Orality and Literacy (New Accents) Export

@book{citeulike:149356, abstract = {{This classic work explores the vast differences between oral and literate cultures and offers a brilliantly lucid account of the intellectual, literary and social effects of writing, print and electronic technology.}}, author = {Ong, Walter J.}, citeulike-article-id = {149356}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike09-20&path=ASIN/0415281296}, citeulike-linkout-1 = {http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike01-21&path=ASIN/0415281296}, citeulike-linkout-2 = {http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike06-21&path=ASIN/0415281296}, citeulike-linkout-3 = {http://www.amazon.jp/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415281296}, citeulike-linkout-4 = {http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415281296/citeulike00-21}, citeulike-linkout-5 = {http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike07-20&path=ASIN/0415281296}, citeulike-linkout-6 = {http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/0415281296}, citeulike-linkout-7 = {http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0415281296}, citeulike-linkout-8 = {http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?keywords=0415281296&index=books&linkCode=qs}, citeulike-linkout-9 = {http://www.librarything.com/isbn/0415281296}, comment = {Chapter 3. Some psychodynamics of orality (31-57) Ong begins this selection by identifying verbal word expression as events in time. Therefore there is a relationship between word and action in verbal expression that is not the same as in written expression. Sound requires power whose force is internally generated. Ong here also adds to the discussion of primarily oral cultures and memory: "restriction of words to sounds determines not only modes of expression but also thought processes" (33). While it may be that Ong is trying to say that orality limits particular forms of though and opens up other possibilities, I wonder about the use of such deterministic language. Presumably, one could argue that a culture's existing thought processes and practices have some influence on the technology of expression (or lack of technology of expression). Ong argues that "recall" is different as there is nothing "outside the thinker, no text" that would enable this recall. However, I think here he forgets two classes of things that could enable recall, other than writing: pictures (another medium) and objects in nature. The only answer is not: "Think memorable thoughts." (34). Ong discusses the use of rhythm and formula as an aid to recall. Formulae are what makes laws in oral culture possible (35). But again he claims that without these formula recall would not be possible, and I wonder about other visual, aural, and spatial aids that are not based on writing. The rest of this selection of Ong's Orality and Literacy concerns identifying various "characteristics of orally based thought and expression." 1) Oral thought is additive, which adds "flow" to expression. Oral conversation includes contexts that written expression does not. 2) Oral thought is aggregative. Thoughts are clustered. Epithets are common. 3) Oral thought is redundant. "Repetition of the just-said, keeps both speaker and hearer surely on the track." While this may be true, I also think that redundancy is more encouraged and use in written discourse than Ong is acknowledging here. His emphasis is on the speaker/writer, but I suspect that redundancy in both is often for the benefit of the audience/reader. 4) Oral thought is conservative because knowledge is stored in the head rather than in an external form. Originality is handled at the moment of interaction with a new audience. 5) Oral thought is in closer proximity to everyday life experience. Life experience serves as a reference point. What are the implications for this claim, though, on the earlier discussion of recall and memory? 6) Oral thought is agonistically toned, which means that oral discourse is combative. I found this whole section a bit shallow. It's hard for me to think that "enthusiastic descriptions of violence" in the epic poetry is an "effect" of orality. We know now a great deal of violent literature and violent film (as we move into thinking about new literacies...). Where is Ong's evidence that "violence in oral art forms is also connected with the structure of orality itself" (45)? 7) Oral thought is participatory and empathetic. Writing sets up a critical distance. Orality requires identification. Again, I'm not sure about this, either. It seems to suggest that "what is known" is somehow transmitted to the text and stands apart from the creator and/or interpreter. 8) Oral thought is homeostatic. This comes from Goody and Watt (1968) and refers to living in the present. Meaning in words comes from their reuse in the present context and not from interpretation and analysis of old texts. I wonder if for many practical purposes, though, the same thing can be said of written cultures? Actually, here I catch myself, because as Goody and Watt point out, no Western culture is purely literate. We have added literacy to orality. Therefore, perhaps we can tease out transformation of word meanings to present day contexts as an property of oral discourse? 9) Oral thought is situational. In this section Ong, recounts Luria experiments that suggest profound differences in how the presence or absence of some literate education produces radically different results in answers to the experimental questions. The part I found the most shaky in this section was the discussion of illiterates ability to "articulate self-analysis." I wonder if the "consequences" described in many of these experiments could be the difference between some system of "formal" or out of situational context education rather than literacy itself? ---=note-separator=--- Chapter 4. Writing restructures consciousness (78-116) In this chapter, Ong argues that having writing changes the way people think. Throughout the chapter, there is a continued approach that I would consider a strong form of technology determinism: "...thought processes do not grow out of simply natural powers but out of these powers as structured, directly, or indirectly, by the technology of writing. Without writing, the literate mind would not and could not think as it does, no only when engaged in writing but normally even when it is composing its thoughts in oral form. More than any other single invention, writing has transformed human consciousness" (78). Ong begins this chapter introducing the notion of "autonomous discourse" (Olson 1980) that results from the separation of the written thought from the author. Ong argues that there is no way "refute a text", at least not directly through debate with the author. Another important theme of this chapter is the idea of internalizing external tools (81). The common root of the word "idea" and "video" illustrates that the concept of what an idea is, as presented by Plato, is related to visual properties. Ong argues that writing is a technology, something "artificial." And, he goes on to say that all technologies are not only "external tools" but that they are transformative of people's "interior." It's not clear to me, now, if Ong's idea of people's "interior" makes sense, but I'm not sure how to treat this concept. It strikes me as a purely cognitive perspective. I wonder if he had considered the possibility that technologies may be considered more as extensions of the body in the world, rather than of transformations on the mind. In thinking about new literacies, it would be useful to consider how Ong defines writing as related to script (84). He acknowledges a relationship between writing and what Michael Buckland would call "documentation" (my words, not his) But he considers "writing" as "when a coded systems of visible marks was invented whereby a writer could determine the exact words that the reader would generate from the text." How would this translate to other modes or media of communication? Pg 86: Ong present a history of the alphabet and starts to address economic and social factors that led to its development. But in his discussion of the Chinese alphabet he calls the current system elitist and time-consuming and says that there is "no doubt that the characters will be replaced by the roman alphabet as soon as all the people.. master the same Chinese language ('dialect')." This "no doubt" seems to be because of the writing system, the technology, and is not tied to anything social or cultural. The example of the Korean alphabet, says Ong, shows how the modern alphabet proved to be a democratizing force in contrast to the elites continued use of the Chinese characters (92). A difference between orality and literacy: "Spoken words are always modifications of a total situation which is more than verbal. They never occur alone, in a context simply of words. Yet words are alone in a text." In different terms, listening to speech is always multimodal. But text is not. This seems to depend a lot of the listener/reader. Also, I'm not a fan of this limited idea of "context." "Context" may also refer to a lot of other factors the reader/audience brings to the table in discourse. And, Ong doesn't say much about the relationship that develops at the time of communication between reader/writer, listener/speaker. Ong does a good job trying to describe the audience that a writer has to try to create when writing (102), but my problems with his discussion of "context" continues. He doesn't seem to acknowledge interpretations of text as highly contingent on a reader's context. The discussion of grapholects is important because it addresses the issues of resources that those who are fluent in a grapholect have at their disposal, even while all dialects "may be equal" (108). }, day = {23}, howpublished = {Paperback}, isbn = {0415281296}, keywords = {culture, linguistics, literacy}, month = {May}, posted-at = {2006-02-14 19:05:10}, priority = {4}, publisher = {Routledge}, title = {Orality and Literacy (New Accents)}, url = {http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike07-20&path=ASIN/0415281296}, year = {2002} }

TY - BOOK ID - citeulike:149356 L3 - citeulike-article-id:149356 N2 - {This classic work explores the vast differences between oral and literate cultures and offers a brilliantly lucid account of the intellectual, literary and social effects of writing, print and electronic technology.} SN - 0415281296 TI - Orality and Literacy (New Accents) PB - Routledge KW - culture KW - linguistics KW - literacy N1 - Chapter 3. Some psychodynamics of orality (31-57) Ong begins this selection by identifying verbal word expression as events in time. Therefore there is a relationship between word and action in verbal expression that is not the same as in written expression. Sound requires power whose force is internally generated. Ong here also adds to the discussion of primarily oral cultures and memory: "restriction of words to sounds determines not only modes of expression but also thought processes" (33). While it may be that Ong is trying to say that orality limits particular forms of though and opens up other possibilities, I wonder about the use of such deterministic language. Presumably, one could argue that a culture's existing thought processes and practices have some influence on the technology of expression (or lack of technology of expression). Ong argues that "recall" is different as there is nothing "outside the thinker, no text" that would enable this recall. However, I think here he forgets two classes of things that could enable recall, other than writing: pictures (another medium) and objects in nature. The only answer is not: "Think memorable thoughts." (34). Ong discusses the use of rhythm and formula as an aid to recall. Formulae are what makes laws in oral culture possible (35). But again he claims that without these formula recall would not be possible, and I wonder about other visual, aural, and spatial aids that are not based on writing. The rest of this selection of Ong's Orality and Literacy concerns identifying various "characteristics of orally based thought and expression." 1) Oral thought is additive, which adds "flow" to expression. Oral conversation includes contexts that written expression does not. 2) Oral thought is aggregative. Thoughts are clustered. Epithets are common. 3) Oral thought is redundant. "Repetition of the just-said, keeps both speaker and hearer surely on the track." While this may be true, I also think that redundancy is more encouraged and use in written discourse than Ong is acknowledging here. His emphasis is on the speaker/writer, but I suspect that redundancy in both is often for the benefit of the audience/reader. 4) Oral thought is conservative because knowledge is stored in the head rather than in an external form. Originality is handled at the moment of interaction with a new audience. 5) Oral thought is in closer proximity to everyday life experience. Life experience serves as a reference point. What are the implications for this claim, though, on the earlier discussion of recall and memory? 6) Oral thought is agonistically toned, which means that oral discourse is combative. I found this whole section a bit shallow. It's hard for me to think that "enthusiastic descriptions of violence" in the epic poetry is an "effect" of orality. We know now a great deal of violent literature and violent film (as we move into thinking about new literacies...). Where is Ong's evidence that "violence in oral art forms is also connected with the structure of orality itself" (45)? 7) Oral thought is participatory and empathetic. Writing sets up a critical distance. Orality requires identification. Again, I'm not sure about this, either. It seems to suggest that "what is known" is somehow transmitted to the text and stands apart from the creator and/or interpreter. 8) Oral thought is homeostatic. This comes from Goody and Watt (1968) and refers to living in the present. Meaning in words comes from their reuse in the present context and not from interpretation and analysis of old texts. I wonder if for many practical purposes, though, the same thing can be said of written cultures? Actually, here I catch myself, because as Goody and Watt point out, no Western culture is purely literate. We have added literacy to orality. Therefore, perhaps we can tease out transformation of word meanings to present day contexts as an property of oral discourse? 9) Oral thought is situational. In this section Ong, recounts Luria experiments that suggest profound differences in how the presence or absence of some literate education produces radically different results in answers to the experimental questions. The part I found the most shaky in this section was the discussion of illiterates ability to "articulate self-analysis." I wonder if the "consequences" described in many of these experiments could be the difference between some system of "formal" or out of situational context education rather than literacy itself? N1 - Chapter 4. Writing restructures consciousness (78-116) In this chapter, Ong argues that having writing changes the way people think. Throughout the chapter, there is a continued approach that I would consider a strong form of technology determinism: "...thought processes do not grow out of simply natural powers but out of these powers as structured, directly, or indirectly, by the technology of writing. Without writing, the literate mind would not and could not think as it does, no only when engaged in writing but normally even when it is composing its thoughts in oral form. More than any other single invention, writing has transformed human consciousness" (78). Ong begins this chapter introducing the notion of "autonomous discourse" (Olson 1980) that results from the separation of the written thought from the author. Ong argues that there is no way "refute a text", at least not directly through debate with the author. Another important theme of this chapter is the idea of internalizing external tools (81). The common root of the word "idea" and "video" illustrates that the concept of what an idea is, as presented by Plato, is related to visual properties. Ong argues that writing is a technology, something "artificial." And, he goes on to say that all technologies are not only "external tools" but that they are transformative of people's "interior." It's not clear to me, now, if Ong's idea of people's "interior" makes sense, but I'm not sure how to treat this concept. It strikes me as a purely cognitive perspective. I wonder if he had considered the possibility that technologies may be considered more as extensions of the body in the world, rather than of transformations on the mind. In thinking about new literacies, it would be useful to consider how Ong defines writing as related to script (84). He acknowledges a relationship between writing and what Michael Buckland would call "documentation" (my words, not his) But he considers "writing" as "when a coded systems of visible marks was invented whereby a writer could determine the exact words that the reader would generate from the text." How would this translate to other modes or media of communication? Pg 86: Ong present a history of the alphabet and starts to address economic and social factors that led to its development. But in his discussion of the Chinese alphabet he calls the current system elitist and time-consuming and says that there is "no doubt that the characters will be replaced by the roman alphabet as soon as all the people.. master the same Chinese language ('dialect')." This "no doubt" seems to be because of the writing system, the technology, and is not tied to anything social or cultural. The example of the Korean alphabet, says Ong, shows how the modern alphabet proved to be a democratizing force in contrast to the elites continued use of the Chinese characters (92). A difference between orality and literacy: "Spoken words are always modifications of a total situation which is more than verbal. They never occur alone, in a context simply of words. Yet words are alone in a text." In different terms, listening to speech is always multimodal. But text is not. This seems to depend a lot of the listener/reader. Also, I'm not a fan of this limited idea of "context." "Context" may also refer to a lot of other factors the reader/audience brings to the table in discourse. And, Ong doesn't say much about the relationship that develops at the time of communication between reader/writer, listener/speaker. Ong does a good job trying to describe the audience that a writer has to try to create when writing (102), but my problems with his discussion of "context" continues. He doesn't seem to acknowledge interpretations of text as highly contingent on a reader's context. The discussion of grapholects is important because it addresses the issues of resources that those who are fluent in a grapholect have at their disposal, even while all dialects "may be equal" (108). AU - Ong, Walter PY - 2002/05/23/ UR - http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike09-20&path=ASIN/0415281296 ER -