ABSTRACT
The limited mention of spoken skills is not, I believe, due to their inherent lack of interest for histories of the language. It is more a question of focus. So, for instance, Baron (2000) mentions oratory and reading aloud since her concern is with the evolution of written English and its relation to the spoken medium. Some historians, such as Burke (1993), Cmiel (1990) and Jamieson (1988), have taken an interest in matters of communicative competence, specifically conversation and public speaking, in the belief, not held by all historians, that language is a significant element of social and cultural history. I would argue that a focus on the spoken arts can contribute to a cultural history of the English language in a number of ways. Firstly, since oratory and conversation dealt with communication, they give us an insight into contemporary ideals of public discourse and how these evolved. These ideals touched many aspects of linguistic structure as they essentially dealt with style, both linguistic and cultural. Secondly, as dimensions of legitimised communicative competence, forming part of what Bourdieu (1991) terms ‘cultural capital’, i.e. skills valued by the powerful and influential in society,
the spoken arts were affected by and contributed to standardisation processes, a relationship which merits some investigation. Finally, given the proficiency dimension of the spoken arts (how to become a good orator, reader, etc.), we are given insights into the contemporary understanding of language teaching and learning.
