Differences Between Speech and Writing: History and Medium

Kaj Nyman

Abstract

This article describes some of the key differences between speech and writing. The history and

development of writing have been driven by the need to have an efficient and versatile system for

recursive symbolic recordings. Writing developed from picture-like representations (pictograms

and ideograms) into stylised and reduced forms of phonographic script. The tendency to segment

speech into smaller bits (e.g. phonemes) seems to reflect the evolution of writing, rather than being

an inherent part of language. Alphabetic script is convenient and effective, allowing an infinite

number of combinations using a small number of symbols. The first forms of writing relied on the

use of pictures. The change to phonograms was gradual and even today this change is resisted (cf.

e.g. the use of ideograms for road and way signs). These facts offer support for the claim that

alphabetic writing is an artificial construct, which does not represent the most basic characteristics

of speech and language.

Introduction

1.1 Describing Language, Speech and Writing

How should we describe the basics of language? To me as a researcher, language represents the

exchange of spoken messages (and signs), whereas writing serves the purpose of recording such

messages for later use (cf. e.g. Jackson, 1981)). Writing is an artificial and learned construct, which

is dependent on formal instruction (Dobrovolsky and O’Grady, 1997: 591). It would be fair to say

that language without speech is ‘hollow’, since the relationship between writing and (especially

first) language acquisition/speech communication is far from reciprocal. This discussion is not

meant to belittle the purpose and functions of alphabetic (or any other form of) writing. Rather, it

1
is meant to represent and evaluate the reasons for appreciating the differences between speech and

writing, the two main communicative mediums of language. There are many reasons for

appreciating the differences between speech and writing, some of which have already been

presented above.

Firstly, it is important to bear in mind that speech is primarily auditory in nature, whereas

writing relies on the use of visual symbols. This obvious difference can be considered crucial. With

visual symbols it is possible to reconstruct messages from partial information (cf. e.g. seeing a

representation of half a human face or a partially finished sentence), whereas with auditory

messages everything comes in a set order (from beginning to end). It is not always possible to

reconstruct a message from an equivalent amount of contextual auditory information. Even though

speech does convey extra- and paralinguistic information (such as gender, emotional state and

age), we may not be able to deduce as much from partial spoken messages as from equivalent

amounts of writing. Once something has been said it is gone, whereas the written record remains

for all to see once the recording process has been completed. This aspect can also be considered to

represent the evolution of writing, since it is the efficiency of alphabetic writing which allows it to

happen: with visual phonographic (or e.g. syllabaric) script we may be able to partially represent a

communicative message and still get it across, whereas with speech we do not begin to process

meaning until the entire message has been understood (cf. e.g. Hawkins, 2003).

The Emergence of Writing

According to Jackson (1981: 14), writing did not emerge until the need for record keeping

became imminent. Before cultivation and domestication of animals became widespread, nomadic

culture did not necessitate having a system of symbolic recording. This lack of need for records

can be explained by the fact there was no need to settle down permanently. Such a life style would

have lessened the need for trading and other forms of exchange, hence counting and record

keeping systems remained primitive.

Therefore, it is no coincidence that the first evidence found for writing comes from arable

lands. Jackson (1981: 16) shows that the first advanced form of written symbolic recording

(=cuneiform) was invented by the Sumerians ca. 5500 years ago. The Sumerians settled around the

2
fertile land of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, channelling the water to irrigate the land. The first

advanced civilisation of the world was created. Cities and gardens were built in a once arid desert,

whilst textile craftsmen, doctors and sculptors/engravers became established in their professions.

Such developments in Sumerian society led to the introduction of a relatively simple form of

symbolic writing, which relied on the use of pictures for communicative purposes. The Sumerian

way of life had its influence on this script, so that the kinds of tools and materials used exerted

their influence on the writing system

Figure 1: “Bee-Leaf”.

The idea of combining two pictures for their sound value alone, a rebus device, was one of the

earliest steps towards a more efficient writing system.

Adapted from Jackson, 1981: 17

The conquest of the Sumerian peoples by the Babylonians in 1720 BC led to their adoption of

cuneiform. Thus the first more advanced form of a symbolic writing began spreading through the

Middle East. All the available evidence allows tracing very clearly the different stages in the

evolution of cuneiform script.

It is the development of this kind of script that allows tapping into the more basic character of

the use of writing for communicative purposes. It also enables demonstration of why the evolution

of writing supports the claim that the emergence of alphabetic writing can be explained by the

need to have an efficient and versatile writing system. From all the available evidence it seems far

more likely that the “one sound for one letter” concept is an artificial construct, which is driven by

the need to have a versatile writing system: this must fit the human tendency to analyse things into

smaller portions (once an entire concept or image has been understood).

3
2.1 Further Developments

According to Jackson (1981: 17), idiograms can form an efficient means of conveying

specific pieces of information and reading such images is usually quick and easy. However, it may

not be easy to express more complex ideas and/or narratives using ideograms. Eventually the

Sumerians recognised the disadvantage of such an unwieldy system, which at the time consisted of

2,000 symbols that were carved into clay tablets. They went on to develop the notion that the

existing symbol for one object could be extended to represent another object having a similar

sound. For example the pictogram that represented a bee could now be used to represent any

word (or part of a word) that contained the ‘b’ sound. Even though this formed a major step in the

development of writing in the Middle East, the changes seem to have been very gradual. The

shapes of pictograms already used at the time also became more simplified, thus allowing for a

more economical writing system.

Nevertheless, the principle of using a specific symbol (or set of symbols) to represent a

given sound was a revolutionary innovation, and it still forms the basis of current written language

(after several thousand years, Jackson, 1981: 17).

Since this kind of system allows for such a high degree of economy, it seems no wonder that it has

survived the test of history. Especially in the West, alphabetic-phonographic writing seems to have

become deeply embedded in our way of thinking about the structure and constituents of language.

Many researchers now believe that such structural constituents represent basic building blocks of

language, and treat phonemes as a self-evident part of language.

This kind of intuitive thinking is something that this article argues against. For example, the

development of writing by both the Sumerians and Egyptians (who developed similar systems)

seems to suggest that pictograms and ideograms (which represent complete ideas/entities) form a

much more basic building block of language (and speech in particular) than segmental

constituents. Jackson (1981: 19) shows that the Egyptian civilisation took the Sumerian innovations

one step further, enhancing writing to include alphabetic symbols. A 24 symbol consonant system

was developed, providing for an almost complete working alphabet. However, the Egyptians (like

the Sumerians) failed to take complete advantage of the economy allowed by the new system,

while the writing system remained clogged with old picture signs.

4
 Figure 2: Beetle picto-phonograms

The Egyptians failed to discard the old pictograms even after more efficient alphabetic

symbols had been invented

Adapted from Jackson, 1981: 22

Although the development of papyrus writing in Egypt also seems to have had a

restraining influence on innovation, this method of communication was expensive and only a

restricted set of people could read and write. These developments suggest that alphabetic writing

is not an inherent part of language, but an artificial innovation designed to enhance the

5
communicative efficiency of symbolic recording. For example, in representing the word for beetle

(‘Hprr’), the Egyptians for a long time failed to discard the old pictograms, even after more

efficient alphabetic symbols had been invented.

The Alphabet and Communicative Efficiency

According to Jackson (1981: 26-27), the spread of the Phoenician empire throughout the

Middle East, North Africa and Europe necessitated the introduction of a more effective and

reduced writing system: the Phoenician system, unlike the Egyptian one, was self-sufficient and

did not require embellishing symbols in the same way as was the case for many older writing

systems. The Phoenician system was made possible using one symbol for one sound (rather than

one sound per syllable) whilst having clear and easily written letter forms that bore no relation to

pictures. Many other nations and/or civilisations continued developing more efficient writing

systems (e.g. the Greeks, Chinese and Romans). However, the Phoenician script may be the one of

the most important from a historical viewpoint, due to it being the first solid introduction of ‘a one

symbol to one sound’ alphabetic system.

It was not until the introduction of the Carolingian Minuscule script late in the first

millennium AD (in central Europe) that allowed side stepping the separation of lower case and

capital letters (Jackson, 1981: 66). Such a procedure, typical of earlier majuscule scripts (cf. e.g.

Visigoth and Anglo-Saxon script) made for a less effective writing system. Carolingian writers

recognised this disadvantage and introduced a new standardised form of script, which became

widespread in Europe and lasted for several hundred years. Jackson (1981: 69) confirms that the

use of the Carolingian minuscule became widespread through evangelisation and other

ecclesiastical affairs (for the church in Rome). After centuries of ravaging raids and journeys by

Viking, Saracen and Hungarian raids, a new sense of excitement and experiment was born,

particularly in France. This development offers further evidence for the claim that once

civilisations become more settled and advanced, writing systems begin to develop more elaborate

forms of signifying contrasts effectively. Note that barbarian raiders travel from place to place and

might not have needed as elaborate writing systems. The issue of signalling contrast also applies to

speech. Nevertheless, the point of this discussion is that we can observe that more global

developments reflect the need for quite small (but significant) changes to writing systems.

6
 Therefore, we might also say that the issue of contrast, which is integral to the creation of

meaning in speech, is reflected similarly in contemporary writing systems. For example, we have

different sized and/or shaped letters for capital and lower case symbols and differently shaped

fonts and/or scripts to give texts a particular connotation. This may often also partly reflect the

subtleties of their contents. For example, the elaborate looking ecclesiastical-type script used in the

Book of Kells (written around 700AD, Jackson, 1981: 50-51)) gives the text more depth and

meaning than if e.g. simple Roman carved letters had been used for such a piece of work. These

kinds of developments suggest that the extension of language into more elaborate forms of writing

necessitates introducing subtle but highly feasible changes into the medium of writing. Although

the purpose of speech and writing are quite different, the issue of contrast (whether for fonts,

shapes or sizes) may remain as crucial to alphabetic writing as to speech communication. This

similarity suggests that the concept of meaningful contrasts should be given a stronger emphasis

in the study of language. It should be recognised that such distinctions may call for either smaller

or more global alterations to specific messages (and in some cases both of these).

Gesture and Audition vs. Writing and Visual Entity

As discussed by Abercrombie (1963: 70), human conversation and speech comprise much more

than mere exchange of spoken words and sentences. Our vocal organs are sufficient for the

production of speech sounds: however, we cannot underestimate the role the rest of our bodies

play in conversation and/or other online communicative events. There is (according to

Abercrombie) a wide range of bodily behaviour characteristic of the ‘background’ to talking,

whatever the language in question. Abercrombie shows that these can be divided into three areas,

i) interjections, ii) facial expression and iii) gesture (even though the last two are not always easily

distinguished). The author confirms that the amount and quality of visual gestural expression

varies across languages, e.g. so that French speakers often use more gestures than speakers of

English (Abercrombie, 1963: 73).

The point of this discussion is that the high degree of emphasis on aspects concerning written

language in linguistics today may have taken a lot away from more focussing on more global

aspects of speech communication, of which speech is only one aspect (cf. e.g. Hawkins, 2003: 373).

7
We cannot underestimate the significance of written language for the purposes of communication.

However, it may only form an artificial extension to language that has no direct basis in our

anatomy and physiology, which enable us to communicate in the first place. Instead of focussing

so strongly on aspects of language that have more to do with the written medium, we should place

a stronger focus on the kinds of communicative events and procedures discussed in earlier

subsections (and especially in section 4).

General Thoughts about Speech and Writing

Abercrombie (1965: 86-87) notes that society makes important demands for (what he calls)

shorthand writing systems, and that visual symbolisation of speech is required for in more ways

than previously. This is more apparent in the 21st century with the advent of the Internet, e-mail

communication and other similar inventions. Abercrombie (1965: 91) shows that a system that is

easily learned by children and easily handled by e.g. printing is called for in today’s world. Certain

concessions have to be made in order to represent language visually. Also, as Abercrombie (1963:

21) affirms, spoken language is primary in two ways: (1) it emerged in human history before

writing and (2) is acquired prior to learning to read and write. This suggests that the physical and

theoretical differences between speech and writing are notable. Also, the historical distinctions

have had huge consequences for e.g. language teaching and instruction. Abercrombie (1963: 21)

questions whether spoken language is still primary for foreign language teaching.

The gist of this message is that speech emerges instinctively (without needing instruction),

whereas writing emerges artificially. Symbols and constituents characteristic of writing should

therefore not be taken to occupy such a fundamental position in language.

Conclusions

We should appreciate the differences between the visual and auditory channels concerning

language, in order to gain a better understanding of issues to do with e.g. representation,

production, perception, the differences between phonetics and phonology, etc.

8
Theory should not be emphasised at the cost of adequately analysing linguistic-phonetic data,

while always taking note of the specific context in which features occur.

Writing is an essentially artificial part of language, which represents the need to record messages

for later use. This may depend on the fact that human memory capacity is limited and thus we

need to have an effective way of reminding ourselves of different procedures, intentions and/or

ways of thinking when they are called for. Nor do we have time for memorising every message

encountered in daily life. Writing may represent an effective means to relate ourselves to our

external world, whilst also forming a bridge of communication between different individuals.

References

Abercrombie, D. 1963. Problems and Principles in Language Study London, England, Longmans.

Abercrombie, D. 1965. Studies in Phonetics and Linguistics. London, England, Oxford University

Press.

Dobrovolsky, M. and O’Grady, W. 1996. ‘Writing and Language’ In Dobrovolsky, M. O’Grady, W.

and Katamba, F. (eds.). Contemporary Linguistics: An Introduction. London and New York,

Longman, pp. 591-624.

Hawkins, S. 2003. ‘Roles and representations of systematic fine phonetic detail in speech

understanding’. J. Phonetics, Vol. 31, pp. 373–405.

Jackson, D. 1981. The Story of Writing. London, England, etc., Macmillan Publishing Co, Inc.