Tiểu luận ngôn ngữ và văn hóa

HUE UNIVERSITY
INFORMATICS AND OPEN INSTITUTE
--------------

ASSIGNMENT ON
LANGUAGE AND CULTURE
TOPIC:
The differences in form between speech and writing

Lecturer: Nguyễn Văn Tuấn
Student: Bùi Tuấn Anh - 7052900504

Class: Nghe An 6

Nghệ An 07/08/2023


I. INTRODUCTION
Written discourse includes some medium to keep record of the message. It can
be edited to achieve grammar-free sentences. In written discourse Audience is not
known and text cannot be adjusted to individual reader. No immediate response from
the readers for clarification is needed: organization is crucial in it. Paragraphs,
layouts are important to enhance understanding in written form while speech
discourse involves air. Speed of speech can be adjusted in speech discourse.
Moreover, Speech discourse might be spontaneous which results in mistakes,
repetition, sometimes less coherent sentences where even grunts, stutters or
pauses might be meaningful. The speaker usually knows the listener, or listeners, or
he is at least aware of the fact that he is being listened to, which enables him to adjust
the register.

II. CONTENT

The general differences between speech and written discourse are given
below:
1. Grammatical intricacy
2. Lexical density
3. Nominalization
4. Explicitness
5. Contextualization
6. Spontaneity
7. Repetition, hesitations, and redundancy

Grammatical intricacy
Written discourse is more structurally complex and more elaborate than
speech discourse. In other words, sentences in speech discourse are short and simple,
whereas they are longer and more complex in written discourse.

Lexical density
It refers to the ratio of content words (i.e., nouns, verbs, adjectives, and
adverbs) to grammatical or function words (e.g., pronouns, prepositions, articles)
within a clause.
 View: Speech discourse is less lexically dense than written discourse.
Content words tend to be spread out over several clauses, whereas they
seem to be tightly packed into individual clauses.
Nominalization
It refers to presenting actions and events as nouns rather than as verbs.
Nghệ An 07/08/2023


 View:
a. Written discourse has a high level of nominalization: i.e., more
nouns than verbs.

b. Written discourse tends to have longer noun groups than speech
discourse.

Explicitness
Writing is more explicit than speech. But this is not absolute. Explicitness in
wring is relative. A writer can state something explicitly or infer it depending on
many variables.

Contextualization
It refers to the extent knowledge of context is needed to interpret a text.
 View: Writing is more de-contextualized than speech: Speech is more
attached to context than writing because speech depends on a shared
situation and background for interpretation

Spontaneity
 View:
a. Speech discourse lacks organization and it is spontaneous, whereas
written discourse is organized and less spontaneous.
b. Speech discourse contains more uncompleted and reformulated
sentences.
c. Topics can be changed.
d. Speakers may interrupt and overlap.
e. Speech discourse is faster.
f. Speech discourse is less planned.

Repetition, Hesitation, and Redundancy
 View:
a. Speech discourse contains more repetition, hesitations, and redundancy
because it is produced in real time (i.e., on the spot).
b. Speech discourse has many pauses and fillers, such as ‘hhh’, ‘er’ ‘hmmm’

and ‘you know.’
The following list of dissimilarities between written and speech discourse applies
primarily to English.

Nghệ An 07/08/2023


SPEECH DISCOURSE
1. relatively limited vocabular
2. innovative use of words --new
words and new senses of old words
(especially slang)
3. much hedging (speaking in general
terms)
4. abundance of referential
inexplicitness (using "that" or "those"
rather than more specifically
identifying things)
5. wide use of colloquialisms
6. abundance of contractions

WRITTEN DISCOURSE
1. vocabulary maximally varied
2. use of older words -- occasionally,
words no longer used in speech
language
3. avoidance of hedging (writing is
definitive)
4. no inexplicit references (specific
references to things)

5. little, if any, use of colloquialisms
6. no contractions, except in quoted
conversation (NB: I disagree with this;
authors often use contractions
nowadays in both fiction and
nonfiction. ~ Tonya)
7. sequences of coordinated clauses
7. use of inter clausal relations and
devices meant to expand intonation
units (in written discourse, this refers
to sentences) -- e.g., *nominalizations
(noun phrases) prepositional phrases
attributive adjectives participles
8. short intonation units (typically, not 8. longer intonation units (mean length
longer than 8syllables); no utterance = 24words); planned sentences
preplanning
9. much ego involvement
9. little ego involvement
10. little coherence (speakers often go 10. maximal coherence
off-topic in mid-conversation)
(sentences/paragraphs must logically
relate to each other)
Written texts offer a level of permanence and can be revisited and referenced
over time. They serve as a reliable source of information and a means of preserving
knowledge. This permanence not only contributes to the cumulative nature of human
understanding but also provides a tangible link between the past and the present.
Throughout history, the written word has played a pivotal role in shaping
education, culture, and civilization itself. Ancient scrolls, manuscripts, and codices
have carried the wisdom and insights of past generations to contemporary times.

Nghệ An 07/08/2023


Written communication has been instrumental in the transmission of religious texts,
philosophical treatises, scientific discoveries, and artistic creations.
In academic contexts, the permanence of writing allows scholars to engage in
a sustained dialogue across generations. References to works from centuries ago can
be easily integrated into contemporary research, enriching discussions with
historical perspectives. Moreover, the permanence of written records lends itself to
citation and attribution, fostering a culture of intellectual integrity and
acknowledging the contributions of those who came before.

III. Conclusion
In discourse analysis a distinction is often made between speech and written
discourse. Although there are typical differences between the two, there is also a
considerable overlap and a frequent mixture, which has been accelerated by new
technology. Analysis of both modes encounters the problem of representing relevant
context, but this problem is especially acute in the analysis and transcription of
speech discourse. At present, opinion on the differences between written and speech
discourse is often speculative.
When the distinction between speech and written discourse refers simply toa
difference of mode, in that speech discourse utilizes sound and written discourse is
visual, it is both self-evident and unremarkable. When, more interestingly, an attempt
is made to distinguish linguistic or discourse features peculiar to one mode or the
other, the distinction becomes more complex.

Nghệ An 07/08/2023


REFERENCES

Hayakawa, S. I., & Hayakawa, A. R. (1990). Language in Thought and Action.
Harvest Books.
Chomsky, N. (2006). Language and Mind. Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal Hygiene. Routledge.
Goshgarian, G. (2014). Exploring Language. Routledge.
Johns, A. M. (1997). Speaking and Writing: Strategies of Entering Discourse
Communities. Prentice Hall.
Johnstone, B. (2008). Discourse Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell.
Bauer, L., & Trudgill, P. (Eds.). (1998). Language Myths. Penguin.
Kramsch, C. (2000) Second language acquisition, applied linguistics, and the
teaching of foreign languages. The modern language Journal 84.
Liu, N. F. and Littlewood,nn W. (1997) Why do many students appear reluctant to
participate in classroom learning discourse? System, 25/3, 371-384
Lewis, R. (1999) When cultures collide. London, Nicholas Brealey, pp. 54-114.
Lewis, M. & McCook, F. (2002) Cultures of teaching: Voices from Vietnam. ELT
Journal volume 56/2 April 2002, Oxford University Press
Le (1999).
Le, Viet Dung (2003) Tim hieu phong cach giao tiep cua nguoi Viet Nam qua tuc
ngu, hy yeu
Hoi thao Ngu hoc tre 2003, Hoi ngon ngu hoc Viet Nam (Study Vietnamese
communication practices through idioms, Summary record of Young linguistic
2003, Vietnam linguistic association) pp. 387-391.
Maley, A. (1996)
McLaren, M. (1998) Interpreting culture differences. Peter Francis Publishers, UK.
Nguyen, Quang Ngoc (2003) Tien trinh lich su Viet Nam (The process of
Vietnamese history), Hue, Education Publishing House.
Nguyen, Dinh Hoa (1972) “Some aspects of Vietnamese cultures. In Nguyen Dinh
Hoa (ed.)
Vietnamese language and literature. Carbondale: Center for Vietnamese Studies,
Southern Illinois University, pp 1-8

Nghệ An 07/08/2023


Phuoc, N. H. (1975) Contemporary Educational Philosophies in Vietnam, 19541974: A completive Analysis, Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Southern
California.
Pauwells, L. & others (1998) Development of sociocultural Understandings through
the study of languages. South Australia DEET, pp. 9 -16.
Papademetre, L. & Scarino, A. (2000) Integrating culture learning in the languages
classroom: Amulti-perspective conceptual journey for teachers. Melbourne:
Language Australia, University of South Australia, pp. 33.
Phan, Le Ha and Phan, Van Que (2006) Vietnamese educational Morality and the
discursive construction of English language teacher identity. Journal of
multicultural discourses, Vol.1, No. 2, doi: 10.2167/md 038.0
Pennycook, A. (1997)
Sullivan, P. N. (1996) Sociocultural Influences on classroom interactinal styles.
TESOL Journal Volume 6, No. 1
Schneider, S. & Barsoux, J-L. (1997) Meaning across cultures. Prentice Hall,
London
Scollon, R. & J. Scollon (1991) Intercultural communication, Blackwell, London
Saville-Troike, M. (1982) The Ethnography of Communication. An Introduction.
Oxford: Blackwell.

Nghệ An 07/08/2023