Cover not available
Article published In:
Written Language & Literacy
Vol. 18:1 (2015) ► pp.56–81

Spoken and written narration in Hebrew

A case study

The study is premised on speech and writing relying on differently coordinated temporal frames of communication, aiming to pinpoint the conceptual and linguistic differences between spoken and written Hebrew narration. This is a case study presenting in-depth psycholinguistic analyses of the oral and written versions of a personal-experience story produced by the same adult narrator in Hebrew, taking into account discursive functions, discourse stance, linguistic expression, and information flow, processing, and cohesion. Findings of parallel spoken and written content units presenting the same narrative information point to the interface of the narrative genre with the spoken and written modalities, together with the mature cognitive, linguistic, and social skills and experience of adulthood. Both spoken and written personal-experience adult narrative versions have a non-personal, non-specific, detached stance, though the written units are more abstract and syntactically complex. Adult narrating skill encompasses both modalities, recruiting different devices for the expression of cohesion.
Keywords: speech and writing, narratives, Hebrew, cohesion, discourse syntax
Published online: 12 February 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.18.1.03rav
References (79)
Berman, Ruth A. (1997). Narrative theory and narrative development: The Labovian impact. Journal of Narrative and Life History 71: 235–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (ed.) (2005a). Developing discourse stance across adolescence. Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics 37(2): 103–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2005b). Introduction: Developing discourse stance in different text types and languages. Journal of Pragmatics 371: 105–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008). The psycholinguistics of developing text construction. Journal of Child Language 351: 735–771. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (in press). Development of complex syntax. In Amalia Bar On & Dorit Ravid (eds.), Handbook of communication disorders. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Berman, Ruth A. & Irit Katzenberger (2004). Form and function in introducing narrative and expository texts: A developmental perspective. Discourse Processes 381: 57–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, Ruth A. & Bracha Nir (2011). Spoken and written language across the school years. In Dorit Aram & Ofra Korat (eds.), Literacy and language: interactions, bilingualism and difficulties, 211–229. Jerusalem: Magnes [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
Berman, Ruth A. & Dorit Ravid (2009). Becoming a literate language user: Oral and written text construction across adolescence. In David R. Olson & Nancy Torrance (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy, 92–111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, Ruth A. & Dan I. Slobin (1994). Relating events in narrative. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, Ruth A. & Ludo Verhoeven (2002). Cross-linguistic perspectives on the development of text-production abilities. Written Language and Literacy 51: 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, Ruth A., Ronit Nayditz & Dorit Ravid (2011). Linguistic diagnostics of written texts in two school-age populations. Written Language and Literacy 141: 161–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, Ruth A., Hrafnhildur Ragnarsdóttir & Sven Strömqvist (2002). Discourse stance. Written Language and Literacy 51: 255–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 51: 97–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009a). Are there linguistic consequences of literacy? Comparing the potentials of language use in speech and writing. In David R. Olson & Nancy Torrance (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy, 75–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009b). A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language: Multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 141: 381–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Speech and writing: Linguistic styles enabled by the technology of literacy. In Gisle Andersen & Karin Aijmer (eds.), The pragmatics of society, 137–152. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Sarah-Jayne (2012). Development of the social brain in adolescence. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 1051: 111–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa (2011). Linguistic typology and first language acquisition. In Jae J. Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 591–617. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brockmeier, Jens & David R. Olson (2009). The literacy episteme: From Innis to Derrida. In David R. Olson & Nancy Torrance (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy, 3–21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cahana-Amitay, Dalia & Dorit Ravid (2000). Optional bound morphology in the development of text production. In S. Catherine Howell, Sarah A. Fish & Thea Keith-Lucas (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th annual Boston university conference on language development, Vol. I1, 176–184 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. (1992). Information flow in speaking and writing. In Pamela Downing, Susan D. Lima & Michael Noonan (eds.), The linguistics of literacy, 17–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1994). Discourse, consciousness and time: The flow of language in speech and writing. Chicago: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen-Djemal, Yehudit (2014). Spoken and written expression in adult Hebrew narratives. MA thesis, Department of Communication Disorders, Tel Aviv University [in Hebrew].
Clark, Herbert H. (2002). Speaking in time. Speech Communication 361: 5–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2004). Pragmatics of language performance. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, 365–382. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Meredyth A. Krych (2004). Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language 501: 62–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crone, Eveline A. (2009). Executive functions in adolescence: Inferences from brain and behavior. Developmental Science 121: 825–830. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crossley, Scott A., Jerry Greenfield & Danielle S. McNamara (2008). Assessing text readability using psycholinguistic indices. TESOL Quarterly 421: 475–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Anne Catherine Simon (2009). On identifying basic discourse units in speech: Theoretical and empirical issues. Discours 41: 1–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. (2007). The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010). Towards a dialogic syntax. Ms., University of California at Santa Barbara. DOI logo
Enfield, N.J. & Tanya Stivers (2007). Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Englebretson, Robert (2007). Stancetaking in discourse: An introduction. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourseStancetaking in discourse, 1–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K. (1988). On the language of physical science. In Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), Registers of written English: Situational factors and linguistic features, 162–178. London: Pinter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006). The language of science. New York: Continuum International Publishing.Google Scholar
Harris, Roy (2009). Speech and writing. In David R. Olson & Nancy Torrance (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy, 46–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ho-Dac, Lydia-Mai & Marie-Paule Péry-Woodley (2009). A data-driven study of temporal adverbials as discourse segmentation markers. Discours 41: 1–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken & Carmen Sancho Guinda (eds.) (2013). Stance and voice in written academic genres. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kehler, Andrew, Laura Kertz, Hannah Rohde & Jeffrey L. Elman (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics 251: 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Louwerse, Max M. & Arthur C. Graesser (2005). Coherence in discourse. In Philipp Strazny (ed.), Encyclopedia of linguistics, 216–218. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn.Google Scholar
Lucy, John (1992). Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, Danielle S., Scott A. Crossley & Philip M. McCarthy (2010). Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication 271: 57–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Jim (2006). Spoken and written English. In Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds.), Handbook of English linguistics, 670–691. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, Donald (2012). The craft of revision. Boston, MA: Wadsworth. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nippold, Marilyn A. (2007). Later language development: School-age children, adolescents, and young adults. 3rd ed. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, Elinor (1979). Planned and unplanned discourse. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax, 51–80. NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olson, David R. (1994). The world on paper. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006). The documentary tradition in mind and society. In David R. Olson & Michael Cole (eds.), Technology, literacy, and the evolution of society, 289–304. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbuam.Google Scholar
Olson, David R., Nancy Torrance & Angela Hildyard (eds.) (1985). Literacy, language and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ong, Walter J. (1992). Writing is a technology that restructures thought. In Pamela Downing, Susan D. Lima & Michael Noonan (eds.), The Linguistics of literacy, 293–319. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Özgen, Emre & Ian R.L. Davies (2002). Acquisition of categorical color perception: A perceptual learning approach to the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1311: 477–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ravid, Dorit (2005). Emergence of linguistic complexity in written expository texts: Evidence from later language acquisition. In Dorit Ravid & Hava Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot (eds.), Perspectives on language and language development, 337–355. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Semantic development in textual contexts during the school years: Noun scale analyses. Journal of Child Language 331: 791–821. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Spelling morphology: The psycholinguistics of Hebrew spelling. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Syntactic complexity in discourse production across different text types. In Catherin Bolly & Liesbeth Degand (eds.), Text-structuring. Across the line of speech and writing variation, 51–66. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Ravid, Dorit & Ruth A. Berman (2006). Information density in the development of spoken and written narratives in English and Hebrew. Discourse Processes 411: 117–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Developing linguistic register in different text types. Pragmatics & Cognition 171: 108–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ravid, Dorit & Dalia Cahana-Amitay (2005). Verbal and nominal expression in narrating conflict situations in Hebrew. Journal of Pragmatics 371: 157–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ravid, Dorit & Ruth A. Berman. (2010). Developing noun phrase complexity at school-age: A text-embedded cross-linguistic analysis. First Language 301: 3–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ravid, Dorit & Yehudit Chen-Djemal (2014). Spoken and written narration in Hebrew: Mature expression. Paper presented at the Special Interest Group (SIG) Meeting on Writing, University of Amsterdam, August 27–29, 2014.
Ravid, Dorit & Ronit Levie (2010). Adjectives in the development of text production: Lexical, morphological and syntactic analyses. First Language 301: 27–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ravid, Dorit & Liliana Tolchinsky (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model. Journal of Child Language 291: 419–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ravid, Dorit & Yitzhak Shlesinger (1995). Factors in the selection of compound-type in spoken and written Hebrew. Language Sciences 171: 147–179. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Ravid, Dorit & Shoshana Zilberbuch (2003). The development of complex nominals in expert and non-expert writing: A comparative study. Pragmatics & Cognition 111: 267–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ravid, Dorit, Esther Dromi & Pazit Kotler (2009). Linguistic complexity in school-age text production: Expository vs. mathematical discourse. In Marilyn A. Nippold & Cheryl M. Scott (eds.), Expository discourse in children, adolescents, and adults: Development and disorders, 125–156. NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Ravid, Dorit, Janet van Hell, Elisa Rosado & Anita Zamora (2002). Subject NP patterning in the development of text production: Speech and writing. Written Language and Literacy 51: 69–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reilly, Judy S., Harriet Jisa, Elisheva Baruch & Ruth A. Berman (2002). Modal expression of propositional attitudes. Written Language and Literacy 51: 183–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saxton, Matthew & John N. Towse (1998). Linguistic relativity: The case of place value in multi-digit numbers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 691: 66–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, Cheryl M. & Catherine Balthazar (2010). The grammar of information: Challenges for older students with language impairments. Topics in Language Disorders 301: 288–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. (1982). Universal and particular in the acquisition of language. In Eric Wanner & Lila R. Gleitman (eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art, 128–172. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1996). From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking’. In John J. Gumperz & Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 70–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, Debra (1982). The oral/ literate continuum in discourse. In Debra Tannen (ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy, 1–16. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tolchinsky, Liliana & Elisa Rosado (2005). The effect of literacy, text type, and modality on the use of grammatical mean for agency alternation in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 371: 209–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trabasso, Tom & Paul van den Broek (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory & Language 241: 612–630. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whorf, Benjamin (1956). Language, thought and reality. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilkerson, William S. (2001). Simulation, theory, and the frame problem. Philosophical Psychology 141: 141–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Kiadan, Jad
2024. The effect of linguistic medium on metaphor directionality: written standard Arabic versus oral colloquial Arabic. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science 8:1 ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo
Ravid, Dorit
2020. Chapter 8. Derivation. In Usage-Based Studies in Modern Hebrew [Studies in Language Companion Series, 210], ► pp. 203 ff. DOI logo
Brandes, Gilad & Dorit Ravid
2019. The development of adverbial clause functions in Hebrew narrative and expository writing across adolescence. Written Language & Literacy 22:1 ► pp. 131 ff. DOI logo
Ravid, Dorit & Liat Hershkovitz
2017. The development of Hebrew conjunct constructions in narration. In Developmental Perspectives in Written Language and Literacy, DOI logo
RAVID, DORIT & LIZZY VERED
2017. Hebrew verbal passives in Later Language Development: the interface of register and verb morphology. Journal of Child Language 44:6 ► pp. 1309 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.