Written Language
I've written before, somewhat briefly, about how I want to be able to instant message people with handwritten, rather than typed, messages. Now, a better explanation:
One puzzle in the linguistics of writing, or at least in what I've read, is that the direction of development of written language is not clear. Originally linguists, who had made great strides understanding spoken, sound-based language, thought that writing should naturally do nothing more than represent speech. For the most part writing does represent speech, but this led some linguists to believe that the more accurately writing represents speech, the better it is, and seeing as writing has tended to evolve over time from symbols representing ideas into systems representing more and more of the sounds of words, it was easy to think that naturally, writing systems simply got better over time, and that improvement was an improvement in representation of speech.
Modern English spelling shows that this is incorrect. Rather than becoming more accurate, formal English writing uses spellings which either represent how the words were pronounced centuries ago, or are simply not meaningful in terms of speech. And if you think this is just because English spelling is overly conservative and unwilling to change, think of how people spell things when instant messaging or when text messaging. These spellings are no more accurate.
Another hole in the linear theory of the evolution of writing is that Chinese writing has not shown signs of moving towards a more "accurate" system. Chinese writing partially reflects the sounds of words, but mostly just encodes the words themselves. There are many other writing systems which have made no effort to be more accurate.
Some linguists who believed in this linear evolution concluded that modern governments should help writing systems realise their full potential and become more accurate. Fortunately this initiative failed in many countries, but elsewhere it was able to destroy the native writing system and the culture which came with it, typically replacing it with an adaptation of the Western system. Fortunately, in some areas traditional writing is being re-learned, but it will probably never regain its status in those cultures.
So anyway, this idea of linear evolution has mostly been abandoned, but it still appears that when writing changes, it becomes more phonological. This tendency goes against what is observed in spoken language. Spoken language tends to change according to cycles- though of course it doesn't really repeat itself, but instead endlessly reconfigures into new forms. But why should written language tend to settle down rather than follow cycles?
Well, I think it doesn't. I would say that our modern inaccurate spelling system evolved from a system which more or less accurately tried to represent individual sounds with each letter, and now is a system in which each word instead has a single written representation. And, I would argue, we are headed towards a system which has written symbols for phrases and ideas which aren't always pronounced the same way. Eventually our writing system may lose its alphabetic aspects entirely.
This isn't the first time our alphabet has had tendencies of abandoning phonetic spelling. Latin manuscripts of the middle ages no longer accurately represented how Latin was spoken, and furthermore the tendency at that time was towards using special symbols to represent common words such as and (&) and God. There were also symbols to represent common word endings or beginnings, and symbols for common combinations of letters.
However, this system was mostly specialised for the Latin language, and besides, it was too complicated to reproduce once typesetting became popular. So writing became more or less alphabetic again when the printing press was invented.
When the printing press came around, writing represented speech in more aspects than just the alphabet. Punctuation was also focussed on aiding those who would read a text aloud, representing the pauses used in speaking. Pauses, though, do not accurately reflect sentences, so to us this early use of punctuation looks ungrammatical, with many run-on sentences and sometimes ill-defined division between sentences and ideas. This is not because these writers had poor grammar, but rather because they were writing in order to depict speech. Speech often involves long sentences which people just add to and add to.
It was only once printed books became widespread that people could see how people in other parts of the country or world used punctuation, and so it was only at this point that punctuation began to standardise; and in standardising it stopped representing spoken pauses and started representing phrases and even ideas.
But I digress. What I mean to say is that writing was able to develop, and as it developed, it used standardised spelling to make clear which word was meant when two words sounded the same. This is part of the reason our spelling represents archaic pronunciation; the spelling is useful.
However, like any writing system, English writing also became very formal and standardised, and thus resistant to change. So evolution away from representing every sound with a letter ceased.
Now, with the advent of text-based chat systems, we have a new use for text which is often not formal in any sense of the word. Accordingly, the writing within that medium has had a chance to shift once again away from writing every sound in a word.
It may appear to some that this is merely a form of abbreviation, and so, some may argue, the full spelling is really being thought, but only the consonants or initial letters are typed out in order to save time. But it seems to me most language change is thought of as abbreviation at the time it occurs. When Latin began changing into French and Spanish and the other romance languages, it seemed as if the endings of words were just being dropped, and the same happened when Old English was becoming Modern English (which is part of why we have silent 'e' at the end of many words). But if language were really just simplifying over time, the end result after thousands of years of change would by a language of grunts. What really happens is that while one part is simplified, another part expands to hold the meaning which used to be represented a different way. So it seems to me that if people continue to write to each other on a daily basis, the new methods for representing meaning will become more and more common within their conversations, and more and more complex, until spelling is almost unnecessary.
However. Modern computers and even cell phones are really designed for traditional communication. It seems to me handwriting has the potential to be far more expressive.
And so, as touchscreen phones and eventually touchscreen computers become more common, people will want to quickly communicate without their tiny cell phone keyboard or without moving their hands away from the screen of their touch-based laptop. Unless on-screen keyboards become way better, that will mean communicating using drawing and handwriting. Traditional handwriting, of course, will seem too slow and cumbersome, so letters will be skipped or, often, replaced with squiggles (the way we do in signatures). What will be important will be the overall shapes of words, and the first and last letters, which are the main things used when reading already (according to numerous studies).
As this system of abbreviation develops, people will find that they have to learn symbols for individual words in order to understand "kids these days". But rather than existing symbols like @ and 2, these "kids" will be freely drawing whatever symbol is easy, fast, and clear on the latest hip touchscreen communication device. When forced to type, they will wonder where these new symbols are on the keyboard, or maybe they'll use "old fashioned" symbols which resemble them. But some of them might not learn to spell or to read "old fashioned" writing.
Maybe we'll embrace the change and publish books in the new rather than the old notation. However, we will find by then that the new system is actually writing a different English than the old one was, and it won't simply be a matter of writing the old books with the new system; the words will need translated just so they can be represented with the new word symbols!
By that point, linguists will agree that writing, too, follows cycles, at least when it is used as an everyday language rather than being highly standardised and formal.
But this can only happen if we all start using our handwriting more. Right now, people do most of their reading, and much of their writing, from typeset documents in which individual characters are completely standardised. Many people have trouble reading handwriting or producing legible handwriting. If people had more opportunity to casually communicate using handwriting, and to reach large audiences using handwriting, it might be rather like when the printing press was first invented; handwriting would drastically change as people used and developed it.
Keyboards of modern computers, as everyday as they are, represent a very fixed system and they affect the way people think about communication.
One puzzle in the linguistics of writing, or at least in what I've read, is that the direction of development of written language is not clear. Originally linguists, who had made great strides understanding spoken, sound-based language, thought that writing should naturally do nothing more than represent speech. For the most part writing does represent speech, but this led some linguists to believe that the more accurately writing represents speech, the better it is, and seeing as writing has tended to evolve over time from symbols representing ideas into systems representing more and more of the sounds of words, it was easy to think that naturally, writing systems simply got better over time, and that improvement was an improvement in representation of speech.
Modern English spelling shows that this is incorrect. Rather than becoming more accurate, formal English writing uses spellings which either represent how the words were pronounced centuries ago, or are simply not meaningful in terms of speech. And if you think this is just because English spelling is overly conservative and unwilling to change, think of how people spell things when instant messaging or when text messaging. These spellings are no more accurate.
Another hole in the linear theory of the evolution of writing is that Chinese writing has not shown signs of moving towards a more "accurate" system. Chinese writing partially reflects the sounds of words, but mostly just encodes the words themselves. There are many other writing systems which have made no effort to be more accurate.
Some linguists who believed in this linear evolution concluded that modern governments should help writing systems realise their full potential and become more accurate. Fortunately this initiative failed in many countries, but elsewhere it was able to destroy the native writing system and the culture which came with it, typically replacing it with an adaptation of the Western system. Fortunately, in some areas traditional writing is being re-learned, but it will probably never regain its status in those cultures.
So anyway, this idea of linear evolution has mostly been abandoned, but it still appears that when writing changes, it becomes more phonological. This tendency goes against what is observed in spoken language. Spoken language tends to change according to cycles- though of course it doesn't really repeat itself, but instead endlessly reconfigures into new forms. But why should written language tend to settle down rather than follow cycles?
Well, I think it doesn't. I would say that our modern inaccurate spelling system evolved from a system which more or less accurately tried to represent individual sounds with each letter, and now is a system in which each word instead has a single written representation. And, I would argue, we are headed towards a system which has written symbols for phrases and ideas which aren't always pronounced the same way. Eventually our writing system may lose its alphabetic aspects entirely.
This isn't the first time our alphabet has had tendencies of abandoning phonetic spelling. Latin manuscripts of the middle ages no longer accurately represented how Latin was spoken, and furthermore the tendency at that time was towards using special symbols to represent common words such as and (&) and God. There were also symbols to represent common word endings or beginnings, and symbols for common combinations of letters.
However, this system was mostly specialised for the Latin language, and besides, it was too complicated to reproduce once typesetting became popular. So writing became more or less alphabetic again when the printing press was invented.
When the printing press came around, writing represented speech in more aspects than just the alphabet. Punctuation was also focussed on aiding those who would read a text aloud, representing the pauses used in speaking. Pauses, though, do not accurately reflect sentences, so to us this early use of punctuation looks ungrammatical, with many run-on sentences and sometimes ill-defined division between sentences and ideas. This is not because these writers had poor grammar, but rather because they were writing in order to depict speech. Speech often involves long sentences which people just add to and add to.
It was only once printed books became widespread that people could see how people in other parts of the country or world used punctuation, and so it was only at this point that punctuation began to standardise; and in standardising it stopped representing spoken pauses and started representing phrases and even ideas.
But I digress. What I mean to say is that writing was able to develop, and as it developed, it used standardised spelling to make clear which word was meant when two words sounded the same. This is part of the reason our spelling represents archaic pronunciation; the spelling is useful.
However, like any writing system, English writing also became very formal and standardised, and thus resistant to change. So evolution away from representing every sound with a letter ceased.
Now, with the advent of text-based chat systems, we have a new use for text which is often not formal in any sense of the word. Accordingly, the writing within that medium has had a chance to shift once again away from writing every sound in a word.
It may appear to some that this is merely a form of abbreviation, and so, some may argue, the full spelling is really being thought, but only the consonants or initial letters are typed out in order to save time. But it seems to me most language change is thought of as abbreviation at the time it occurs. When Latin began changing into French and Spanish and the other romance languages, it seemed as if the endings of words were just being dropped, and the same happened when Old English was becoming Modern English (which is part of why we have silent 'e' at the end of many words). But if language were really just simplifying over time, the end result after thousands of years of change would by a language of grunts. What really happens is that while one part is simplified, another part expands to hold the meaning which used to be represented a different way. So it seems to me that if people continue to write to each other on a daily basis, the new methods for representing meaning will become more and more common within their conversations, and more and more complex, until spelling is almost unnecessary.
However. Modern computers and even cell phones are really designed for traditional communication. It seems to me handwriting has the potential to be far more expressive.
And so, as touchscreen phones and eventually touchscreen computers become more common, people will want to quickly communicate without their tiny cell phone keyboard or without moving their hands away from the screen of their touch-based laptop. Unless on-screen keyboards become way better, that will mean communicating using drawing and handwriting. Traditional handwriting, of course, will seem too slow and cumbersome, so letters will be skipped or, often, replaced with squiggles (the way we do in signatures). What will be important will be the overall shapes of words, and the first and last letters, which are the main things used when reading already (according to numerous studies).
As this system of abbreviation develops, people will find that they have to learn symbols for individual words in order to understand "kids these days". But rather than existing symbols like @ and 2, these "kids" will be freely drawing whatever symbol is easy, fast, and clear on the latest hip touchscreen communication device. When forced to type, they will wonder where these new symbols are on the keyboard, or maybe they'll use "old fashioned" symbols which resemble them. But some of them might not learn to spell or to read "old fashioned" writing.
Maybe we'll embrace the change and publish books in the new rather than the old notation. However, we will find by then that the new system is actually writing a different English than the old one was, and it won't simply be a matter of writing the old books with the new system; the words will need translated just so they can be represented with the new word symbols!
By that point, linguists will agree that writing, too, follows cycles, at least when it is used as an everyday language rather than being highly standardised and formal.
But this can only happen if we all start using our handwriting more. Right now, people do most of their reading, and much of their writing, from typeset documents in which individual characters are completely standardised. Many people have trouble reading handwriting or producing legible handwriting. If people had more opportunity to casually communicate using handwriting, and to reach large audiences using handwriting, it might be rather like when the printing press was first invented; handwriting would drastically change as people used and developed it.
Keyboards of modern computers, as everyday as they are, represent a very fixed system and they affect the way people think about communication.