Spontaneous Spoken Language: Syntax and Discourse (review)

In linguistics, where the theoretical subfields do not often draw on natural data and the data-oriented subfields have thus far failed to contribute much to theory, along come Jim Miller and Regina Weinert to challenge our assumptions. Spontaneous spoken language based primarily on concrete spoken data from English, German, Russian, and French, but the implications for theory are clear. Their message is a deceptively simple one: Spoken and written language are different and should be treated as such in all branches of the field. This is hardly a new idea, but M & W show how this basic tenet of linguistics has often been ignored by those who espouse it.

Chs. 2–4 provide an extensive analysis of various structures of the syntax of spoken language, arguing that based on large amounts of data, the clause should be taken as the central unit of syntax (and the sentence as a low-level discourse unit.) They then go on to illustrate some of the major differences between spoken and written language at the levels of both the clause and the phrase. It is argued that theoretical syntacticians often ignore these differences, using examples which would only be found in written language to support their theories, which are supposed to be based on spoken language. Chs. 5–6 argue for an increased awareness of the differences between spoken and written discourse, first giving a general overview and then concentrating on an analysis of two features of spoken discourse, cleft constructions and like. Finally, the last two chapters argue that spontaneous spoken data have a direct impact on topics occupying a central focus in linguistics, including historical linguistics, typology, the study of first language acquisition, and the definition of standard language. Their points are well-argued and convincing.

This book has two main weaknesses. First, the analysis could have benefitted from an equivalent written corpus with which to compare the spoken corpus. Although the findings about spoken language are often compared with written texts (fiction, magazines, and newspapers), evidence that the authors had thoroughly examined a comparable written corpus would have added weight to their arguments. Second, the extensive qualitative analysis might well have been augmented by the use of a complementary statistical analysis, in order to ‘check’ the conclusions quantitatively. The frequent examples also make for somewhat tedious reading at times, though this seems necessary.

M & W, close with the stated hope that other language scholars will take up the questions their work raises. I fear that this book will not be widely read because it cannot be placed squarely within one of the subfields of linguistics as we presently conceive them. However,M&W’s ideas provide an important challenge to mainstream linguistics, and the field could clearly benefit from debating them, whether or not one agrees with them.