In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

231 10. Language, Speech, and Writing The formal relationship between writing and speech has been debated by linguists for nearly a century. One school of thought treats writing as derivative of speech and maintains that writing’s true and only function is to represent speech sounds. In this view, speech represents (or is) language, and writing in turn represents (or should represent) speech. The contrary view asserts that writing and speech both represent language, that the one does not (even should not) necessarily derive from the other, and that neither form of language is “primary.” Not surprisingly, linguists disposed one way or the other to Chinese characters generally agree with the view of writing that supports their prejudice. Those who see little linguistic value in the character systems claim that since Chinese characters do not represent the sounds of speech, or in any case, do so very poorly, the characters are deficient to that extent. Others, who support Chinese characters on linguistic or cultural grounds, argue that the system—any writing system—has no business “representing” speech, since written units tie into language on a higher level. I am well aware that many colleagues who share my low view of Chinese characters do so, in part, from their conviction that “language is speech” and that writing is (or should be) derivative of speech. This is one possible interpretation of the relationship between language, speech, and writing, and although there are problems with the way the proposition has been formulated and understood, it is far more tenable than the pre-Bloomfieldian paradigm that treated written language, and writing in general, as the primary object of linguistic inquiry. It is still superior to the misguided notion that language can exist in any practical sense independently of speech. However, it makes little sense to go on demanding adherence to the Bloomfieldian dictum when large numbers of scholars who might be sympathetic to the arguments against Chinese characters made here and elsewhere are likely to be unimpressed by what they believe to be a simplistic view of how writing maps onto language. Worse, as long as alternative theories are available, such as the view that holds that both writing and speech 232 Forces for Change are concrete manifestations of one abstract language or, more radically, that the two are not even representing the same language, scholars disposed for reasons of their own to defend Chinese characters will be able to cite these paradigms in support of their view, just as those who oppose the characters claim support from their paradigm. Meanwhile practical reform gets nowhere. I will not presume to resolve in a few pages the long-standing dispute over the connection between language, speech, and writing, which linguists and other specialists have devoted entire careers to examining. Nevertheless , it does appear that the argument to a large degree rests on the confusion generated by false premises and loosely defined concepts. The first of these is the failure to distinguish between historical and synchronic relationships . As DeFrancis has pointed out, although writing emerged from speech, it later developed a life of its own that makes it “both more and less than speech.”1 What is true historically and ontogenetically is not necessarily true of a system’s functioning. Another problem is the Bloomfieldian identification of “speech” with “language.” Although intended to establish speech as the primary substance of language, the prescription can be and has been interpreted to mean that speech is the whole of language. This latter concept has since been rejected by linguists operating within the framework of a speech-oriented discipline, but its legacy continues to add needless confusion to an already perplexing topic. Finally, as a reaction against the language-is-speech axiom, another group of scholars in their eagerness to rehabilitate writing have gone too far in the other direction by implying that speech (more precisely, phonology, the precursor to speech) and writing enjoy coequal status with respect to language. Although true in the sense that both represent language, the paradigm fails to take into account the necessary role phonology plays in the structure of language and its functioning on all levels, and the fact that writing’s role here is entirely optional. I hope that these remarks and those that follow will help clarify the framework for debate on the relationship between language, speech, and writing. But for present purposes, absolute agreement on this matter is unnecessary. Those who hold the view that language is or is primarily...

Share