On “unwritten” and “oral” languages

The world’s many endangered languages are often characterized as “unwritten” and “oral” languages. Both of these terms reveal the language ideologies still implicit in many academic approaches to language: “unwritten” defines by negation, revealing a bias towards stable, standardized abstractions of communicative behaviour (away from a dynamic conception of situated talk-in-interaction); and “oral” defines by exclusion, revealing a bias towards the vocal-auditory channel (away from the multi-modal, fully embodied nature of face to face interaction). How much of our research today is unwittingly shaped by these implicit biases?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *