written word – Tech, Text & Thoughts Regarding

LINK 5 – A GENERATIONAL DIVIDE IN MANUAL SCRIPTS

Week 4 prompted some ETEC540 students to write a diary-style entry or reflection of approximately 500 words. Typically, this is no sweat for a graduate student, but the challenge this week was that this writing must be done manually. It’s interesting to me that me and my colleagues seemed to endure much of the same experiences despite a seemingly large generational gap between us.

When it comes to manual script writing, there seemed to be a consensus from a majority of my colleagues on a number of aspects:

1) Most, if not all, of our professional writing is computer-generated and typed using a device

It seems clear that the most effective and ‘professional’ way to communicate in our various occupations is through computer-generated text. Greg Patton articulated that the writing he does for work, which was characterized as ‘formal’, is done overwhelmingly on the computer. Deirdre preferred typing when dealing with assignments, lessons, or “anything that requires professional or formal” types of communication. Ying, interestingly enough, characterized manual writing as “reserved for the most special recipients, those truly worth our time… only done on heartfelt messages like love letters and thank you notes”. I will certainly be rethinking the next time I need to send a text to my partner, or perhaps my boss: “Maybe I should hand write this and mail it?”.

Our current culture has dictated that the most suitable means of communication is through some form of digital text. Why? I think Deirdre summed it up pretty well: Typing affords users an unparalleled speed in comparison to manual scripts, furnishes users with the ability to edit and correct text leaving it unblemished, and bestows writers with a simple mechanism for sharing and sending information. Although Ying’s criteria is well-intentioned, it positions those who regularly receive non-manual scripts as ‘unimportant’ and creates a false dichotomy between individuals who inhabit a hierarchy of ‘importance’ and those whom an individual considers “worth their time”. Consequently, I found it shocking to hear that “career excellence is impossible with a child” and “women who place career over their children are ostracized by society”. First, I think the portrayal of career excellence here is exceptionally vague – What does excellence look like? I’m not sure this is a completely objective term. Is this a concept that applies to both sexes or only women? As for the repudiation of career-driven women from society, I’d be interested in hearing exactly what benefits are stripped from individuals who find themselves in this position. Would this ostracization occur if the career was the sole means of facilitating a suitable life for a child? Do men also find themselves excluded from societal advantages if they are exceptionally career driven? Is this truly a gendered issue or is this simply about the choices we make with respect to careers and families?

2) There is aesthetic beauty, ugliness and physical limitations to hand written material

Perhaps overwhelmingly mentioned was the inherent aesthetic of hand written material. Ying alluded to the fact that hand written material should be reserved only to those special to you, which also implies there is a certain charm and desirability to it. Perhaps Deirdre elucidates a more responsible criteria: hand written material is simply reserved for something or someone more personal. With that said, the intrinsic beauty embedded within manual writing can turn unattractive quickly when a manual script is marred with corrective edits, scratches, or misspelt words. Ying does a great job in expressing how these textual imperfections make the product look tarnished, draws unnecessary attention, and potentially leaves evidence that reflects lower intelligence levels (although not entirely convinced of that last one – should we consider students who have severe dyslexia to have lower intelligence levels?).

Using a pencil with an eraser, although helpful in eliminating these aesthetic blemishes, will not aid in producing a completely flawless product as scars are still left behind, albeit minute. Fundamentally, there is no room for major error in order to manufacture a beautiful piece of writing. Moreover, it needs to be legible! The physical limitation manifests itself specifically in hand muscle cramps or corporeal damage like the writer’s bump Deirdre mentions. These are factors of manual script writing that simply slow us down.

3) Written texts are mnemonic in nature

Both Deirdre and Greg conceded that written texts are most helpful when the desired effect is to remember something. Greg describes his habit of leaving numerous post-it notes on and around his desk in order to remind him of certain tasks or items. Likewise, both Deirdre and I claimed to write out our grocery lists; we do this in shorthand or point-form as a means of saving time and mental/ physical energy. Research suggests that there are mnemonic elements related to the tactility of the written word:

“Writing is a process requiring the integration of visual, proprioceptive (i.e., haptic/kinesthetic), and tactile information… There is evidence that writing movements are involved in letter memorization… that is, we write in order to remember something” (Mangen, 2015).

Despite all these similarities, there was a stark contrast I noticed when analyzing the generational divide between us all. Greg, for example, conveyed that he is consistently able to write faster than he can type. He concedes that his typing skills are lacking, and that he uses “2-3 fingers” to type words on a keyboard. Along the aforementioned lines of writing and tactility, Greg iterates that he appreciates the “feel of holding a finished copy in his hand… [he] thinks this is because [he] is an older guy and hasn’t embraced technology to some of the younger generation’s degree”. Comparatively, both Deirdre and I find ourselves on the farther side of the millennial spectrum and we both can remember working with both pen and paper, and a computer in school. The manual script exercise made us feel nostalgic, while Greg simply felt more comfortable, even in a position to excel. We certainly did not feel like we could write faster than we could type as we both spoke about the rate in which we could produce typed text.

To me, it’s evident that there is a tangible generational difference in perception, ability, and comfort when it comes to manual writing. Writers from an older generation are forced to embrace new media and harness novel tools in order to survive, at least in a professional context. Comparatively, millennial writers for example, are unique in the sense that they were born into a transitional age, wherefore these tools no longer were novel, but rather, sensible and commonplace and used in conjunction with their counterparts. It’s no wonder the written word is thought to be reserved for the personal; the new generational members were not around when the written word was the commonplace medium for textual communication.

Bolter, Jay David. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print [2nd edition]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mangen, A., & Anda, L., & Oxborough, G., & Brønnick, K. (2015). Handwriting versus keyboard writing: Effect on word recall. Journal of Writing Research. 7. 227-247. doi: 10.17239/jowr-2015.07.02.1.

LINK 3 – DEVIATIONS IN CONVENTIONS: VOICE-TO-TEXT AND THE ACCENT

In our third week of ETEC540, we were tasked with relating an unscripted narrative into a chosen voice-to-text application, record the outcome, and analyze the degree to which English language conventions were deviated from. We were also instructed to observe what we believed to be ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ within the recorded text, and make an intentional link between the distinctions of oral and written storytelling.

I had fun with this experiment, and employed the voice-to-text program (https://speechnotes.co/) in a number of scenarios. I recorded myself narrating a portion of my lesson on The Alchemist to my class, I documented a phone conversation between myself and my partner to observe the degree of accuracy voice-to-text could produce by hearing speech through a separate technology, and I chronicled a conversation I had with a colleague at work.

There are some surface level connections between myself and many of my colleagues: Manize and I both used SpeechNotes, while comparatively, Olga utilized the Dictation tool on her Windows computer. We all recognized that literally mentioning the punctuation mark to the program would have drastically changed the meaning of the text, but conceded that this should not be a necessary step. Regardless, one of the most commonly agreed upon ‘mistakes’ in the voice-to-text scenario was the absence of grammatical and structural conventions. These typographical signs manifest themselves most frequently in basic punctuation like commas, periods, and capitalization and the lack of these proper morphological protocols give credence to the assertion that voice-to-text technology does not yet quite adequately have the ability to discern those written symbolic gestures from oral speech. Both Olga Kanapelka and Manize Nayani are colleagues that reflected on this idea, and went on to suggest that there were also many structural components of writing that were nonexistent within the text. For example, one of the more difficult aspects in comprehending the voice-to-text block of writing is that ideas are not organized or structured through the use of sentences or paragraphs. Through comparing our voice-to-text products, it’s clear that no matter what voice-to-text tool is used, the scarcity of grammatical and structural concordances remain. The lack of these literary principles, coupled with the inability to punctuate, make it increasingly difficult to effectively interpret the true narrative essence of the text.

There are, however, some deeper connections between myself, Olga, and Manize: our voice-to-text body of writing was created through the influence of an accent. Olga, Manize, and myself reflected on the adequacy of spelling and level comprehension within our bodies of text. We all seemed to touch on the degree to which accents played a role in the formation of meaning-making within speech-to-text outputs; both in the sense of the program understanding what has been spoken, and in the sense of ensuring the written product was intelligible.

Manize revealed that English is her second language as she moved to Vancouver from Mumbai, India some years ago. She seems to imply that many of the words picked up incorrectly were a result of her accent. She also posits that she believes having a story scripted would have permitted her to speak with more clarity and the number of spelling mistakes would have decreased. Similarly, Olga discloses that English is also her second language and specifies that English vowels are most difficult for her to pronounce. Similarly, when prompted to think about the difference of the written output if it were influenced by a script, Olga seemed to suggest the same idea as Manize: that the script would have aided in clarity and cohesion, ultimately resulting in a more readable text.

Olga provides a clear example of how her accent directly affects the voice-to-text transcription program:

Olga was clear and intentional about how her accent could be misconstrued by the program. This was interesting to me, and indicated that voice-to-text technologies do not listen for context, they simply listen for sound. In other words, it listens, but it does not hear. On a separate but related note, I find it ironic that many of our chosen A.I voices (think GPS’s) can be manipulated to reflect a plethora of accented voices from across the world, yet struggle in deciphering accented spoken words. I wonder if the Australian GPS voice could effectively transcribe a true Australian accent for example.

Although English is my primary language, and I do not speak with an accent (although some here in Vancouver think I speak with an Ontario or ‘Toronto’ accent), I recorded a conversation with a colleague of mine who speaks with a very thick English accent. The results were astounding in comparison to my original spoken narrative. Perhaps it was the fact that this was a conversation; that more than one person was talking, or that my colleague’s accent made it difficult for the voice-to-text program to discern was was truly being said, but the entirety of the text is blatantly incoherent. It was a stark contrast to my two colleagues who, despite scattered errors in spelling and coherence, theirs was predominantly intelligible.

Ultimately, it seems as if we all agree there is a certain level of flexibility when it comes to oral storytelling. Despite the mnemonic element required in reiterating a narrative, the story does not necessarily follow a strict sequential structure. Verbal strategies like emphasis, energy, intonation, volume, and pace can all contribute to the (in)effectiveness of orality while in written narratives, these elements are much more limited. I would even go as far as saying the accented influence of a narrative bestows it with more character and authenticity. Perhaps these elements appear, but in a fundamentally distinct way (punctuation?). Moreover, there is a certain level of grammatical forgiveness in orality – audiences are much more lenient when it comes to the variety of ‘mistakes’. There is no deleting an oral story, but there can be correction.

Bauman, R., & Sherzer, J. (Eds.). (1989). Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking (2nd ed., Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511611810

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

Task 4 – Manual Script Analysis

Analysis

Much of the writing I do, both personally and professionally, is done by typing on my laptop. With that said, I do make an effort to write manually every so often (I write in my day timer, will write out the grocery list…etc). I tend to find manual writing more time consuming, susceptible to errors, and more difficult to process coherent and organized thoughts despite the perceived beauty in handwriting. My hand also became cramped after a while… Alternatively, there are certain advantages to hand-written text: I will find myself effective with shorthand point form notes, but when that style of writing is pushed to encapsulate narrative elements, the cohesiveness and clarity breaks down. Research suggests that there are mnemonic elements related to the tactility of the written word:

I think this is certainly true when it comes to the grocery list, but I also think this extends to greater notions within writing. We write narratives to remember stories. We write essays to remember ideas. We write down our thoughts to share and analyze information. Is our memory more likely to fail us when we type instead of write?

I think one of the more fascinating aspects about writing developments is the divisions between types of writing mechanisms today. For example, we can utilize mechanized forms of writing, we can type on a computer keyboard, or we can type on our touchscreen smartphones or tablets. When using those ‘primitive’ forms of writing, changing text and eliminating errors comes at an aesthetic and temporal cost. We are forced to scratch out mistakes, scribble out errors, and use symbols and arrows to indicate forgotten words. There is a physical limitation as well as alluded to earlier with the cramped hand. These aspects, coupled with the slow and measured approach to writing out articulated ideas makes this mode of writing time consuming and difficult to keep up with the flow of information in one’s mind. Moreover, one must continually practice writing to ensure it’s completely legible!

I certainly think the choice of media makes a difference here – Using a pencil, for example, affords the user less of an aesthetic cost (depending on how you view aesthetics of writing I suppose). I also chose to use a sheet of paper instead of a notebook to eliminate that fine motor challenge of attempting to fit words into the margins so close to the spine. There are certain liberties that come with typing such as the ability to delete any sentences, words, or ideas very cleanly, or insert missing words or letters with no visual evidence. Ultimately, I would lean towards typing as my preferred form of writing – It’s affordances and flexibility with respect to the aesthetic and temporal costs far outweigh the mechanized writing form.

Bolter, Jay David. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print [2^nd edition]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Clement, Richard W. (1997). “Medieval and Renaissance book production “. Library Faculty & Staff Publications. Paper 10. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/lib_pubs/10

Mangen, A., & Anda, L., & Oxborough, G., & Brønnick, K. (2015). Handwriting versus keyboard writing: Effect on word recall. Journal of Writing Research. 7. 227-247. doi: 10.17239/jowr-2015.07.02.1.