From: djbpitt@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David J Birnbaum)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Written and Spoken Language(s)
Date: 15 Apr 92 02:38:00 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <532@tdatirv.UUCP> sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:

>|The reference to written Chinese as a written "language," rather than as
>|the writing system used to record a spoken language, leads me to wonder
>|whether the emphasis on the primacy of spoken language is appropriate.
>
>It is, written Chinese is based on the writing system invented for
>a *spoken* Chinese language several millenia ago.  This language is
>no longer *spoken*, but it is *still* a language.
>
>The use of Latin as a near parallel in European culture is a good one.
>The language is now *primarily* written.  When it is read, it is usually
>pronounced as if it were Italian.  But 2000 years ago it was a living,
>*spoken* language.

I think we are agreed on the facts.  I think we are also agreed on the
interpretation of the facts from a synchronic perspective: there are
primarily written languages.  I agree with your interpretation from
a diachronic perspective within limits: I agree that primarily written
languages may often begin life as primarily spoken languages, but other
considerations, discussed below, suggest that there is a bit more to
it than this.

When a primarily spoken language ceases to be spoken and survives as
a primarily written language, it does not necessarily remain unchanged.
For example, Church Slavonic developed different local variants
(traditionally called recensions) in different Slavic lands, primarily
under vernacular influence.  This would be a banal example of language
contact causing change, something very widely known in spoken
languages, except that Church Slavonic is a primarily written language.

The result is that, say, early fifteenth-century Serbian Church
Slavonic was never a spoken language; it is the written daughter
language of its written parent language (the number of generations
is an open question).  What this means, in turn, is that the mor-
phology of different recensions of Church Slavonic is not coextensive
with the morphology of what may have been a primarily spoken older
recension of Church Slavonic (or OCS as codified by Cyril and
Methodius).  In other words, Church Slavonic may once have been
primarily spoken (about which see below), but it has offspring
that are not merely primarily-spoken-languages-that-have-ceased-
to-be-spoken.

I should add that not all Slavists will agree that even C&M's OCS
was a primarily spoken language; the evidence is ambiguous.  But 
there can be no question that a primarily written language like
Church Slavonic has a history within its primarily written state.
This means that we can speak of the synchronic morphology of, for
example, fifteenth-century Serbian Church Slavonic, and we can also
speak of the diachronic morphology of this language, where the
morphological changes in question took place entirely within the
development of a primarily written language.  In this case, these
later Church Slavonic recensions provide both synchronic and
diachronic evidence that is in no way a mere recording of a 
spoken (earlier) Church Slavonic language (see below).

This is not to argue that there is anything typical or proto-
typical about such situations.  And it certainly is not an argu-
ment that there is anything "primary" about written language in
a general sense, a statement I have never made and with which I
do not agree.  The point is merely that linguists often neglect
written languages as languages, even while they might use
written records as secondary evidence of spoken languages.  
Bloomfield's "Writing is not language, but merely a way of recording
language by means of visible marks" may refer to the typical
situation, but in doing so it is an overgeneralization and not
a statement of fact. 

Interested readers might wish to consult Robert Mathiesen's 1972
Columbia University Ph.D. Dissertation, "The Inflectional Morphology
of the Synodal Church Slavonic Verb."  In addition to a very thorough
history of Church Slavonic as a language, there is a discussion on
pp. 113--16 of how the facts of Church Slavonic fit in with statements
like Bloomfield's.
 
--David
=======================================================================
Professor David J. Birnbaum         djbpitt@vms.cis.pitt.edu [Internet]
The Royal York Apartments, #802     djbpitt@pittvms.bitnet   [Bitnet]
3955 Bigelow Boulevard              voice: 1-412-687-4653
Pittsburgh, PA  15123  USA          fax:   1-412-624-9714