“Words have energy and power with the ability to help, to heal, to hinder, to hurt, to harm, to humiliate and to humble.” – Yehuda Berg

Language has played a significant role in shaping one’s culture and society. It’s not simply an instrument of communication, but of development and cultivation.

We can better understand the link between language and societal growth by first familiarizing ourselves with two distinct linguistic cultures identified by “Orality and Literacy” author Walter J. Ong – the primary oral and the literate. The latter is rooted from the former which explains their similarities in terms of incorporating the use of mnemonics, semantic priming, and memorization in the construction of their lingual system. Aside from that, both have established traditions by transforming their language into art forms to be passed down.

Their differences are more evident. Cognitively, primary oral cultures are more situational, relating abstract concepts to tangible objects present in their daily life while literate cultures are able to comprehend complex reasoning. This could be attributed to the fact that the writing system is a key part in the convergence, preservation, and enlightenment of knowledge – thanks to books, journals, etc. Having documentation, people can compare past and present and contemplate about the future. However, without these records, it could result to people dwelling more in the now, with no regards for yesterday.

Ong also introduces the concept of intersubjectivity  – a matter of shared understanding common during human conversations. Here, diversity is present but mutual relations still exist between the parties communicating. In contrast, the media model creates static roles for the sender and the receiver, like a one-way telephone. This lack of back-and-forth doesn’t enable spontaneity and in-depth discussions beneficial to all communicating participants.

Conformity to this model, as Ong notes, is due to chirographic conditioning. This conditioning subverts speaking as performative and emphasizes writing. However, the author can only send messages while the readers cannot respond – there is no immediate feedback that could influence the flow of the messages. Nonetheless, with proper deliberation, it isn’t impossible to establish a connection between author and reader. ◆

“Understanding Orality and Literacy” Written by :  Alethea Van Loren Estilo  | Evelio Caesar Lontok  | Rexeil Molina | Lyn Alexandria Novilla

(Pictures used have been credited to their respective sources.)

Bibliography

Ong, W. J. (2002). Orality and literacy. London: Routledge. Retrieved from
https://content.taylorfrancis.com/books/download?dac=C2012-0-03018-3&isbn=9781136243738&format=googlePreviewPdf
Danziger, K. (2009). Marking the mind: A history of memory. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-14739-000
McNamara, T. (2006). Semantic Priming. New York: Psychology Press. Retrieved from
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781135432553
jkendell (2012,September 30).Orality and Literacy – In what Ways Are oral and Literate Cultures Similar?. Retrieved from
https://blogs.ubc.ca/etec540sept12/2012/09/30/1150/