up lens at the ways in which writing and other language experiences inside and outside of school have been studied and explained. Using this lens, the paper first presents some theoretical perspectives on written language acquisition and development. Next, the paper reviews studies that investigate social contexts for writing development both in school and out. The paper then loons at studies of instructional practices in writing that are, from lesser to greater degrees, socially based. The paper concludes with a presentation of some "core concepts" which capture the ways in which some of the most promising instructional practices in writing are linked to social theories. Ten notes are included; 213 references are attached. (Author/RS
The Tyranny of Writing in Language and Society
Preface and Introduction to the edited volume *The Tyranny of Writing: Ideologies of the Written Word* (eds. Constanze Weth & Kasper Juffermans), Bloomsbury (Advances in Sociolinguistics), 2018. The book is an attempt to make sense of the written word and its powerful role in society. By using the word ‘tyranny’ we take an explicitly critical stance towards writing inspired above all by Saussure’s argument against writing as an object of linguistic research and what he called 'la tyrannie de la lettre'. He denounced writing as an imperfect, distorted image of speech that obscures our view of language and its structure. In this introduction to The Tyranny of Writing: Ideologies of the Written Word, we discuss the ‘tyranny of writing’ as a critical metaphor for sociolinguistics. The idea of the ‘tyranny of writing’ serves as a heuristic for exploring ideologies of language and literacy in culture and society as well as the tensions and contradictions between the written and the spoken word, linguistic normativity, creativity and authenticity, and centres and peripheries in language practices.
The Anthropology of Writing. Understanding Textually-Mediated Worlds
have embarked on an ambitious theoretical and crossdisciplinary enterprise. Theoretically, their edited volume aims to draw the contours of an anthropology of writing, loosely defined as "the comparative study of writing as social and cultural practice" (p9) and largely inspired by literacy studies. As the editors argue in the opening chapter, anthropology is a latecomer to the field of writing research, but its theories and methods offer valuable insights into the sociocultural complexity of writing. To illustrate this point in depth, the editors draw on, and for the first time, bring together two research traditions from two linguistic regions: anglophone research on literacy studies and francophone research on writing. The former draws on a social theory of literacy (as articulated in which sees literacy as a textually mediated interpretive process, rather than the ability of read and write. The latter is a disciplinary amalgam of applied linguistics, history and anthropology that finds synthesis in questions of how, where and why writing matters in the workplace, in the public sphere and in postcolonial societies.