Orality and expression

Despite the growth of literacy and widespread use of writing in the United States, oral culture still exists. It has survived public education and Web 2.0, and will likely continue to affect students and educators alike. As oral culture and tradition is passed from generation to generation, whether intentional or not, stylistic elements and approaches to writing that are characteristic of orality show through even the most literate students. As shown by in his chapter “Some psychodynamics of orality,” Walter Ong delves into the details of characteristics of oral culture, based on thought and expression. Similarly, in her article “Plateau Indian Ways with Words,” Barbara Monroe discusses these characteristics by focusing on how they manifest in a focused group in the American Northwest.

Monroe lists characteristics of writing by students with a background of oral culture such as the Plateau Indians, including using “personal experience as supporting evidence and high-affect techniques, such as hypothetical dialogue, humor, and sardonic tone” (322). More broadly, Ong shows that oral discourse is embedded in context: “Written discourse develops more elaborate and fixed grammar than oral discourse does because to provide meaning it is more dependent simply upon linguistic structure” (38). Oral culture is dependent on adjectives, elaboration, and attributions—“aggregative” language (Ong 38). As narrative is related to storytelling and performance, oral culture requires elements of speech, elements that students incorporate into their writing. By understanding this relationship to performance, it may be seen that the audience is of utmost importance. As speakers repeat themselves so that their listeners do not lose interest or forget importance elements, so do writers repeat themselves to a point of apparent “redundancy” (39-41). However, it is not a fault if this repetition is seen as an organizational tool necessary to maintain the attention of the audience. The personalization of writers from oral backgrounds is used as evidence to support their arguments or stories (Monroe 329-330); this support is built on their our characters, or the characters of their parents—ethos. In a similar manner, the use of emotional language to elaborate and improve their writing shows an understanding of pathos and how it affects an audience.

Ong’s work further explains oral culture by examining the effects of literacy on thought processes; for example, even the small exposures to reading and writing of the slightly literate change the manner in which a person responds to questions (Ong 42-43). Oral culture is tied to human nature, it maintains a relationship with reality and the constructs of the present. In contrast, writing—and literacy—allows people to think abstractly, naming shapes by their geometric names and not their real-life counterparts (Ong 43). Literacy, and writing in particular, allows people to spend more time on things not related to memorization, such as writing a list of groceries for the weekend, rather than remembering it all week. This saves energy that can be used elsewhere. Monroe discusses these variations in thinking by comparing and contrasting analytic versus holistic thinking (334). Holistic thinking allows for multiple voices; to oral cultures, multiple perspectives are important and valued. Analytic thinking values a strong argument where the writer supports one perspective. Attempts to switch between the two thought processes is likely difficult, if not impossible to compartmentalize one or the other. I wonder, can the two be effectively combined? If not, which is appropriate for students in a university setting?

Is it possible for a student of an oral culture to switch between the two discourses of persuasion, of orality and academic discourse? Monroe notes that translation can weaken an argument or meaning, particularly when translating from an oral, narrative context to a straightforward purpose (325). Perhaps the use of modern media, technology, and varied rhetorical mediums can ease the transition between the two, meshing them together, ever so slightly. At the end of her article, Monroe urges educators to employ computers and varied media—visual rhetorics—that contextualize learning through the use of popular culture and technologies that may enhance writing (338-339). Also, these alternative teaching methods may reduce power relations of the teacher held by certain students, making the teacher more approachable or accessible. By incorporating new mediums into the classroom and in assignments, teachers may learn to teach old tricks using modern methods.

From personal experience as a student, I have found that modern technology and mixed media enhanced my learning and broadened my perspectives as a student and as a global community member, so much that I am earning a double degree in English and Digital Technology and Culture. Perhaps other students may too benefit from multiple medias, adding alternative literacies to their home literacy.

Works Cited

Ong, Walter. "Further characteristics of orally based thought and expression" in Ch. 3of Orality and LIteracy: The Technologizing of the Word. New York: Routledge, 1988. Pp. 36-57.

Monroe, Barbara. "Plateau Indian Ways with Words." College Composition and Communication. 61 (September 2009): W321-W342.