Spoken and written words have long been thought to be superior to each other. According to the education I received in my youth, I was taught Koreans possessed a distinct culture compared to others nation who does not have their own ethnic writing system. This ideology instills national pride and patriotic spirit along with a sense of supremacy to Korean people due to the superb Korean language system. Is it possible for one country to be considered more advanced to another because of the text?
In an article titled “Orality,” Courtney MacNeil states the definition of orality provides a competing understanding of its function, existing both as a medium and as “existing in competition with other media forms.” Furthermore, as her opinion was embraced in the Toronto School of Communication, she affirms that only highly evolved cultures may develop a writing system, and cuneiform becomes a priceless heritage. However, science develops over time and proves that oral culture and written culture are not in a confrontational relationship, but an interdependent relationship, which concludes to an idea that speaking and writing are integral to each other.
Chamberlin declares that whether it’s writing or speaking, it is impossible to replace another. Being both invented by humans and use each part when it’s necessary to their according to needs. Chamberlin objects to the idea of specifying a culture as ‘uncivilized’ for lacking oral culture, and claims, “societies whose major forms of imaginative expression are in speech and performance are classified as oral cultures. (18).” As a result, one is no better than the other, and they are just mingled in complexity.
Generally, being endowed with an ethnical written form of the language within a country meant surpassing and prosperous being. Nevertheless, I believe this perception exists to suppress a country during colonization and by eliminating the oral language of the colonized country to assimilate into the new easily. When European countries occupied other countries during colonization, they spread their alphabet to replace the used languages into their own text, to illustrate the superiority of Europeans accomplished the great work of disseminating ‘prestige texts.’ Korea was also forced to write in Japanese, educated to speak, and write in Japanese during the Japanese Colonial Era as well. Numerous Korean words disappeared and replaced by Japanese words instead of during this time.
We grew up listening to the tell-tale stories from our grandmothers and mothers during bedtime when we were young. Those stories were succeeded by picture books that provided visual stimulations, then into written texts to be passed down to be remembered for ages to come. Is it possible to declare one inferior to another in this process? In my opinion, texts are just a device to record and deliver for the future generation. What is your point of view?
Works Cited
Chamberlin, Edward. If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. AA. Knopf. Toronto. 2003. Print.
Heinrich, Patrick, “Visions of Community: Japanese Language Spread in Japan, Taiwan and Korea.” Internationales Asien Forum. International Quarterly for Asian Studies. 2013. 44(3):239–258.
Courtney MacNeil, “Orality.” The Chicago School of Media Theory. Uchicagoedublogs. 2007. Web. 19 Feb. 2013.http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/mediatheory/keywords/orality/
Richards , Sam, and Paul Saba. Colonialism and Eurocentrism. Revolutionary Communist League of Britain. June 1985. www.marxists.org/history/erol/uk.hightide/colonialism.htm.
Hi Juyeon,
I enjoyed reading your response! I did not pick this topic for my response, but it’s nice to view it in more detail! I’ve taken some linguistic courses in my time at UBC and I feel like it’s really developed my perception of what language is. I feel as though I have a very descriptivist view of language, so I would probably agree with Chamberlain that “uncivilized” has no place in aligning itself in the realm of language in society. I feel as though the acquisition of the spoken language is universal. Language can transcend itself without the ideals of formal education and cognitive deficits. I also think that language complexity manifests itself in many different ways; like the Khoisan group of languages are only made up of clicks and Vietnamese/Chinese may be complex in a way that they are a tonal language. I also think it’s impossible to classify one language as more advanced/evolved than one another as language continues to change even in modern society. I read a little about the Korean language and although it does seem like to borrow some Chinese words, the phonetics of the word are very polarized.
I guess my idea of text is at times at odds. As an English major I find written text interesting, analytical and also every-changing, though I’ve hardly thought about the social commentary of written text as “evolved”. I do however think that even in today’s society that the prejudice of written language education is still present within individual countries, like the characterization of certain dialects and rural area language education. I agree with your statement of written form as a way of delivery, therefore I feel as though this is can be a complicated question at times. I think the inferences of change itself act as a documentation.
Thank you for your fantastic reply Lisa!
I agreed that the acquisition of the spoken language is universal, and language can transcend itself without the ideals of formal education and cognitive deficits.
However, I think what evolved mean in written culture is people developed their way of recording their history from mouth to mouth to written record. What do you think?
Hi!
And thanks of your reply too! I feel that my theory for language and my theory for recording (written/spoken) are the same! I think as there are complexities in all languages in different ways. As I believe that there are complexities in all types of recording, therefore I feel as though the idea of “evolved” is indefinite.
Thank You!