“Introducing language”
Lesson #1: Crystal argues that language (as discussed in the book) “displays certain properties which enable us to express far more than any piece of nonverbal communication could ever do” (p. 8). I think he bases this argument on an earlier discussion regarding the modes of communication, and the three mediums “speech, writing, and sign – which manifest our concept of language” (p. 4). I find it interesting how he distinguishes these concepts, and I think it might help to have a (tentative) graphic representation:

I wish Crystal had further delineated the concept of “meaning” as it pertains to his book, because he mentions it only briefly in the section (maybe it is discussed in the “Discourse” section). If meaning, according to Crystal, is what is communicated, then how do we make meaning? What influences its creation and interpretation? It seems like the thing missing in my graphic representation is context, and I think that might hold the key to a more detailed explanation of meaning. This is important to us, because as writing teachers, we need to understand how meaning-making works, and the process of creating meaning in different contexts. Our students will each do so in different ways; therefore this is something I hope we will discuss more.

“Written language”
Lesson #2: When I first started to read Crystal, I was reminded of Stephen Pinker’s book, _How the mind works_. While Crystal and Pinker are focusing on two different things, language vs. the mind, both books have similarities. This is especially apparent when considering what Crystal says about how the eye “reads”. Crystal explains that “the stages involved in this process are not well understood…it is extremely difficult to obtain precise information about the events that take place when people read…apart from eye movements – and [this does not] begin to explain how the reader is managing to draw meaning out of the graphic symbols” (p. 123). Pinker discusses cognitive aspects of meaning-making (among other things), and I wonder if this would help us to understand how we go from eye movements to reading comprehension (and my previous questions regarding meaning-making). I don’t have the book, and I’m going from memory here with no page citations, but it is at the library if anyone’s interested. Pinker explains that we have four forms of cognitive meaning-making: visual, phonological, grammatical, and mentalese. Mentalese is sort of the language of the mind, in a general sense.

So, to borrow from Crystal’s opening question, how do we understand language? What happens between reading and comprehension of what has been read (is it mentalese – the language of the mind)? Again, I think context is really important here, because it allows us to understand how two people can read the same novel yet end up with two completely different interpretations. The reader brings with her not only language skills, but also cultural, social, political, historical, etc. baggage that influences her interpretation of what she reads (or hears). Language isn’t independent of the human element and of context; but rather exists because of those things.

Lesson #3: Crystal argues, in principle, that the difference between artistic images and written symbols is that the former “convey personal and subjective meanings, and do not combine into a system of recurring symbols with accepted values.” Written symbols, on the other hand, “are conventional and institutionalized, capable of being understood in the same way by all who are using the system” (p. 107). Since he has noted that this is a generally accepted principle concerning artistic and written symbols, I have an easier time with his argument. By including the words “conventional” and “institutionalized” in the description of written symbols, this denotes the nature of what is traditionally accepted as a writing system. To cover the amount of information included in the book, Crystal has to use terms such as these and define them as such in order to move on, otherwise, he would have written a book about a much more narrow topic.

The problem I find with defining the writing as such (and this isn’t necessarily a problem with Crystal or his book; just with the traditional view of the topic), is that it seems to define writing (and language) as independent from context and users of the language. Maybe I’ve been intellectually damaged due to the influence of Ray Harris and his wild ideas about integrationism, but I do think that language, and more specifically, writing, cannot be separated from the context in which they are employed. Harris proposes three important aspects involved in writing (or language, to connect to Crystal): macrosocial, biomechanical, and circumstantial. These three aspects cover the possible contexts involved in language use, and can be read about in more detail in Harris’ book, _Signs of writing_. Although, now that I think about it more, Crystal may simply be pointing out how humans have conventionalized a language into a writing system (and thus I’ve read into it too much). Anyway…

Lesson #4: Crystal makes a distinction between speech and writing (p. 149 and on), and he argues that “speech is time-bound, dynamic, transient – part of an interaction…writing is space-bound, static, permanent” and not necessarily part of a direct interaction (p. 149). With these general aspects in mind, the section on electronic media is very interesting. Crystal makes the argument that the electronic medium is not exactly speech or writing, and is not a mere combination of both. Instead, it is “computer-mediated communication,” which occupies the role of written language “which has been pulled some way in the direction of speech than as spoken language which has been written down” (p. 158). Rather than describing it fully as one or the other, or as something in between, Crystal makes the rather radical (?!) statement that CMC is a new kind of communication. I don’t know why this argument, out of everything we’ve read so far in this book, is the one to make me bounce off walls, but it does. The intertextual aspect of electronic media is so fascinating. Books can be intertextual (i.e. Crystal’s point about footnotes), but not to the point that can be seen with hypertext. The idea of electronic media as a new kind of communication has great implications for us as teachers. Our students (most of them) will be literate in CMC, thus allowing us the opportunity to use some nontraditional and really exciting methods and assignments.