Znovu k Vachkově teorii psané formy jazyka

The key points of Josef Vachek's theory of written language (Vachek, 1939, rev. 1959) can be summarized as follows: (1) Speech and writing are complementary, i.e., for a given communicative situation, one is more convenient than the other. Writing serves, as a rule, more specialized functions (purposes) than speech does, which makes it the marked member of the pair. (2) Writing is (a) governed by a norm of its own (social aspect), and (b) no longer a second-order semiotic system for experienced readers (cognitive aspect). Quite recently, Adam (2009) has criticized Vachek's approach as being old-fashioned and empirically inadequate, and has suggested replacing it with a theory based ‘on the substance only'. The purpose of the present paper is to recall Vachek's theory and to demonstrate that most of Adam's arguments are irrelevant or misleading.