Manns 1

Myron Manns

Meeting of Minds

14 May, 2010

Intuitive Writing

When Environment Influences Style

Psycholinguists have proposed several theories concerning language acquisition. Though

at times theses hypotheses seem separated only by subtle nuances, thus rendering them

arguments of semantics, language acquisition remains as a staple discussion within the world of

composition theory. Do we learn as we hear, as we read, or as we speak? Do we form our

vernacular based on our environment or more so from what we are taught early on during

developmental education? These are the questions that lack a definite answer but are necessary

when trying to understand the reasons behind why we communicate the way we do. I am

convinced that our environment plays the biggest part in our language acquisition, and as we

aurally receive our language, the subsequent dialect we gain ultimately affects both our speech

and our writing. The argument supporting environmental influence has been called intuitive

cognitive development. The following supports the above argument and reveals how we speak as

we hear, and accordingly, we write as we speak.

The argument that written language is rooted in our comprehension of spoken language is

not new, nor does it want for major proponents or evidence. The idea is mentioned in the article

by Patricia Bizzell called “Cognition Convention and Certainty.” As defined by Bizzell, her

“inner directed model of the development of language and thought” reveals a four tier system in

which an individual’s innate capacity to learn language is the first level of the process. From

there experience lends to formation of conceptual structures followed thirdly by the influence of

society. Consequently the individual’s writing style is the product of the three aforementioned

Manns 2

influences (Bizzell 389). Though we understand that there are outside factors shaping our

language, the question remains: what is an example of an influential component? I would like to

take a moment to explore the effects society has on one’s writing. In doing so, I am going to

write from personal experience concerning language development.

I am a black American who was raised in the predominantly white city of Fenton,

Michigan. Growing up, I quickly grew tired of the statement “you talk proper” when visiting

friends and family in my current home of Flint, Michigan. There was obviously a noticeable

difference not only in my pronunciation but also in my syntax and vocabulary. My rhetoric was

different and what’s different is often that which children point out the most, thus revealing our

innate ability to make outsiders of one another, an argument for another research paper.

Although it was apparent to my peers that I spoke differently, I was oblivious to it because it was

all that I knew. My mother was raised in the South and was especially particular about her

English. She subsequently lost her accent after moving to Michigan as an adult but is to this day

quite well spoken. She often reinforced proper grammar rules when my siblings and I were

speaking and there were even certain words of slang that we were not permitted to speak such as

calling one a “mug.” These reinforcements by way of my mother and our environment together

were enough in quantity and frequency to consequently enable me to speak a dialect of English

not common to lower income blacks (yet this dialect is present in those who make education a

priority). I would eventually graduate from an inner city Flint high school and as a result I have

developed a bidialectal vernacular that incorporates several aspects of what I consider tangential

societies, that is, neighboring towns that naturally share proximity but differ greatly in culture. I

have effectively merged different rhetorical variants into my own unique writing style from these

societal differences with no apparent harm done to my stand alone Standard English.

Manns 3

Ostensibly, just as my knowledge of correct grammar was gained through positive

reinforcements of proper grammar rules there is evidence that suggests that when one is

immersed in the improper use of a language, they will also follow the example set before them

and model their speech after what they hear. This verbal basilect can find its way into written

communication, and some in the pedagogy of writing find the effect detrimental to the art of

composition.

In “Writing as a Mode of Learning,” Janet Emig argues the differences between

written and spoken language and how the two must be conveyed differently. The argument sets

out to separate writing and speaking in order to encourage the writer to eschew employing

grammatical features of spoken language in writing. Emig warns that a “blurring” of the two is

hazardous considering how “writing is learned” and “talking is natural” (Emig 9). Emig also

mentions how “talking leans on the environment” whereas “writing must provide its own

context” (Emig 9). In direct opposition to Emig’s argument, there are those who encourage the

writer to use their vernacular when writing. In “Teaching Writing as a Process not a Product”

Donald M. Murray sets forth as imperative that “The student uses his own language” (Murray5).

Murray asserts that in the process of writing, if a student is given the opportunity to bring the

language they have learned to the paper apart from that which is taught to them in an English

class, which is often taught as if it were a foreign language, then they will have the opportunity

to “exploit” their language which allows for the student to “embark on a serious search for their

own truth” (Murray 5). I am convinced that this exploitation of one’s language produces writing

that gives insight to the connection between speech and prose. When considering this

connection, it seems nearly impossible to keep one’s own acquired language from bleeding

Manns 4

through some portion of a document even though spoken and written language are technically

acquired differently. One still influences the other.

Concerning the art of writing, I will concede in support of Emig’s argument that there are

elements used when writing that are not as often employed in verbal communication. Writing

tends to include more descriptive elements for the sake of the reader who is not present or who is

only in the conversation via reading and not responding in present time. Ellipses also happen

more often in spoken language than in written language. In conversation you can afford to omit

words and use pronouns more often for the sake of a shared environment or knowledge of

circumstances when speaking with an individual. Although I have been a staunch supporter of

the theory that well written prose comes from a type of “recorded talk,” I realize that when one’s

vernacular affects his writing, I am not entirely sure if the effect is as beneficial to the writing as

it is detrimental. I have come to this conclusion while taking my own experience into

consideration. As described above, I was raised in a household that encouraged “proper English”

and later finished my associate’s degree in communications not because it was some faux degree

to be easily obtained but rather because I sincerely desired to communicate well across all media,

whether it is in print or oration. This puts me in a position where my writing reflecting my

speech is not detrimental to my prose, since I am ever perfecting my speech. The unfortunate

thing is when one who is less educated in Standard English is trying to convey their thoughts on

paper. Often they will write a paper that is insufficient in the style needed to support a scholarly

effort. Because of this observation of my own experience coupled with the argument presented

by Emig, I understand how writing and talking are set apart and how writing needs to still be

taught for the purpose of a document that reads well and not like a muddled informal

conversation. And still, there is something lacking in Emig’s argument.

Manns 5

Though Emig does well to define the differences between written and spoken language,

her article does not reveal why it is that one might write as they speak in the first place. Instead,

the article merely acts as a caveat to avoid writing as one speaks. Because Emig’s argument

lacks an explanation for the reason behind colloquial composition, I must assert that an

individual’s proficiency in written language rightly mirrors their proficiency in spoken language.

When writing, one is relegated to the same vocabulary they generally use in speech. Examples of

such are as follows. For starters, the words one knows are the words he will use. Indeed, a

thesaurus can virtually give a wordsmith quality to any individual lacking in his vocabulary, but

it can only help as well as one can use it. Furthermore, if one has no cognitive idea that in speech

their subject verb agreement, adverb and participle use, and preposition use are off a bit, then the

abovementioned follies will find their way into the individual’s writing unimpeded by a

dictionary or thesaurus. Though it’s viable to contest that the writer should write differently than

the way he speaks, it is not practical for the writer to do so if he is not educated in an effort to

improve both his writing and his speech. The individual’s acquired language, be it by way of

environment or by way of education, must be closely linked to a standard dialect in order to

prove proficient in both the written and spoken communicative fields.

To stress environmental effects further, I will assert that acquired language continually

influences several aspects of writing. Often in the discussion of composition theory the argument

is raised that ideas in writing may in fact come from things previously read or received in our

lifetime. In “Collaborative Learning and the “Conversation of Mankind,”” Kenneth A. Bruffee

defends the theory that writing is a displaced form of conversation. According to Bruffee, this

collaborative learning can come about within assigned groups and yet may also be the result of a

type of ever-present forum from which we gather ideas and begin new arguments based on the

Manns 6

collective terms we have heard over the years (Bruffee 415). Logically, if when writing a theme

there is the chance that I may present an argument that is not entirely original yet in my mind the

concept seems novel, then there must be room for the possibility that not only my theme but also

my writing style may be an amalgamated adaptation of several works and styles that I’ve

incurred in my tenure as a writer. In summary, I state yet again that language is acquired via

outside factors which subsequently influence writing.

Ultimately, whether or not is it wise to consciously incorporate the way one speaks into

writing is up to the discretion of the writer. Audience naturally comes into play when deciding

on how a document should read. The objective set forth in this research effort was to bring to

awareness the effect our environment has on our speech, and how the language acquired from

our environment will noticeably affect our writing. It is apparent that although writing is a

separate art that deserves to be taught separately, we still at times even subconsciously bring our

language to the table. Sometimes that language is sophisticated and appropriate within academia

and at times it may be base and not fit for a paper. There is still an audience for prose that reads

as speech, but it needs to be expressed at its appropriate time. Since our speech and society do

affect our writing, then perhaps our spoken language should be addressed in composition

courses. Basic grammar rules and proper word usage may need to be revisited. Many secondary

institutions take for granted that their students have learned these things from interactions at

home or during primary education, yet this assumption is the apparent enemy of several inner

city students who are entering college. Often the things one may find remedial may be a new

concept to a student who has lacked formal training in the basics of the English language. In

closing, just as Emig asserts how “writing is learned” and “talking is natural,” in order to

proactively address the effect our environment has on our speech, proper education and positive

Manns 7

reinforcements concerning spoken language must be implemented (Emig 9). Our reception of

such “proper” English will subsequently improve our capabilities in spoken English, and this,

consequently, can improve our capabilities in written English.

Works Cited

Bizzell, Patricia “Cognition, Convention and Certainty” Cross-Talk in Comp Theory. Second Ed.

Victor Villanueva. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English, 2003. 387-412.

Print.

Bruffee, Kenneth A. “Collaborative Learning and the “Conversation of Mankind.”” Cross-Talk

in Comp Theory. Second Ed. Victor Villanueva. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of

English, 2003. 415-436. Print.

Emig, Janet “Writing as a Mod of Learning.” Cross-Talk in Comp Theory. Second Ed. Victor

Villanueva. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English, 2003. 7-17. Print.

Murray, Donald M. “Teach Writing as a Process not a Product.” Cross-Talk in Comp Theory.

Second Ed. Victor Villanueva. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English, 2003. 3-

6. Print.