media – Tech, Text & Thoughts Regarding

Task 3 – The Boy and The Spoon: A Speech-To-Text Analysis

The Boy and the Spoon

Truthfully, I went to great lengths to experiment with this task. I used speech-to-text technology to record various conversations I had with colleagues at work and analyze if and how that conversation evolved. Those results were quite funny. I recorded a phone conversation with my partner to demonstrate how accurately speech-to-text would pick up speech output from other technologies. It was surprisingly more accurate than I anticipated. Ultimately, I decided to use a recording of myself narrating a story told within The Alchemist to my English class (they were thrilled I was able to involve them in this task).

I’ve taught this book a number of times and so the story about the boy and the spoon is one that I am quite familiar with and can recite from memory. It’s a story about balance and how that balance contributes to happiness in our lives. I typically close with asking my students what the oil is representative of and we have a discussion about what this story means, and how it can be applied practically. The text of my narrative is as follows:

So I want to tell you a story that appears in The Alchemist the story about happiness it's a story that's good that gets related by Santiago throw to Journey so there is a young boy who lives in a village and he wakes up and he philosophizes about life and decides that he wants to find the answer to what is happiness and how do I achieve it so we asked his that he asked his father where he can find the answer to this question his father tells him that he can ask the wise man there's a wise man that lives not too far from their Village and he would need to track in Journey to see the wise man and ask him the secret to happiness so the boy undertakes this journey outside of his town walks a long way down ashley finds this Grand Palace if he thinks that you walk up to the Palace knock on ask the wise man a question and you'll find the secret to happiness but that's not what happened in fact he walks into the palace and he sees this man surrounded by Merchants Travelers journeyman they're all talking and having a diet after a long wait the boy lee has his opportunity to ask the man of the secret to happiness and the man responds to him son before I answer your question I want you to take this spoon to give the boys spoon fills it with oil and he says I want you to walk around my palace with this spoon and not drop not one drop of oil so the boy grease and he walks around the palace he spends 4 hours walking around this beautiful palace tapestries paintings and fountains Gardens and all the things he walks through and finally he comes back to the wise man with his spoon full of oil and the wise man says well what did you see and the boy cannot respond he didn't see anything he was focussed his entire time on not spilling the oil so the man says well I can't answer your question just yet in fact I need you to continue to walk around my Palace and I want you to come back in 4 hours time and tell me all the beautiful things that you've seen in my Palace so the boy continues with the spoon walks around the palace sees the beautiful tapestries the forest the gardens The Fountains the paintings and sculptures finally comes back relates to the old wise man what he had seen and the old old wise man asked him what happened to the oil because in the process of him taking in all the beauty and experience around him he spilled all the oil and he says son that is the secret to happiness the secret to happiness is balance balancing the oil and with all of the things and experiences that surround you in life what is the oil

Analysis

When we tend to the deviations within this body of text, the most glaring issue is the absence of basic English grammatical conventions. Rarely, if at all, do we see the use of periods, commas, quotation marks, question or exclamation marks. Paragraphs are not used at all to space out and organize ideas. Capitalization is used haphazardly and there are a number of ‘misheard’ or missing words that fundamentally change the context of the story or create confusion in its plausibility. Perhaps this is the English teacher in me but the entire story is one long run-on sentence. The aforementioned absences of grammatical conventions is what I would consider ‘wrong’ with this text when we look at it from a purely textual perspective. These deviations from the customary processes of written English diminish the significance, impact, and overall meaning of the narrative when it is read. Comparatively, when we speak to one another, we do not mention or indicate the use of a comma, period, or any other grammatical symbol through word, rather it’s expressive, implied, and embedded within our spoken language conventions. This is not something that is available with speech-to-text technology, at least not accurately. To indicate a period or comma, one must say it as they speak in order for the technology to pick up on it. Imagine speaking like that to another human being…

Perhaps that is my mistake in not effectively speaking the language needed to successfully operate speech-to-text technology.

When I related this story to my class, I was animated in it’s retelling, utilized various modes of intonation, gesture and volume, and injected fierce emotion to keep my audience engaged. It does not seem that this recording captured these elements at all. I’m not entirely sure I consider this a mistake, but I certainly feel like this recording did not do my performance justice. This experiment revealed to me the relationship between grammatical conventions and spoken emotion, body language, and intonation. Speech-to-text technology, and writing itself is unable to effectively capture the elements used in spoken storytelling. Despite the symbols used to appeal to these sentiments, it doesn’t seem like our writing can ever truly re-animate the aspects of spoken word; it may be able to inform the way we read the written word. Walter Ong mentions this idea in his book Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word:

“It would seem inescapably obvious that language is an oral phenomenon. Human beings communicate in countless ways, making use of all their senses, touch, taste, smell, and especially sight, as well as hearing … Some non-oral communication is exceedingly rich —gesture, for example. Yet in a deep sense language, articulated sound, is paramount (Ong, 2002)”.

Body language accounts for an overwhelming percentage of effective human communication- these are factors that embody hand and facial gestures, voice volume and intonation, unconscious reading of facial muscles, and eye contact among various other things. Consequently, these are also aspects of communication that cannot be effectively paralleled in text-based communication. Even despite the rise of emoji usage, icons meant to convey the unspoken and emotional fundamentals of communication can’t convey these aspects to the same degree. As Ong suggests, there is something unique about human articulated sound that results in deeper meaning.

An interesting aspect of the story I’ve chosen was that it is a narrative that is written down. It is a story that can be found within The Alchemist. I decided to relate this story from memory and it’s revealing to see the differences. Had I chosen to tell the story using the written version, I feel as if my re-telling would be more measured and rhythmic; I would essentially be following a script of symbols annotating for me the ways in which the story should be related. With the recollection from memory, I felt that I was afforded a lot more freedom to narrate the story as I saw fit. I was able to repeat certain aspects, emphasize important plot points with visual or verbal gestures; ultimately the story became my own to tell.

Similarly, it was interesting to see that when the narrative body of text was compared to the recording of myself and my colleagues having a conversation about the different assessment strategies we use as humanities and science teachers, the narrative recording was exceptionally more accurate. I think it warrants a mention that my colleague has an incredibly strong English accent and I’m convinced this played a major role in the inconsistencies of the following text-recording. This was another aspect of speech-to-text technology that can could be perceived as ‘flawed’: it’s inability to pick up on accented language, or dialectic speech.

As an individual who is capable of speaking dialectic Italian, it comes as no surprise that accents and dialectics can lead to miscommunication. Many times, when I speak to other Italians, my utterances are often met with looks of confusion or laughter; it’s not seen as speaking the true or purest form of the language. Thus, I wonder if the same can be said for the following recording; my colleague is heavily accented, and this gave way for severe confusion when reading our recorded conversation.

Okay so basically give you copper sources i'm going to go out to eat on some questions on the sources cited fast one strand Moltres chase I was wondering the true then anisocytosis be by Sousa Center might as well stop by if you detox metals to write summary about you understand about similar Behavior drivers I meant turn you up spelling punctuation that's all that they remarked on I was an English teacher. So it's has nothing to do with the content where am I 3 secret right now we didn't surprise you points so i'm not response you should read through the achievements on side honestly each section using the comments the qualities that make demonstrate as instructed during standardizing you can. Why are these statements heavy guy assessment objectives identify and cut right explicit and implicit information ideas Lexington 5 evidence from the text explain, what is use language instructor to achieve effects in infants read this using relevance of a terminology cuz of views this is more about the structure can the rating men it is both content pupusas all this is what you have in a response receptive. Play relevant summary some attempts of summary limited summary hot mop English papers and the arts for that reason like is so much judgment made on your point or there is but I mean you do follow some type of criteria right it goes back to what we were talking about there with with the strands in the the compass talking about right so if if a student is able to relate to me that he understands Canta knowledge if you can apply it and like make inferences like that saying there then that would be the inquiry if you can apply it to something outside extra-textual or even something else in the text there's application and communication just overall is he able to to to express himself in writing when you have those pillars I feel like it's a lot easier to understand what you're looking for mean enjoyed English stop the stop of The Green Mile what was The Green Mile yet was when Tom Hanks it all the old Tom Hanks is in the whose wagon wheels are killer man they're so killer

Degrees of Literacy: Evolution of Writing’s Contractual Beginnings to the Hypertext

I’m always wary when a chapter claims to base much of its analysis in a domain conventionally perceived as an extension of “Marxist or neo-Marxist examinations” and then attempts to veil the terminology with different nomenclature. The red flag, for me, occurs when these examinations are coupled with mentions of French postmodern thinkers like Jacques Derrida.

I think Jacques Derrida was an exceptionally brilliant thinker and there are many things he put forth that I agree with. For example, one of Derrida’s central claims was that of deconstruction; the idea that there are a near infinite number of ways to interpret an event or a text. I believe this to be technically true, however, when you begin to couple this type of thinking with the aforementioned neo-Marxist viewpoints, we begin to run into a potentially dangerous paradigm depending on how far you push this ideology. Further, despite the agreement that there may be a near infinite number of ways to interpret an event or text, there remains only an incredibly small percentage of those interpretations that can be considered tenable by any reasonable standard.

Having studied Walter Ong in years past, it was refreshing to review his distinction between primary and secondary orality and contrast it with the theories of Havelock who insists it’s essentially impossible for a literate mind to conceptualize what primary orality would even look like. I can’t help but wonder if any members of primary orality would be able to function in or comprehend the secondary or even tertiary evolutions (I would consider this the digital age we currently find ourselves in) of language we are experiencing today. Regardless, all these thinkers share the same central tenant – that writing is a technology invented by human beings and that technology has evolved over time. But why? And what relationship does it have in shaping our cultural makeup?

Gnanadesikan’s article was the most impactful to me when dealing with this concept – Outside of its readability, it formulated the most convincing argument: despite the Platonic arguments of a binary relationship between speech and text, writing has a foundation in memory. Writing has a contractual beginning; one that was invented out of necessity to track, record, and mark information. This information has its roots in both economic and psychological purposes: Early forms of writing reflect records of information pertaining to taxes, trade agreements, but also extends to the grand narratives and mythologies of societies. Weaving together the Haas article, this is essentially what the West was built upon: the importance of having the spoken word written, as if that made it unbreakable. That word exists solely in the ether until it is written down and made physical.

Ong’s line of thought supports this – Before material information was present, all one could do was ‘recall’. He also claims that writing was invented in urban centres, thereby lending to the theory that writing is a central cornerstone in the flourishing of any civilization. Perhaps one of the most fascinating ideas developed by Ong is his characterization of new media:

“A new media never wipes out the old, it always reinforces it, but it changes it, so that it no longer does what it used to do the same way. You must know the new medium or you can’t use the old…“

When it comes to our newest form of media (digital media) I am compelled to think about all the changes it has brought and the changes that it has brought about. I stand by a previous claim about one of the more undervalued and revolutionary changes brought about by our new digital media: the hypertext. The hypertext has created fundamental changes when it comes to the storage, retrieval, and obtaining of information within digital realms. It transcends the existing barriers of physical texts and has transformed the internet itself into something like a disentangled book. At the most superficial level, the layering of digital information through the transcribing of data nodes has, by and large, increased the speed with which digital text users can access information. I wonder what other deep cultural changes this may have produced…

Gnanadesikan, A. E. (2011).“The First IT Revolution.” In The writing revolution: Cuneiform to the internet (Vol. 25). John Wiley & Sons (pp. 1-10).

Haas, C. (2013). “The Technology Question.” In Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy Routledge. (pp. 3-23).

Ong, Walter, J. Taylor & Francis eBooks – CRKN, & CRKN MiL Collection. (2002). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. Chapter 1 .New York; London: Routledge.

Our Brain on Language: Internet Linguistics and the Emoji

This week’s readings and lecture by Dr. Lera Boroditsky prompted me to think deeper on the effects of language on learning, culture, and incidentally technology. One of the less articulated questions towards the end of the lecture video revolved around the potential and perceived changes to our languages as a result of novel technologies in the hands of our youth. Having done an ethnography assignment in ETEC565 focused specifically on my own classroom, a cultural study in ETEC521, and a multitude of other related projects regarding language and learning, I can fully recognize the impact language has on conveying culture, on one’s learning, and how one thinks and perceives their environment.

With that said, I’m interested to delve deeper into an idea that Gretchen McCulloch has spoken about: To what extent is the emoji not only changing the way we communicate, but the way we express ourselves, and ultimately, the way we think? To what extent is an emoji exchange also a language exchange?

I would encourage all to watch Gretchen McCulloch speak on Internet Linguistics here:

Gretchen outlines the introduction of emojis as a series of codes that didn’t initially work for every mobile provider; in fact, it was a process that needed standardization. In a way, what the Unicode consortium was doing was creating a codified ‘language’ where users could utilize a way for each device to essentially ‘speak’ to one another effectively. Isn’t code a computer ‘language’? I also appreciated how McCulloch characterized emoji use as a cultural mirror; a way in which to analyze our habits and proclivities as a society. Most interestingly, (and relevant considering our brief study of the OED last week) in 2015 the Oxford English Dictionary named the “Face with Tears of Joy” emoji as the word of the year, which in itself is somewhat problematic because it now begs the question whether or not an emoji is a word, let alone a language.

If we are defining language strictly in the sense of organizing words and sounds to create structured meanings for comprehension and knowledge exchange, then no, I don’t believe emojis are a language. However, if we are defining language as a mode of expressive communication between two parties, then emojis may be the most universally understood language in the world. What is language other than a tool of communication?

Clay Shirky, concerned primarily with the economic and and social effects of technology, commented on many McCulloch’s claims, saying:

“The most visible medium for written English was print, our metaphor for language was the book: fixed, authoritative, slow to change. Now that most written English is informal and online, our collective metaphor is shifting to language as a network: fluid, collectively negotiated, constantly altered” (NY Times, 2019).

With this said, I cannot think of a time prior to our current era where our collective metaphor has functioned in a world simultaneously ruled by both physical books and online content. I’m not sure that we are shifting to language entirely based online, or trying to adopt a middle ground and balance the current tensions between the two.

Defining Terms: Text & Technologies

Between the words text and technology, I think there may be another term that we need to add to the mix: medium. My initial impressions would indicate that text is a medium by which humans communicate, share, and obtain information. Similarly, technology in many of its forms, extends or enhances a human function and thereby serves as a medium for interaction in our world. An elementary example: reading glasses. Glasses are an extension of our capability to see, and oftentimes, correct or enhance this function as we navigate through the physical world.

When we put the two together (Text + Technologies), it seems as if we are dealing specifically with the media that has evolved in conjunction with the two and analyzing how the ability to read and write has evolved throughout the ages. An OED search on the word “text” provided two interesting definitions:

N.1: The wording of anything written or printed; the structure formed by the words in their order; the very words, phrases, and sentences as written.

V: To inscribe, write, or print in a text-hand or in capital or large letters.

I found it intriguing that text can be used in varying contexts. It’s interesting also, that although I’ve characterized text as a medium itself, it seems as if text must be transcribed into/ onto a different medium (ie – text within a book, a text message within a phone, text on a stone plate etc.). An OED search on “technology” yielded very different results:

N.1: The product of such application; technological knowledge or know-how; a technological process, method, or technique. Also: machinery, equipment, etc., developed from the practical application of scientific and technical knowledge; an example of this.

I’m not sure these definitions match exactly with my initial impressions of the words themselves. I think the evolution and advancement of digital technology, for example, has expanded the context of many words and phrases we currently use today. Have you ever recognized how we personify our computers or phones as dead once the battery runs out? Or how we used archaic words to describe the utility of new technology? (ie – we continue to ‘scroll’ through text on our phones, when once we read from them. We continue to use ‘horse power’ to describe the power of vehicles once pulled by horses).

Take a look at this Google NGram chart outlining the usage of the words “text”, “technology”, “media”, and “medium” over the course of history (throughout 1500-2019). I think the most glaring information presented here is the uptick of usage of the word “text in the early 1500’s. I wonder how much of this was a result of the invention of the commercial printing press in c. 1450. I can’t help but notice the rise in the word “media” as well towards the year 2000. Part of me wonders, too, how the word “media” can have various connotations such as the ‘news media’ or pertain to some other journalistic realm.