In French, the distinction between speech ("parole") and language ("langage) refers to the distinction between dysarthria (speech disorder) and aphasia (language disorder).

Dysarthria is a motor disorder of the components necessary to produce oral speech, mainly deficits of articulation. Some authors also include deficits in voice intensity, and quality.

Aphasia is not a motor disorder, but a cognitive deficit in all processes implied from the conceptualisation of a word to the planification of its production. See for instance models of word production of Levelt et al., 1999, or of Romani et al., 2011) for a detailed explanation.

Best regards,

Marie

My information is anecdotal only, based on teaching writing to native English speakers, but I have often found that specific students who are competent in spoken communication can still be terrible writers.   

In part, I believe that this is because of the much more complex organization required in written communication.  In addition, advanced vocabulary and nuances of grammar need to make up for NOT having the non-verbal communication available during spoken communication. As you say, I think this means that not only are they different abilities, but it seems anecdotally that they require completely different parts of the brain. :-)

I find that it is almost always true that the students who have read for pleasure extensively write best, because they have good role models to follow of elevated written language use.

Language and speech are  two different abilities of communication process. That said, they are inextricably linked. I do generally agree with Marek that spoken communication is different from written communication. Each has its pros and cons. What is important is: who is your recipient, his value system, perceptions, attitudes, his interest in the subject, his need for the product, etc. Once they match good communication takes place be it spoken or written. Body language has no place in written communication.

One political rabble rouser may be more effective in communicating a broad cross-section of people than a classical novelist or a dramatist. Again written communication may have more sophisticated audience and it may be also long-lasting.

Dear all, I appreciate your valuable comments. I totally agree with what you have mentioned

La expresión escrita y la expresión oral son dos competencias diferentes y por tanto tienen características específicas para cada una. Las dos son importantes para el proceso comunicativo, sin embargo, la escrita tiene mayor rigurosidad normativa y normalizada (en el caso del español por la ortografía, sobre todo). La oral, por su parte, goza de ventajas pero también de inconvenientes, como ser efímera, no brinda un carácter de fidedigna, usa vicios de dicción con mayor frecuencia, no puede editarse, entre otras. Pero tiene cualidades como: rápida, reconoce lugar de procedencia del emisor, directa, se acompaña de la comunicación no verbal, entre otros.

Bien, las dos son valiosas,y como el lenguaje es heredado y aprendido, solo se debe hacer esfuerzo para dominar sus competencias, toda vez que los humanos manifestamos quiénes somos a través del lenguaje que utilicemos y por supuesto aprendemos el mundo dependiendo de cuánto dominio tengamos sobre este.

Saludos

Dear Dr Francesca, thank you very much for your interesting comments. I enjoyed reading it.

Dear Mariela, thanks too for your answer.

Language is that which is used to convey ideas and information from one person to another, be it in written or spoken form.  Ideally, it will be completely understood and not lead to any misunderstanding or be taken out of context. Speech on the other hand is vocalized language and could potentially be delivered or understood incorrectly, thereby leading to miscommunication.

Dear Timothy, your comment is highly appreciated. thank you

Language does not exist. Speech (including 'inner speech')  is the form in which language exists.

Language is an abstraction of speech.

@Timothy and Klaus

You have addressed the problem posed, although distinguishing "La expresión escrita y la expresión oral" is a worthy project as well. I agree that language is an abstract term that includes its execution through speech, writing, or signing. My ontology, however, allows abstractions to exist. ;-)

Dear Prof Klaus, why do consider them independent abilities?

Neither language nor speech are abilities. Speech exists. So we say that there should be an ability to speak. But it is not clear what the word „ability“ means (which ontological status this thing has). Neither Aristotl nor Kant made it clearer to me.

Bordieux would say, I guess, the ability to speak like humans speak (sounds or signs) is incorporated culture. I suggest to take this as a good answer (and to go on without the question: How is this ’incorporation’ materialized?)

You put the leading question: „To which extent can we consider language and speech to be different? Since language and speech are independent abilities, to which extent are they different? And what do they have in common?“ I have a problem with the question. I suppose the question contains a category mistake. I wouldn’t have a problem if you asked: „To which extent can we consider man and woman to be different? Since man and woman are independent human beings, to which extent are they different? And what do they have in common?“ But language and speech cannot be compared like this – or you must explain in which sense you use the word „language“.

The other problem is – as I already pointed out – that you call both, language and speech, abilities.

Mohammad: Broadly speaking, speech involves your body and language involves your mind. This blog post of mine, ‘Speech and language’, has more about this:

http://beingmultilingual.blogspot.com/2012/12/speech-and-language_12.html

Clinical data, for example, show that speech and language are independent. You can have intact speech with disordered language, or vice versa. Have a look at this ASHA (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association) article:

http://www.asha.org/public/speech/development/language_speech.htm

Sign languages are also evidence that language and speech are independent: deaf signers have language, but no speech. See e.g. Fox, M. (2007). Talking Hands: What Sign Language Reveals about the Mind, Simon & Schuster. This book is reviewed in Nature:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7157/full/448998a.html

I hope this helps

Madalena

In French, the distinction between speech ("parole") and language ("langage) refers to the distinction between dysarthria (speech disorder) and aphasia (language disorder).

Dysarthria is a motor disorder of the components necessary to produce oral speech, mainly deficits of articulation. Some authors also include deficits in voice intensity, and quality.

Aphasia is not a motor disorder, but a cognitive deficit in all processes implied from the conceptualisation of a word to the planification of its production. See for instance models of word production of Levelt et al., 1999, or of Romani et al., 2011) for a detailed explanation.

Best regards,

Marie

We use the words different: When I used the word „speech“ I meant the real ACTION of uttering words. These words can be uttered by sounds or by signs.

„Language“ (whatever this word means) I didn’t use as word for an action.

In the next step we can ask: What is the difference between the forms of utterances, between sound-words and sign-words.

Dear Madalena Cruz-Ferreira ,

I found very valuable information on your blog about how language and speech might be different. Thanks for your interest

Dear Marie Di Pietro, your comments are highly appreciated.

Dear Klaus, I highly respect your point of view. The structure of my question is very clear. I raised this question because I still believe that there is a difference between speech and language. If language is made up of socially shared rules that include the following: What words mean, how to make new words, how to put words together, and what word combinations are best in what situations, speech is the verbal means of communicating. Speech consists of the following: Articulation (how speech sounds are made ),voice and Fluency. I could understand from the previous comments on this question that Language can contain spoken word but may also be expressed throughout writing, signing or gestures. Speech is the verbal expression of language and consists of voice and articulation

Dear Mohammed, you wrote:

1. "I still believe that there is a difference between speech and language". O.k., but it is a difference like between apples and trees. -

2. "Language can contain spoken word but may also be expressed throughout writing, signing or gestures." Not any signs or gestures, but only signs of a sign-language like ASL. -  Writing with letters is derived from the sounds of sound-words. Some other sign-codes like Morse characters, too. Other forms of writing like Chinese writing is derived from the meanings of Chinese sound-words, but have nothing to do with the sounds of these words.

Mohammed, thanks for adding clarity to your position.

Although Klaus and I have very different general world views (as we have presented in other discussions), I agree wholeheartedly with him that the question involves a category mistake (as explained by philosopher Gilbert Ryle). One can have language without speech as internalized thoughts or as expressed through signs or symbols. However, one cannot have speech without language. I don't think anyone would consider a series of random grunts, growls, burps, and shouts to be "speech." Speech is an expression of the (abstract) capacity for language.

I find the question to be similar to: What is the difference between gaining nutrition and eating apples?

Furthermore, language is more than a socially shared series of rules, although that "sharing" within a speech community is essential to language. Having the language capacity also involves constructing an individual grammar that digests and organizes the data absorbed from the speech community a person is raised in into a cognitive system that can produce and understand a potentially infinite number of sentences.

@Marie

I read your post with great interest. It caused me to think.

If someone is uttering a garbled bunch of sounds and seems intent on expressing thoughts, then there might be motor skills problems or there might be cognitive skills problems. I agree that these are independent problems.

In the long run, however, my basic position holds. If there are motor skill deficiencies dealing with speech-producing articulators, the person might still be able to express language through other means, such as signing or writing. If there are language-based aphasias, on the other hand, then no amount of therapy with motor skills can compensate for it. So the skills are not parallel. If the language skills are deficient, then the afflicted person cannot speak (well) nor communicate (well); however, if the motor skills are deficient, the person might still be able to communicate (well), but not be able to express that ability through speech.

Dear all,

Thank you very much for your contributions to response to my question.

Dear Dr. Mohammad!

I will answer from what I know in linguistics. Language is a sort of general cognitive ability. It is a complex of all semantics, phonetics, syntax, pragmatics that a person has. Also, it is a complex of such things for a speech community (e..g English language - a set of semantics, phonetics, etc. that English speakers share). It is also all information that you can find in dictionaries. Now, speech is a particular expression of language ability. There is spoken speech, written speech, formal speech, etc. 

Basically, you can never pinpoint language in individual or speech community, as it is an abstract, consisting of all speech acts ever existed for this person or community. But you can pinpoint a speech act (an utterance, e.g.)  That is the reason when we look what aspects of speech are damaged in a person after a stoke (e.g. lost ability for complex morphology) we make inferences about language ability, not the other way around. Actual speech is a window to language, in a way as person's behavior is a window into his/her attitudes or understanding of certain things.

If it is not quite clear, you might check any textbook in linguistics. The language/speech dichotomy is one of fundamental issues for linguistics.    

Dear Dr. Francesca Cansani, you have provided very worthy information about this topic. Your opinion is highly respected. However, everyone comments according to his/her specialization. We should take this point into our consideration. Communication problems are an issue for almost every human being. Discussing whether there is a difference or not between language and speech is also a matter of concern for us as linguists.

Regards