Do you normally write by hand or type?

While writing by hand or typing on a computer are both normal for me, I predict I generally write about a thousand words through typing for every word I write by hand.

Did you find this task difficult or easy? Explain.

I found this task easy because I have manually written throughout my life. Even so, editing with the goal of producing a composition for others to read seems much easier in a word processor environment than manual writing.

What did you do when you made a mistake or wanted to change your writing? How did you edit your work? With an understanding that this is a first draft, I scratched out or added parentheses around words when I wanted to edit. If I thought of an idea later which I wanted to insert with a previous thought I drew an arrow to make the connection.

Did your choice of media play a part in how you edited your work?

My choice of non-erasable pen and pedestrian paper contributed to my comfort in scratching out words and drawing arrows to make edits. For context, through college I much preferred pencils to pens because I liked the ability to erase. However in the last 15 years I have accepted writing in pens and having messy non-final drafts; when I write on nicer paper for a final draft I like a clean presentation.

What do you feel is the most significant difference between writing by hand and using mechanized forms of writing?

Mechanized writing on a computer is more efficient than handwriting as it allows for quick editing, saving, collaborating, copying and pasting, searching, formatting, sharing, safeguarding, and mass production. However, this efficiency represented in mechanized writing’s standardization is at the cost of handwriting’s inherent revelations of the writer’s personality. Even if a reader’s handwriting psychoanalysis ability is more anecdotal than scientific, handwriting offers a reader glimpses into the author’s personality. Having typewritten less than a dozen school papers, typewriting in my experience is of similar efficiency to handwriting and it is standardized like mechanized computer writing.

Which do you prefer and why?

Although the tenacity of the inefficient QWERTY keyboard surprises me, for the benefits listed above I prefer digital writing. However, I handwrite about a half dozen letters or cards a year, which makes them even more special.

Text:

2019 marked by 10-year anniversary moving to Canada summer then married seven years of this summer my son turned 4 the summer is we has a family and one of my best summer is that I’ve had in Canada we on what the song was like then we did a good job making the best of Summer one of my philosophies around summer cooper other nine months of the year are down payment for summer summer Vancouver is absolutely gorgeous not always necessarily so always laugh when we look travelling out of town summer because we spent all this time here during the winter and then how it’s summertime and now it’s time to travel where is it’s beautiful time to the city mostly close to Vancouver and we got out and did quite a few hikes sign in to discover a little bit of travelling around we went to Kamloops for a few days and acting like a cowboy going to a ranch we bought him some cowboy boots and he was excited about using those to stomp on a snake perspective we didn’t see any snakes when we return to Vancouver and we saw a little while we were out walking one day and then we do another small trip penn State olympic National Park we visit with my sister we enjoyed a section of the park we had not seen before on the North side but we were pretty much in Vancouver for the summer and we really felt like we we summered hard summer two of our favourite discoveries were secret beach close to our house and a waterfall on the basis of Cypress Mountain with the beach we were excited to find this because it turns out that it is the closest beach to our house and now after having lived here over 10 years and me for over seven in our in our current home we found out that the closest beach to our house is 5 minutes instead of 7 or 8 so we’re spoiled cuz we’re so close to the beach but found out there’s actually a beach that is right by our house that we never knew was accessible was a very exciting discovery because there was low tide one day and that allowed us to walk along the beach and we discovered this beach and set all the boys wanted to go down and see what was in this area there was a beach there and all we have to do is hop over a fence in a park close to our house to get to that Beach covering our son has loved this summer the secret Beach the rediscovery was the Cypress Falls hike it was good height for a 4 year old we met our son did a good job on that one and we were on our way back out and someone went on another path just a little bit further decided to turn around and when we did we found my son was particularly excited at the end of one of the other thing of that double waterfall there was an abandoned truck probably the road years decades ago even and ended up on the side of the waterfall and it was Rusty and just a good-looking old beat-up truck we enjoyed that hike and we were glad that we found that good spot by adventuring a little bit further in and seeing the double waterfall and all in all we were just really pleased with how the summer turned up

What would you have done differently if you have had the chance to script the story?

If I had the chance to script this story I would have thought about the piece in more detail. I would have written a first draft and then edited it to make it tighter. I would not have repeated myself. I also would have paid more attention to the structure to build towards some sort of climax and diversified the diction.

What are the most common “mistakes” in the text?

The most common errors in the generated text are: lack of punctuation; improper capitalizations; omitted phrases; dropped definite articles; successive duplicated words; and incorrect words.

Why do you consider these “mistakes”?

These are mistakes because they misrepresent and obfuscate the ideas I intended to communicate. I am confident that most fluent English listeners could have comprehended over 95% of what I said, but the text above is difficult for me to parse less than 24 hours after having generated it. While to be fair, as Borditsky quoted George Bernard Shaw in her SAR lecture, “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place,” it also seems fair to say that the dropped phrases and incorrect words are an inaccurate representation of the words I spoke, and they are mistakes.

In what ways does oral storytelling differ from written storytelling?

In general oral storytelling affords a more embodied, emphatic, and emotive presentation than written storytelling. The difference between oral and written storytelling may be analogous to photographs and video; in a technical sense video has the ability to convey more information than photography because video is photography plus movement and often sound. Likewise oral storytelling is written storytelling plus cadence, including volume, inflection, tempo, and rhythm. Oral storytelling often may also have a visual component, which is minimal and standardized in most written texts.

However, where the analogy may break down is that written storytelling has some affordances missing from most oral storytelling. These include spelling, font, textual embellishments, kerning, colour, punctuation, illustration, tactility, reading conventions—for example in the case of English left to right, top to bottom—and in less common cases such as concrete poetry, a physical form which reinforces or adds meaning a the text.

Written storytelling is less ambiguous than oral storytelling in the case of spelling, but more ambiguous in the case of interpretation. For example, consider “Let’s raise the barn.” In oral storytelling context is required to know if the imperative is “Let’s raise the barn” or “Let’s raze the barn”—an unfortunate contranym if the hearer interprets and acts on the opposite intended meaning. Conversely, while context is an exegetical aid in understanding the phrase in either form of storytelling, the embodied prosody of oral storytelling adds to the phrase an interpretive dimension—excitement, reluctance, vengeance, confusion, or anger, as examples. Written storytelling does not provide such embodied interpretation; the reader is open to draw his or her own conclusions. Thus lacking audible inflection and tonality, written storytelling allows a reader more room for textual interpretation than oral storytelling; in oral storytelling an orator’s eisegesis stands between the text and the listener.

Written storytelling is primarily a visual medium, except for braille, which is primarily tactile. Oral storytelling is primarily an auditory medium.* Written storytelling also allows a reader to traverse ahead or back to a particular point in the story, which seems rare in non-recorded oral storytelling. Whereas written storytelling is committed to a singular, uniform textual presentation for each edition, oral storytelling is more fluid and the text of each presentation is likely to be unique, even if slightly. Of course, in the case of people reading a defined written text aloud or telling an oral story word for word each time, the distinctions between oral and written storytelling may overlap.

*This is not to discredit that visual, tactile, olfactory, and gustatory contributions can add invaluable elements to oral storytelling, or similarly auditory, tactile, and olfactory—and possibly even gustatory—additions can amplify written storytelling. My point is that by definition oral storytelling fundamentally requires sound and written story telling fundamentally requires writing or image.

What effects has writing had on human thought processes?

Five effects are:

1-Writing can slow down thought processes since writing takes more time than speaking.

2-Writing can clarify thought processes since writing often affords a communicator time to think about what he or she wants to say.

3-Writing can extend the lifespan of thought processes because one’s ideas can outlive him or her via writing.

4-Writing can expand the geographic reach of thought processes because one person’s writing can travel to more places than an individual can.

5-Writing can improve the accuracy in thought processes because there is a referential record.

Does it weaken memory?

My intuition suggests in general writing weakens memory related to words. However, conversely if someone is devoted to memorize a particular text, writing can facilitate a more accurate memorization of that text. Or if someone references a written text frequently the person may memorize the text through frequent exposure.

If so, does this matter?

This is a great question. Aligned with Ong’s statement in “Oral Cultures and Early Writing” that indices in printed books were a large selling point for quickly referencing information, if we believe we can find any piece of information in writing within a few minutes then I suspect we are less likely to commit those thoughts to our minds. And if such information no longer resides in our minds then perhaps this comes at the sacrifice of making conscious and subconscious connections between ideas. However, if a person reads an exceptional or transformative idea then a person may remember this, in which case writing may create a setting where people remember what they consider most important.

Is rote learning of any use in literate cultures with easy and affordable access to various methods of information storage? (i.e., Is there any pedagogical merit in requiring students to memorize information such as mathematical formulas or literary texts?)

Yes for now, at least until the availability of information is accessible almost instantly and machines have not replaced humans. In addition as stated above to making connections between ideas in our minds, there are still situations, for example surgery and speed chess, in which mastery requires memorization and fast recall. Also, while knowing where to reference useful written content efficiently is a valuable skill, I suspect that memorization facilitates a quicker path to understanding and mastery than referencing written content.

What form(s) of thinking has writing facilitated? In what ways has this been beneficial or detrimental for humanity?

While the point is tautological, writing facilitates historical thought. Also if, as Ong states in “Oral Cultures and Early Writing” that people in oral cultures tend to not memorize longer texts word for word, then writing also facilitates scientific thinking, particularly where such thought requires detail and precision. For example, while inventing the wheel may be possible without writing, it is difficult to envision inventing a rocket without writing technology.

Writing certainly facilitates the spread of ideas and ideologies. While many of these, such as hand washing before surgery and the equality of all humans, have disseminated through writing and benefited humans, there have also been written ideas, such as racism, which have been detrimental.

How has the technology of writing changed the act of teaching?

Writing largely changed teaching because it introduced literacy as a prerequisite to learning written knowledge; thus the advent of writing changed teaching because thereafter teachers needed to instruct learners in literacy if learners were to learn through reading. In this way, teaching and learning through written text became more of an elite and privileged activity because literacy was a costly gateway into learning. However, as writing became more widespread and literacy increased, writing changed teaching because a teacher could reach a larger audience via writing. Writing also has changed teaching because it allows for records of learners— examinations, documentation of learning, papers, essays, and dissertations, for example.

These are my CLAS contributions on the Lera Boroditsky video:

2:12
Boroditsky’s joke—how for a particular politician reading is “the most hypothetical part” of the example sentence—illustrates de Luca’s point that there is an interesting politics of language.

11:09
I wonder, what are top-5 nouns of interest in non-European languages?

11:48
How might the relationship between language, reading, and the lateralized conceptualization of time differ for: pre-literate children with much exposure to books; pre-literate children with little exposure to books; illiterate adults?

17:06
How might the relationship between language, reading, and the conceptualization of time differ for: speakers of languages without verb tenses; speakers of languages without numbers; speakers of languages in which most speakers subscribe to a cultural theology of reincarnation; rhythmic artists such as musicians or dancers, as in the case of MacDonald?

18:30
So in experiments of teaching non-Mandarin, English speakers Mandarin metaphors of up as past and down as future, did subjects’ gesticulations mimic those of Mandarin speakers?

21:29
In languages with gendered nouns including a neuter gender, how do neuter-gender words impact thought and behavior—especially toward living objects?

24:10
How might children give voice to neuter-gender animated objects?

32:29
For persons fluent in English and Spanish, would the language in which the experiment is conducted impact the likelihood that the subject would remember who committed the action or whether the action was intentional or accidental?

32:41
A modern adaption of 12 Angry Men might employ this language-based competency trade off example.

40:28
In addition to the fascinating categories discussed so far, I am curious how language may impact cultural views of conflict.

41:17
Citing pejorative synonyms for dialect from the thesaurus and offering examples of similar words between languages and dialects, de Luca’s point on this topic is that sometimes the delineation between dialect and language is imprecise and unfavorable towards dialect.

I am David Loti. ETEC 540 is my fifth MET course. Ten years ago I moved to Vancouver, BC from Baton Rouge, Louisiana for graduate school. I completed these studies in 2012.

Now I serve at UBC’s Vancouver campus as a Support Analyst in the Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology. In this role I set up and support student evaluations of teaching.

Now it’s time for What’s in my bag?

The items here include:

• a personal set list from when I took a stand up comedy course at Langara College in 2016
• a handkerchief from the Wilderness, Technology, and Creation graduate course where I met my wife
• a sticker from a summer camp where I led music in 2017
• Flat Stella from a niece’s school project
• an umbrella
• sunglasses
• a wallet
• a notebook
• chord charts
• pens
• a marker
• a tin containing headphones
• nail clippers
• an elastic band
• chap stick
• an inhaler
• a USB cable
• an audio cable
• a USB audio adapter
• a laptop with a green notmyselftoday.ca sticker
• a laptop case
• a folder containing documents related to a recent job change

The laptop is the only item I use almost every day. Aside from the audio cable and the USB cable and adapter, it is the only digital device in the bag. The headphones are a close second in daily usage to the laptop.

One type of text in these items is branding. I am critical of ubiquitous marketing, as it can feed a narrative of consumption and slavery. I sometimes cover up logos on products and avoid items with logos. There is branding on the:

• sticker
• sunglasses
• wallet
• notebook
• pens
• marker
• tin
• headphones
• chap stick
• audio cable
• USB audio adapter
• laptop
• sticker on the laptop to cover the logo on the laptop
• laptop case
• folder

In terms of the autobiographical text of these items, they speak to my interests in music, humour, family, preparedness, the colour green, and learning. They allude to my digital literacy and my struggle with vocational ambivalence.

Regarding the changing spaces of reading and writing, the notebook, which has traveled with me during my five years of employment at UBC, has more blank pages than pages with writing. The majority of my writing is digital; I hypothesize I write more than a thousand words on a digital device to every non-digital word I pen. Again, the laptop is the only item in my bag, which I use almost daily. More than half of my laptop use is reading and writing.

While most of my reading is also digital, there is a much larger daily share of non-digital reading than non-digital writing. Rather than 1000:1 in the case of writing, I predict at least 10% of my daily reading is non-digital. To be fair though, I suspect more than 75% of this 10% non-digital reading originates from a digital source. The chord charts and set list are examples of non-digital writing with a digital origin.

In terms of juxtaposing private and outward projections, there is also an artifact of faith in my bag excluded from the image above. In Vancouver and at UBC I have experienced and witnessed antagonism towards my beliefs. So, whereas I am cautious to broach a non-neutral position on the topic, faith is foundational in my anthropological worldview and existential orientation.

15 years ago this bag would have contained more books, papers and binders, and no digital devices. It would not have contained my wallet; then the wallet would have been in my pocket. However, today I keep IDs and credit cards in my pocket, and the wallet houses cash, earplugs, and spare bandages and guitar picks. Since most of my financial transitions are through credit card now, my wallet often stays in my bag for days. 15 years ago this bag would have also contained more pens. I probably have more pens than necessary considering I use a pen about once a week currently. 15 years ago a pen would have been a daily-use item.

I suspect archeologists will refer to this temporal period as a proto-digital period. I predict our future will see increased dependence on digital devices.