What is happening to writing systems and the writing process?
ETEC540 question: How will post-print society redefine text in order to reflect the malleable, ever-changing writing spaces of the Internet?
I don’t have an answer yet, but like everyone, can appreciate that mobile devices and internet technologies are rapidly transforming communication, knowledge sharing and learning. I will situate the question in the context of human psychodynamics, writing systems and the writing process.
Ong’s (1982) report of the ‘psychodynamics of orality and literacy’ made me wonder if digital technology could transform human psychology by changing:
- our world view
- our place in the world
- our language (meaning)
- our representations of language, and
- our memory (even the need for retention and recall).
Ong (1982) explored human consciousness, language, knowledge and memory. It was an interesting comparison of psychological changes occurring from early oral societies to later literate societies. Some key points of Ong’s work are summarised here:
- oral interaction (rhythmic and artistic) changed to text interaction (linear and analytical)
- the world moved from person-centric to external and objective
- printed texts connected people to the experience of others, including people they had never met or seen (e.g. novels, biographies, atlases)
- wisdom was no longer folklore spoken down from generation to generation (therein subject to derivation), but was reported discourse that endured in its original form
- texts become more and more structured and sophisticated (e.g. academic discourse), acquiring authority over the spoken word
- texts enabled labelling and categorising (objects and concepts could be classified).
If world view and the notion of wisdom and how information should be organised changed with the evolution from oral culture to literacy, what might happen to world view, the notion of wisdom and the idea of higher-order information with a shift from ‘proper writing’ (Gelb & Whiting, 1999) to digital click-click-click?
Not everyone supports Ong’s views and there is cause to critique some of the points. For example, English is a rhythmic and syllabic language whether spoken or written. The language doesn’t change because it is uttered out loud or written on a page.
Probably the greatest debate occurring right now is over writing systems and how they are changing, or not changing, as a result of digital technologies.
Gaur (1992) makes the obvious point that a digital writing system does not require ‘marks on solid or non-perishable materials’. There is no question that 21st century communicators are not using non-perishable materials; they are leaving ‘imprints’ in an intangible digital space. Indeed, most of us don’t fully know where our imprints go (although Google has a fair idea).
Gaur (1992) also stated that digital storage, preservation and dissemination of knowledge is no longer reliant on the actual process of writing. This is partly correct because:
- information can be ‘bookmarked’ by a web browser (stored and preserved without writing)
- information and opinion can be disseminated with a simple click of an icon on a screen (e.g. ’share’, ‘like’, ‘follow’).
- ratings can be used to determine information that is trustworthy and authoritative.
However, a writing process is still needed to produce an ‘analytical and linear text’ for publication in cyberspace. This post is an example of such a text.
So, the question becomes: ‘To what extent will new forms of language (e.g. symbols) replace, or be additive to, existing literacies?’ The other side of the same question is: ‘To what extent will new devices and the internet remove the need for our well-honed writing process’?
Participation in cyberspace is not reliant on word literacy. Educational researchers have reported in TED talks about people who have not had the benefit of education or prior access to computers quickly learning to use mobile devices and access online tools.
We also know that cyber information can have little text content or no text content at all. Indeed, people using digital technologies are developing new languages and communication preferences, such as:
- using acronyms and/or abbreviated phonetic text (e.g. c u soon).
- using iconic symbols (e.g. thumb up = like).
- preferring photographic and moving images to pages of text.
Notwithstanding the ‘economy of space’ on web forms and web pages, such that there is not always room to write liner and analytical texts, or that attention spans may be shortening (subject for another discussion), the new styles of communication used in cyberspace seem to parallel what Gelb and Whiting (1999) called ‘limited writing’. It’s all for a good purpose: to connect people all over the world in a universal cyber experience and language.
Literacy is under transformation as humanity negotiates what it means to be living in a global internet-connected world. I wonder if our Western culture – and other cultures too – will shift towards a more symbolic and pictorial language? Perhaps even ‘glyphs’ of some kind?
If so, will analytical and linear discourse be retained at all, in any form?
I also wonder – being a Western educator with a belief in ‘conceptual reconstruction’ and its basis in psychology – if future learning will still involve the reshaping of schema (with the experiences necessary for this). Will behaviorism have a place in learning if experience is vicarious through a digital screen and has no direct consequence?
There are many questions to be answered and so far all we know is that the digital technology revolution is changing some aspects of literacy and that our reliance on a writing process is diminishing.
References
Gaur, Albertine. (1992). A history of writing [revised edition]. London.
Gelb, I.J. and Whiting, R.M. (1999). The evolution of writing systems. In The Year 2000 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopaedia [computer software].
Ong, Walter. (1982.) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.
Great insights Janette. One of the things that I enjoy the most about this course is that it brings to the table more questions than answers.
Scholars are usually encouraged to find “the gap” in the research and to fill it with our own work. Interestingly, we are supposed to find this gap in the present, but never in the past, and you know what? the past is rich in gaps… Anyways, I am sharing with you a paper that might shed some light to your question:
“I also wonder – being a Western educator with a belief in ‘conceptual reconstruction’ and its basis in psychology – if future learning will still involve the reshaping of schema (with the experiences necessary for this). Will behaviorism have a place in learning if experience is vicarious through a digital screen and has no direct consequence?”
… or maybe not, who knows? 😉 Enjoy,
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/20721556
Thanks for the article Ernesto. It’s taking some digesting (three reads so far). The device paradigm and ‘means and ends’ helps us to appreciate that using devices to perform processes like writing might alienate the device-user from the inherent methods and experience of writing. If we have auto-write for instance, there will be an end product on the screen, but no internalization of the semantics. We won’t hear our inner voice creating meaning. Interesting.
Hi Janette;
I think you are on the right track when you say devices can and will alienate the user from the ‘experience of writing’, with no internalizing of the semantics. For me, this article makes me think that many of the consumer devices being developed for the marketplace are focussed on making quick time of everyday tasks in order to provide us with more time to add other activities to our day. We as consumers are being conditioned to need these in order to simplify our lives “allowing us to function and flourish” when in fact we are paying a price for that convenience. We are losing touch with the intricacies involved in the process that transports us from the ‘means’ to the ‘ends’. We are losing sight of the value in the making.
“Consumatory experience is characterized by the interplay of means and ends, and more specifically, this interplay is characterized by the organization of energies that brings about a fulfilling end.” The satisfaction of that fulfillment is being reduced as boredom and indifference sets in the subconscious. “…devices efficiently realize ends, but they conceal the means that are necessary for realizing them”. I think we are seeing the impact on the earth as we become a throwaway society as “the predominance of the device paradigm threatens the development and appreciation of consumatory experience”.
Mullis, E. (2009). The device paradigm: A consideration for a Deweyan philosophy of technology. Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 23 (2), 110-117. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/20721556
Very interesting and insightful questions, especially this one:
“If so, will analytical and linear discourse be retained at all, in any form?”
My question in response is was literacy every fully linear or analytical in the first place? Consider how we write our scholarly papers for those MET courses that require them. We collect and cite many resources to bring our thesis out of the darkness. Think of the books we read and the pages of references at the end of the book. Think of the scientific papers that link to other research papers and studies. Even in oral discourse, we commonly hyperlink to other sources to prove our point. “Well dad said….”, “Studies show ….”, “I heard that …”
You could say that a fictional story may be a prime example of the linearity of the written word. But on the other hand, the creativity demonstrated in a fictional story is constructed from the life experiences and literary influences of the author. Perhaps I’m trying to hard to support my point. But at the risk of overextending my reach, is it too much of a stretch to say that even a fictional story is full of links to other life experiences and influences? I remember from my youth, a guitarist once said that “to imitate is to create”. So his advice is to imitate, or essentially copy, as many playing styles as you can and eventually you will develop your own unique style.
In my opinion, technology simple facilitated what we are already doing before technology. Now we have the means to embed a hyperlink to an image or text in a way that we can be transported to that resources when we simply click it. Willinsky article credits the forward march of democracy credited at least in part to the open nature of internet communication. That is the free flow of information empowers the people. I’m sure this is not the first time we’ve heard about the empowering nature of education. But I’ve never heard it linked to the open nature of the internet. I think Plato and Willinsky would have a very interesting conversation together.
Daniel, your post has given me food for thought.
I’ll sidestep your query about analytical and linear writing for a moment and look at the point you made about links or connections to someone else’s information or experience as an everyday feature of speaking and writing.
There is the *task* of writing or speaking which needs to be differentiated from the *context* or *environment* of writing or speaking. They adopt hypertext from different perspectives.
When we perform the task of speaking or writing (say everyday chitty chat, business writing, academic writing, news reporting), we may refer to another person or authority and quote that person or authority. If we use a device to perform a writing task, then the medium of referencing will be computer software or digital technology (aided by the internet). Hypertext is a digital technology that makes it possible for us to both reference a source and provide readers with a web location to view the source. We still reference sources in academic writing even if we can’t add a hypertext for the source.
The context in which all our reading and writing takes place is a social and cultural one. We speak and write to participate in a social world and all our learning takes place in this world (first language and other home learning, school learning, workplace learning, lifelong learning). The tools we use to communicate and learn are provided by this socio-cultural environment. Hypertext is a cultural phenomenon. The things we choose to hypertext are also a cultural phenonmen (e.g. global web conventions about acknowledging original works; using code in hypertext to enable access for people with disabilities). It is culture that shapes us into the practice of hyperlinking sources images published on this blog.
Links by themselves are not evidence that our thinking is non-linear and non-analytical or that any text composition produced by humans is not linear and analytical.
Ong (1982) spelled out how thinking changed as societies evolved from oral to literate societies. The thinking that goes into recognising a character in the alphabet, and the thinking that goes into shaping semantics on paper or computer screen by use of word patterns and rules of grammar and so on, and the capacity for something written down to provide a ‘mirror’ by which to scan back, reflect and modify the text that has just been composed is what determines writing as an analytical and linear process (I think).
Janette, I never though of it that way. That there are many different forms of writing from casual, to semi-casual (what I am doing right now) to formal (when I write a “scholarly paper”). Did you drum up that idea yourself or was it referred to in one of the module 1 or 2 readings?
Perhaps with cloud services like Google Apps, Microsoft 365, blogs, Imgur, and the ability to comment, like, upvote, +1 … writing is a lot more social than it has ever been. I do remember that Ong mentioned that orality is a very social act and Plato (among) others, were concerned that literacy would remove that social interaction.
Interesting connection, that we do not allow students to use their cell phones and devices during the day at school. In their parents have an important message, they can call the school and we will locate the student. They are not to bring their phones and tablets into the classroom. There are several reasons to this, but one of the main reasons is that we want to promote social interaction and connections between students and not have them walk around with earbuds cutting out all of their teachers and other students.
I made this point in a different blog post, but I still think that hypertext, that is the ability to link to other documents, images and videos, is simply a means of enabling what we already do before HTML. When we speak, we refer to other people’s work as evidence. “I heard that…”, “Studies show that…”, “Mr. Caratara says that…”. When we write papers, we refer to other works as evidence to support our papers and we cite them. So to me, hypertext simply enables what we are already doing.
Thank fo your your thoughts Janette!
Most interesting discussion, Daniel and Janette. “Hypertext is a digital technology that makes it possible for us to both reference a source and provide readers with a web location to view the source” and the added feature is the timeliness in accessing this additional resource. By being able to include viable hyperlinks, today’s writer has a greater ability to keep his readers engaged with the topic of discussion.
I agree that writing is a very social act. To give a physical attribute to one’s thoughts is to expect someone will read those words at some point in time. I think we are coming full circle when it comes to the social interaction of writing. I’m thinking of the history of the postal system where invoices and letters were delivered by postal workers and a reply may be received in the daily return mail. It was normal to receive mail a couple times a day based on the size of the communities. Distance mailings, of course, took much longer. Now we have the ability to write a letter online including all kinds of additional details in links such as photos, ‘post’ it in ‘mail’ (any number of internet ways) numerous times a day and receive a respond fairly quickly to a far wider community. And as mentioned in the article provided by Ernesto, we gain a greater audience for social interaction but maybe at the price of losing the aspect of physical ‘closeness’, a degree of personal intimacy.
“Full circle” is a great term to ponder.
One of the concerns of Ong (citing Plato) was that literacy removes the social interaction of orality. Instead of gathering in a public place listening to the rehetoric of a speaker or a bards tale, literacy allows us to hide in a corner with a book and read in isolation. Sound familiar? Isn’t that one of our fears with children and teenagers burying their head in their cell phone and tablets?
I think we’ve come full circle with regards to literacy. It has a high profile and is regarded as noble and proper. Literacy now probably ranks above orality. What I mean by that is perhaps we have a greater respect for an individual if we know that person is well read (so says Chandler in one of his essays).
Perhaps we will also come full circle to the use of cell phones and tablets. It seems to be the same fear has come full circle and re-emerged. Its the fear of how technology will affect our youth and a fear of us adults loosing the status quo. But what are people doing online? Facebook, twitter, email, message forums. Most video games these days will include a social feature. Its all social just with human interaction, but without the physical touch. QUestion is how much does that physical presence matter? And if it does matter then why?
Hi Daniel;
Ah yes “Literacy now probably ranks above orality. What I mean by that is perhaps we have a greater respect for an individual if we know that person is well read (so says Chandler in one of his essays).” I feel the term ‘respect’ will start to change meaning soon if it hasn’t already. I, for one, have respect for someone who is not so much ‘well read’ (as in having a higher education) as one who is open to listening to another’s ideas, interpretations and using their found expertise for good. Some forms of higher education don’t replace learning from life experiences and expanding that knowledge in unison with others.
“Its all social just with human interaction, but without the physical touch. Question is how much does that physical presence matter? And if it does matter then why?” I think it does matter now but will it remain important into the future. Maybe this reduction in social interaction with the added physical element is preparation the next generations for their life in outer space and its reliance on technology for survival. We’ve spent a lot of time looking backward and may need to shift our focus in new directions.