The modes of language
（开头部分增加了改编内容）
Signifiers are transmitted in human language most frequently through two primary modes: speech and writing. A third mode, signing, is a system of communication used by individuals who are deaf. Contrary to popular belief, sign languages are not merely gestured equivalents of spoken languages. American Sign Language (ASL), for instance, has its own grammar, and those who use it go through the same stages of language acquisition as speakers of oral languages do. In fact, it is not uncommon for children of deaf parents who are not deaf themselves to learn a sign language as their first language, and a spoken language as a second language.
In linguistics, it is commonly noted that speech is primary and writing secondary. Linguists take this position because all languages are spoken (with the exception of dead languages such as Latin, which now exist only in written form), and only a subset of these languages are written. All children will naturally acquire the spoken version of a language if they are exposed to it during the formative period of language acquisition. However, to become literate, a child will need some kind of formal schooling in reading and writing. In many respects, though, calling speech “primary” and writing “secondary” unfortunately implies that writing has a second-class status when compared with speech. It is more accurate to view the two modes as having different but complementary roles. For instance, in most legal systems, while an oral contract is legally binding, a written contract is preferred because writing, unlike speech, provides a permanent record of the contract. Thus, if the terms of the contract are disputed, the written record of the contract can be consulted and interpreted. Disputes over an oral contract will involve one person's recollection of the contract versus another person's.
While writing may be the preferred mode for a contract, in many other contexts, speech will be more appropriate. Because the most common type of speech – face-to-face conversations – is highly interactive, this mode is well suited to many contexts: casual conversations over lunch, business transactions in a grocery store, discussions between students and teachers in a classroom. And in these contexts, interactive dialogues have many advantages over writing. For instance, individuals engaged in conversation can ask for immediate clarification if there is a question about something said; in a letter to a friend, in contrast, such immediacy is lacking. When speaking to one another, conversants are face to face and can therefore see how individuals react to what is said; writing creates distance between writer and reader, preventing the writer from getting any reaction from the reader. Speech is oral, thus making it possible to use intonation to emphasize words or phrases and express emotion; writing has punctuation,but it can express only a small proportion of the features that intonation has. Because speech is created “on-line,” it is produced quickly and easily. This may result in many “ungrammatical” constructions, but rarely do they cause miscommunication, and if there is a misunderstanding, it can be easily corrected. Writing is much more deliberate, requiring planning and editing and thus taking much more time to produce.
Because of all of these characteristics of writing, if an individual desires a casual, intimate encounter with a friend, he or she is more likely to meet personally than write a letter. Of course, technology has made such encounters possible with “instant messaging” over a computer. And if someone wishes to have such an encounter with a friend living many miles away, then this kind of on-line written “chat” can mimic a face-to-face conversation. But because such conversations are a hybrid of speech and writing, they still lack the intimacy and immediacy of a face-to-face conversation.
While speech and writing are often viewed as discrete modes, it is important to note, as Biber (1988) has demonstrated, that there is a continuum between speech and writing. While speech is in general more interactive than writing, various kinds of spoken and written English display various degrees of interactivity. For instance, Biber (1988: 102, 128) found that various linguistic markers of interactive discourse (or “involved” discourse, to use his term), such as first and second person pronouns, contractions, and private verbs such as think and feel, occurred very frequently in telephone and face-to-face conversations but less frequently in spontaneous speeches, interviews, and broadcasts. In addition, while various kinds of writing, such as academic prose and official documents, exhibited few markers of interactive discourse, other kinds of written texts, particularly personal letters, ranked higher on the scale of interactivity than many of the spoken texts that were analyzed.
What Biber's findings demonstrate is that how language is structured depends less on whether it is spoken or written and more on how it is being used. A personal letter, even though it is written, will contain linguistic features marking interactivity because the writer of a letter wishes to interact with the individual(s) to whom the letter is written. On the other hand, in an interview, the goal is not to interact necessarily but to get information from the person (or persons) being interviewed. Therefore, interviews, despite being spoken, will have fewer markers of interactivity and contain more features typically associated with written texts.
