Voice to Text:
I have always liked history in particular World War 1 history and when I found out that my grandmother’s brother was in World War 1 I started to ask a lot of questions about who he was. The story that I was always told was that he was crossing Canada to meet up with the rest of the family who had recently immigrated from England to Vancouver Island when when war broke out and he only made it as far as Winnipeg and when he found out that war had broken out he jumped he jumped off the train and it listed right away cuz he thought I was the Patriotic thing to do as a good British subject and this is always the family narrative that he got off the train and listed went off to war and then was killed at Vimy Ridge and that’s that’s where he was memorialized after the war so I was curious about who he was so I asked if there were any records of him and my mother through one of her cousins was able to get a picture of him at his death certificate along with the statement that he would be memorialized at Vimy Ridge his death certificate also had the year that they assumed that he was killed unfortunately he was missing presumed killed in action so there was no, confirmation. When I looked at these documents I realized that the date of his death did not align with when the Canadian Forces were at Vimy Ridge so this made me look into his military record because I had his enlistment number or his Soldier number I went to the Canadian War archives and I found his enlistment papers it turns out that he actually enlisted in the militia in New Westminster and his unit got Amalgamated with the Winnipeg rifles while leaving for Europe this already contradicted the family story so I dug a little bit deeper and was able to find where his unit was on the date of his death which was October 7th 1916 i’d rather than him being killed at Vimy Ridge I was able to figure out that he was actually missing presumed killed in action during the battle of the Somme at a particular point on the battlefield called regina Trench. So through a little bit of digging I was able to completely change the family Narrative of this great-uncle of mine. And in doing so it made more sense as to why his name was on the Vimy Memorial because the names on the The Monuments are actually names of those soldiers who they didn’t have a burial place and there’s no body to bury so finding out that he was missing presumed killed in action just made that part of the story make a little bit more sense well it’s super interesting was a couple of years later there was a news article talking about the bagpipes in the BC legislature at least bagpipes were found in I believe Scotland’s covered in mud and totally unrecognizable when we got cleaned up they were able to identify that they belong to a b c regiment from World War 1 and so they sent them back to BC and they were able to find that they were played at Regina Trench during the battle of the Somme in 1916 so when I went to the BC legislature I was able to see these bagpipes and it was interesting to know that a family member of mine had heard those bad bagpipes played on battlefield about a hundred years before and today was in direct connection to the historic artifact that was in the legislature and my own family history
Analysis:
The most problematic error with this transcription is the almost complete lack of punctuation. The program was not able to pick up on pauses for comma or period usage. It did put in the odd period, though it was very inconsistent. The program did allow me to dictate punctuation, but I chose not to interrupt my dictation with “comma” or “period” commands every time I knew I needed one. That being said, I found that while speaking through my anecdote, I often knew where punctuation was needed, however I did not think in terms of punctuated phrases. It was interesting to be aware of the need for punctuation as the words populated the computer screen while simultaneously being oblivious to the same system as I spoke. Thinking back to this week’s reading, as interesting as the history of written language was, the articles did not make reference to written grammar in terms of punctuation. They focused exclusively on the evolution of logography to syllable to alphabetical structures. Systems and rules of punctuation are needed to clarify interjecting ideas, clause separation, and contractions (if the language allows for them, English obviously does). Reading through the block of text with no real punctuation is incredibly difficult to follow.
I would also consider the tone of the written output of my spoken anecdote to be “wrong.” Aside from the lack of punctuation for clarity, the general tone is inconsistent. Some places have more formal structures, while others use slang such as “cuz” instead of “because.” The inconsistency, from a written perspective, completely lacks stylistic and tonal control.
Similarly, there are a lot of repetitions and redundancies that would need to be edited. The software also was not able to discern all the words, and sometimes used something close, like in the case of “listed” instead of “enlisted.”
Had the story been scripted, these discrepancies and repetitions could easily have been edited out. The story could have had a more logical flow, consistent tone choice, and even included punctuation dictation for more accurate written output.
Oral storytelling allows for more spontaneous thought compared to written expression. I did not necessarily know where I was going with my oral story as I told it – it all just came out and once it was said, it was said. In writing, the ability to edit, revise, punctuate and move ideas allows for more careful construction of language. The unscripted, unrehearsed nature of this story turned it into a rambling stream of consciousness without a clear end point. Remembering details often came too late and could no longer be added where relevant. Seeing my oral story become written word was a distressing process. It was difficult to fight the urge to edit and fix as it came out. While most other oral stories are gone once they are uttered, unfortunately, this abomination of text remains as proof of the ill-conceived words I spoke.
Even if the software had been able to punctuate my speech, obviously had it been a listener to my story, they wouldn’t have needed any to understand my tone or my interjections, nor would they have necessarily been bothered by the stream of consciousness style the story took on. Clear clause and sentence breaks come more naturally in speech, whereas choices in punctuation can alter meaning. Additionally, the fact that I was speaking the story, instead of writing it, meant I defaulted to a more informal, conversational tone. Rarely is this a problem when speaking candidly, whereas it makes for bad writing (most of the time).
Perhaps the most important distinction between written and oral communication is the context. Written communication often lacks context. The writer either has to create a larger contextual reference for the work, or the reader creates the context for themselves by seeking out certain pieces of writing. Oral communication generally creates context in its momentary social relevance. With a few exceptions, people generally tell stories for a purpose. The more appropriate the purpose is for the social interaction, the less context is needed as to why the story is being told at all. To use my anecdote as an example, there is little reason for me to tell that story to anyone unless I were talking with someone about a fairly limited set of topics. To just tell that story to someone for no reason would be socially odd. However, I could write a personal narrative about undertaking historical research to understand family narratives and leave that piece of writing for someone to read when relevant to their interest. As Plato suggested, the written form “can neither answer queries put to it nor distinguish between ‘suitable and unsuitable readers’” (Haas, p.6, 2013) and thus lacks a social component that would allow for listener participation to construct the flow and focus of the story. Depending on those two different contexts, my tone, focus, and crafting of the story would differ drastically.
The written version of my story is also only accessible to the literate, while my oral story can be accessed by anyone who can hear and understand it. Even if I assume high literacy rates among English speakers, someone might be able to read and understand the words used in a literal sense, but how will they read punctuation choices, implied meanings, tone, connotation, and any other figurative elements that might remain hidden below the literal meaning of the words? Those extra literacies can be barriers for clear communication, even for a literate individual. Oral communication requires its own set of literacies to understand layers of communication, however, the effects of tone of voice, pauses, and word choice are more accessible given the social and cultural elements that go along with storytelling.