Questão 2084431

The history of language study illustrates widely divergent attitudes concerning the relationship between writing and speech. Written language was the medium of literature, and, thus, a source of standards of linguistic excellence. It was felt to provide language with permanence and authority. The rules of grammar were, accordingly, illustrated exclusively from written texts.

The everyday spoken language, by contrast, was ignored or condemned as an object unworthy of study, demonstrating only lack of care and organization. It was said to have no rules, and speakers were left under the illusion that, in order to “speak properly”, it was necessary to follow the “correct” norms, as laid down in the recognized grammar books and manuals of written style.

There was sporadic criticism of this viewpoint throughout the 19^th century, but it was not until the 20^th century that an alternative approach became widespread. This approach pointed out that speech is many thousands of years older than writing; that it develops naturally in children (whereas writing has to be artificially taught); and that writing systems are derivative — mostly based on sounds of speech.

D. Crystal. How Language Works. London: Penguin Books, 2006 (adapted).

Based on the previous text, judge the following items.

According to the text, it used to be believed that the everyday spoken language is too anarchic to be used as the basis for grammar.