November 29th, 2007
Continuing the conversation regarding redundancy or repetition (from 11.21.07), this concept can be seen as a large difference in the digital orality and new media psyche, quite separate from the writing psyche.
“Since redundancy characterizes oral thought and speech, it is in a profound sense more natural to thought and speech than is sparse linearity. …. Eliminating redundancy on a significant scale demands a time-obviating technology, writing, which imposes some kind of strain on the psyche in preventing expression from falling into its more natural patterns” (Orality and Literacy, 40).
Read the rest of this entry »
November 27th, 2007
In a primarily oral culture, there is no way to record and recall a speech or oral performance. As Ong, Heim, and others have detailed, this is the reasoning for the structured, rhythmic nature of the oral epic. It was just not possible for the human mind to organize and remember a detailed, complex story without some form of mnemonic method applied.
The only way to reproduce a speech or orl performance would be to apprentice with the speaker, going off of his (rarely her) memory and rhythmic prompts to get the speech down and by repeating many times over the tale. However, beyond the use of writing to record these speeches, there came a point where writing was used as its own tool to produce creative works. Read the rest of this entry »
November 21st, 2007
“Thought requires some sort of continuity. Writing establishes in the text a ‘line’ of continuity outside the mind. If distraction confuses or obliterates from the mind the context out of which emerges the material I am now reading, the context can be retrieved by glancing back over the text selectively. …. In oral discourse, the situation is different. There is nothing to backloop into outside the mind, for the oral utterance has vanished as soon as it is uttered.” (Orality and Literacy, 39).
Ong’s point in this passage is certainly true. The written passage allows readers to backloop to reread any section if they did not understand it or even if their minds wandered while reading. Such an ability to retrieve or re-experience the content is not possible in a live setting, short of requesting the speaker repeat the seemingly lost statement or section (a condition rarely possible in a public setting).
However, the communication methods in digital orality replace this downfall. Read the rest of this entry »
November 19th, 2007
Another aspect of digital orality style takes into consideration how meaning is established and to what extent grammar and syntax play into that.
“Chirographic structures look more to syntactics (organization of the discourse itself)…. Written discourse develops more elaborate and fixed grammar than oral discourse does because to provide meaning it is more dependant upon linguistic structure, since it lacks the normal full existential contexts which surround oral discourse and help determine meaning in oral discourse somewhat independently of grammar.” (Orality and Literacy. 38).
Read the rest of this entry »
November 18th, 2007
This is sort of a continuation of yesterday’s discussion on residual styles following the transition from oral to literary and then on to (not back to) a new orality. When considering the ways in which we organize our speeches, podcasts, etc., are there identifiable styles and inspirations? There are various types of podcasts, so there is no set or even general style. However, one of the most common is the radio show format. The organization and arrangement of the recording is based on this radio show format. The podcaster, whether fully intended or not, takes on the common, perhaps cliché, persona of the type of DJ he or she associates with that format. Read the rest of this entry »