For the first part of this week’s task, I used the voice-to-text tool on my phone and documented this on Notes. I’ve decided to share about how I felt nervous about this task as it feels weird to hear myself talk and share a little bit about the transition from living abroad to moving back home to Vancouver.
When analyzing the text, these are the significant things that stood out to me:
Lack of or misplacements of punctuation: In the text, commas or periods were not consistent with my speech. In fact, there was a lack of punctuation and a lot of my thoughts became one long continuous sentence without punctuation. When looking at the text again, it made it more challenging to continue with the flow of the written text because there was no proper indication of when a thought stopped and where it began. There was also a time when a period was inserted in the middle of a sentence therefore causing an abrupt interruption midway. When using a voice-to-text tool, you would need to be deliberate when it comes to adding a variety of punctuation marks such as the placement of them and what type of punctuation you want to use which I didn’t do as I just spoke unscripted and freely.
Misspelled words/ repeated words: Some words were misspelled (ex. Relly instead of really, Singh instead of Shenzhen), and words were repeated (ex. always, accredited). I cannot remember whether it was because I repeated them or that was what the tool picked up.
Transcribed incorrect words: Some words were transcribed incorrectly by voice-to-text technology. Therefore, it changed the meaning of the idea or thoughts or even lost the meaning in the sentences because of the incorrect words.
How does the text deviate from conventions of written English?
The resulting text lacks the conventions of written English such as the elements of sentence structure, punctuation, proper spelling, etc. Instead, this voice-to-text technology documented my conscious stream of thoughts, and it did not do it with 100% accuracy where there would be repeated words and captured filler words that I would use in my speech such as “you know”. It became a direct transcription of what I said orally.
What if you had “scripted” the story? What difference might that have made?
If the story was “scripted” there would be fewer filler words used. The main points would be made more clearly and supported by detailed facts. It would be less of a flow of consciousness or what comes to mind next and instead it would have been well prepared and rehearsed. This means that you would see less of a jump between ideas.
In what ways does oral storytelling differ from written storytelling?
Oral storytelling can be seen as a performance where different meanings can be expressed through intonation, expressions, emotions, and body language. Being a well-rounded storyteller requires an understanding of the intricate elements of storytelling. The intonation and expression when telling a story and the emotions and gestures will help the storyteller connect with the people, they are sharing the story with. During this task, one thing that I found lacking with the voice-to-text technology was that it couldn’t pick up any of my intended expressions or intonations when transcribing my oral story. Ong states that oral expression can exist and mostly has existed without any writing at all, [whereas] writing never without orality (2002, p.8). Written storytelling is articulated through carefully chosen words on a page. The authors of written stories would thoughtfully decide how an idea or thought is conveyed by using a variety of sentences and dialogues solely through text. The story is then interpreted and comes to life in the imaginative minds of the readers.
Reference
Ong, W.J. (2002). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. Routledge. (Original work published 1982).
