A consideration of this third dimension in a systematic way could enrich and strengthen approaches to many types of texts and help to productively integrate the traditional schemes adopted in Sociolinguistics, Historical Linguistics, Philology, Literary Criticism, and Pragmatics. Production can be seen as the simple effect of an internal activity, and can be described without reduction to spoken or written forms. In other words, linguistic production does not necessarily imply the presence of two interacting speakers (or writers/readers).
This internal form is lexically, phonetically and grammatically articulated, without being spoken in a proper sense, but which can be seen as the pre-condition for both spoken and written production. I argue that there exists a third dimension of language, which is internal. Forms of written language have previously been considered a secondary representation of spoken forms and, at least in the alphabetic system, the only properly linguistic form.
According to the traditional doxa, what is linguistically articulated is either spoken or written. This paper introduces a more complex and refined articulated view than the classic and simple dichotomy of linguistic production. Faculté des Lettres, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
0 kommentar(er)
