Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

Orality Newsletter #2 – Janet Stahl December 20, 2007

The current orality discussion is often focused on oral communication from the vantage point of the power of
written communication and the advantages of being literate. We have found it helpful to research orality as the
most common and widespread mode of communication first before comparing it with literacy.
So here are some strong points we’ve discovered about oral communication to think about:
 Face-to-face interaction can have the advantage of involving interpersonal relationships. There is great
potential in incarnational ministry. Compare addressing a potentially tense or complicated issue via
email and in person and I think you will agree it is easier to avoid miscommunication when talking face-
to-face.
 Generally the audience ascribes an intentionality or motive to the presenter that does not often occur
with more remote authors and contexts of written materials. In other words, we will consider somebody’s
sincerity and integrity more readily in a face-to-face verbal interaction than in a written interaction, which
in turn can affect the impact of the message.
 Oral communication adds the dynamics of gesture, intonation, facial expression and timing all of which
add to the meaning of the message. This may be why some say that oral communication brings life to a
story and why a stage production can still draw a crowd despite the amazing advances in movie-making.
 Face-to-face communication is an interaction during which the audience can give immediate feedback
and the presenter can make adjustments to the message in response to signals such as lack of interest,
disbelief, excitement, reflection, engagement or lack of engagement. This allows for creativity in the
moment as authors find new ways to express a thought or idea and as spontaneous divergent thoughts
are stimulated and allowed to creep into the interaction.
 An oral communication event can bring about unity and can stimulate community consensus or action.
When people engage in the same oral communication event, there is a sense of having a shared
experience which acts as a basis for interaction. So even though people can interpret the same event
differently as they perceive what they hear and see through their own grid, they appreciate talking about
the shared event. A good example of this are political speeches or conference speeches, both types of
communication can be written, circulated widely and read but the oral communication events elicit more
discussion and more interaction than a publication of the same speech.
 Something that may be understood as common knowledge, when presented in a public address and
‘brought into light’, the knowledge becomes actionable.
Here are some of the weaknesses of oral communication without an audio or archived recording:
 The pace or timing of the flow of information is controlled by the speaker and once the message is
spoken, it cannot be recovered. On the other hand, somebody reading a message can control the flow
of information returning to a previously read passage or jumping to the conclusion at will. A reader can
stop and reflect and pick up where he left off without missing any points.
 Written or archived information can be shared across time and distance unlike face-to-face
communication. In other words, people who are literate or connected to the INTERNET have wider
networks of information, knowledge and opinions than do people who rely solely on face-to-face
interactions.
Some may say that literacy brings development of thought, technologies and overall progress. This theory is
debated and I will leave to the next email message on orality to look into the influence of formal education that
extends beyond the strictly oral-literate dichotomy.

Janet

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi