Final Proposal

In this paper I will argue the different ways in which literacy and writing restructures consciousness, thought, and orality. I will begin by explaining the history of literacy, and the transition from orality to literacy and move fourth to explain how this transition has continued to restructure consciousness, and bring to light different thought processes that aren't as evident in purely oral cultures.

Sources:

Denny, J. Peter. Rational Thought in Oral Culture and Literate Decontextualization. London, Ont., Canada: University of Western Ontario, Centre for Cognitive Science, 1989. GoogleBooks. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. <http:/http://books.google.com/books?>.
This author focuses mostly on decontextualization and how it is the only thing that separates western thought from agricultural and hunter-gatherer societies. This author was helpful in explaining the two psychological dimensions in which thinking varies cross-culturally, and how self contained messages were enhanced by literacy. 


Neuman, Susan B., and David K. Dickinson. Handbook of Early Literacy Research. Vol. 1. New York: Guilford, 2001. GoogleBooks. Web. 30 Nov. 2010. <http:/http://books.google.com/books?>.
Chapter 4, "Literacy and Oral Language: Implications for Early Literacy Acquisition" by Rita Watson is particularly helpful in her explanation of 'metalanguage'. She takes quotes from Olson, Ong, Halliday, to explain it in a way I can understand. Her section on 'Oral transmission' was helpful in my understanding as well. 


Olson, David R. The World on Paper: the Conceptual and Cognitive Implications of Writing and Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994. GoogleBooks. Web. 30 Nov. 2010. <http:/http://books.google.com/books?>
This author is interesting and uses a lot of good examples in his writing. Chapter 2 is helpful because it describes the role that writing may have played in developing distinctive modes of thought. Chapter 4,5,6 are helpful because he explains the central claims of literacy by examining the relationship between speech and writing. Chapter 11 examines a philosophy point of view of how the reader's interpretation of a text provided a model for the mind. 


Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy: the Technologizing of the Word. London: Routledge, 2002. PDF.
This book was obviously given to us as material for this class, it covers the history, transition from orality to literacy, among many other subjects within orality and literacy. He has an entire chapter on how writing restructures consciousness. 


Street, Brian V. Cross-cultural Approaches to Literacy. Cambridge [England: Cambridge UP, 1993.GoogleBooks. Web. 30 Nov. 2010. <http://http://books.google.com/books?>.
This author contradicts and disagrees with some of the research and writings of Ong, Goody, and Olson. He takes the reader through all suggested models of literacy from different writers, and applies them to certain examples, while arguing the truth in each model, or the falseness of the model. This author is helpful because he organizes all or most research on the topic into his introduction. 

That really interesting thing

We've done a lot of reading in this class, however I think the reading I liked the most was Ong's "The Orality of Language." All the way back to blog #3 was when we read it, and I wrote about the idea that writing brightens consciousness. 

While researching around for a topic for my final paper, I referred back to Ong and definitely took ideas from his book "Orality and Literacy," but there are a lot of different things I found interesting in his book therefore thats probably why my final paper topic isn't quite nailed down yet. 

If I had unlimited time and resources I would go get the physical copy of Ong's book, read it, maybe even read his other book, "Fighting for Life: Contest, Sexuality, and Consciousness," and most likely research the differences between mostly oral cultures, and literate cultures as far as how they think, how they deal with problems, what their values are, etc. I know literate cultures are obviously more educated, but aside from education I would want to find out what benefits come from being a purely oral culture, and what the major cultural differences are. There has to be a reason why oral cultures still exist, (even though there are few of them) and what the culture as a whole claims they will lose if they change to literacy. I am interested to find out if oral cultures are more creative right-brain thinkers? (since they use art and visual aesthetics to preserve history and values). 

It may even be interesting to find out the differences between dreams from people in an oral culture and dreams of a literate person, because that would explain a lot about what is going on in the minds of each, and also just the simple question of how each interpret their dreams. 

However to find out all this information I would probably have to use my unlimited time and resources to travel to a couple different oral cultures and hang out with them, observe, record, learn, etc. 

Short Proposal for Final

The subject I found the most interesting in this class was the week on Orality and Literacy. 
I'm a big fan of language/linguistics so the switch from oral tradition to writing fascinates me, especially because not everyone today can read or write are are totally satisfied with their oral culture. 


Ong claims that orality and literacy create different kinds of human consciousness, or different kinds of knowledge. "Knowledge expressed through the oral medium takes the form of something directly experienced, where as knowledge written down can be conveyed in detached analytic categories." I've been doing some research, and it turns out some researchers, writers, psychologists are unsure as to whether listening to a story or group of words is different than reading that story when it comes to memory and recognition. Some are certain that listening is better for younger kids and reading is better as you get older. Some claim that we should wipe-out the teachers all together and have kids learn from computers with software and a lot of reading. 


Back in 700 BC when the Greek alphabet had developed, Ong claims this was a shift that "freed the mind for more original, abstract thought." however later on Plato ironically writes that "writing is a mechanical, inhuman way of processing knowledge, unresponsive to questions and destructive of memory." 


I want to argue for Plato, and explore the differences in thought processes, brain, and memory activity with oral/listening processes as opposed to writing/reading. I don't think that students (college or elementary) should have to get an education online because listening to someone more knowledgable of the subject than you is just as important as reading and writing about it. Visuals are important, and experiencing knowledge directly is important as well. 


Different aspects I am trying to organize and put together: Oral noetic/noetic, left and right brain processes, oral cultures vs written cultures, human consciousness, proto-rhetorics 


I know I need to narrow things down, so any suggestions would be appreciated. 

Q and A about Electronic lit.

Q: Hayles mentions in chapter two of his book, "electronic literature raises complex, diverse, and compelling issues." What do you think these issues might be, and how do you think the American culture specifically, would react to the idea of getting rid of print literature all together and leaving literature as digital files before they become books. 


A: There are a lot of people who are big literature lovers out there. People who would never dream of reading a book off of a computer screen, or a nook screen, or kindle, etc. These people want to have a physical book in their hand, something that doesn't require a battery charger, something they can physically look at and physically flip the pages instead of scrolling. However, some might argue that reading a book on a computer can have particular impact to the brain, eyes, and comprehension. One study shows that reading from a computer screen, actually forces one to read slower than they would read paper. 

"By far the most common experimental finding is that silent reading from screen is significantly slower than reading from paper ( Kak,1981; Muter et al, 1982; Wright and Lickorish,1983; Gould and Grischkowsky, 1984; Smedshammar et al 1989). Figures vary according to means of calculation and experimental design but the evidence suggests a performance deficit of between 20% and 30% when reading from screen."

Others claim reading from a computer screen takes away from focus, and can be incredibly distracting. One contributor (Norwegian researcher Anne Mangen) to the Boston Globe writes: 

“The feeling of literally being in touch with the text is lost when your actions - clicking with the mouse, pointing on touch screens, or scrolling with keys or on touch pads - take place at a distance from the digital text, which is, somehow, somewhere inside the computer, the e-book, or the mobile phone,’’ Mangen writes.

Her conclusion: “Materiality matters. . . . One main effect of the intangibility of the digital text is that of making us read in a shallower, less focused way.’’ 


I feel if publishers were to switch to a fully electronic book world, many Americans would fully reject it. We all know that just about anything can be found online, however when the internet turns into the only place we can receive literature, many people will suffer. Not just readers, but booksellers, shipping companies, and even online booksellers. As a college student its always nice to not have to pay for books, however if children, and teens were doing all their academic reading from a screen, I think we would see a big downturn in students' reading comprehension, and focus. 

Darnton's silly circuit

Darnton is a smart guy, we all know this. I mean.. he went to Harvard and Oxford. His communication circuit is a very useful way to go through who's hands touch the book and when. However in Adams and Barker's opinion, Darnton does not focus on the right things. "The weakness of Darnton's scheme is that it deals with people, rather than with the book. It is concerned with the history of communication." (51) Today, the book trade isn't something that is the same every time. The process changes depending on the book, and how the author and publisher want to go about selling it, and getting it into the hands of readers. There are more steps in the circuit than Darnton displays. Take the printing to shipping step of Darnton's circuit. Today, when an author is in the process of publishing they have to think about whether or not they are going to make a website for their book, or a blog, or a facebook page, etc. They need to think about if they want to distribute it online, or if they want their book only in print. Therefore once their book goes to the printers, and the first copies are made, they need to start marketing right away, and to not use the internet.. just plain wouldn't be smart. It isn't as simple as printing to shipping. Books today are sometimes online before they are in print, and sometimes they aren't online until later on. It all depends on the publisher, and the author. As Adams and Barker point out, there is a "spectacular uncertainty of the book trade," and today with everything that is offered over the internet, the book trade will be forever changing.

ABC's and Learning

I thought the ways kids used to be educated through the alphabet and other means, was a lot different than I thought it would have been. Every letter was associated with just about the same thing every time if not changing it up a little here and there. Plus, the idea behind "A= Apple" really stuck because kids today are still learning their ABC's starting with "A is for Apple." 

Once I read the blog assignment for this week I could only think about images and how they are represented in our society. According to Isaac Watts, "An Idea is generally defined a representation of a thing in the mind; it is a representation of something that we have seen, felt, heard, &c, or been conscious of."

The image I can't stop thinking about in relation to all of this is...(and I hate to go this route) the image of the cross. Today, we see the cross all over the place, and for the most part when we see it we know that the building or place that it is on signifies christianity or Catholicism. However I can't help but think about how different things would be if the cross was something else. The fact of the matter is, the cross is a torturing device but today, for me at least, I don't think about that whenever I see one. I can't speak for everyone, maybe a lot of people do see a torturing device every time they look at the cross but for me it is a symbol of religion. What if the meaning behind this symbol was more thought about? I'm sure if it were it might get younger people thinking about whether or not christianity or catholicism is such a great thing. 

Or what if the symbol wasn't a cross, and was actually an angel's halo, or something more heavenly and happy. I know this might have the potentiality of changing the bible or changing something that shouldn't be changed but I wonder if the symbol for these religions was different whether or not more people would be religious. The thought processing today behind seeing a torture device a lot may be really subtle but I feel as though maybe if from the beginning it were something evoking happy emotions that would have changed a lot of attitudes toward christianity and catholicism. 

But just to make things clear, I don't know a lot about religion, and thats why I wonder about these things. 

MAPS!

Map #1: This map obviously looks kind of different because what we are used to seeing on the  left side of the map is actually on the right (North America, South America, Greenland) making it look like North and South America is in the east and the rest of the world is in the west. The website I got this from didn't reference this map but if I were to guess I'd say it might come from Australia since Australia is in the very center, looking a little bigger than it normally looks on world maps. Another change about this map is that everything kind of looks squished together, for example Alaska looks like its just a hop, a skip, and a jump away from Russia. 

Map #2 below is kind of hard so see but it was digitally made up to show the different dialects of America based on vowel sounds. It breaks up the U.S into different sections and uses certain symbols to show what their mouths are doing when they speak. I've studied this kind of thing in my sociolinguistics class, and the truth is you can't really make a map that shows the definite dialects of different parts of the U.S because people move constantly, people can have all sorts of accents based on where they are from regardless on where they live, and everyone has a different opinion on which areas speak a certain way. Plus, accents can change in the same state so you can't really group states together and say "these people in this part of the country make these types of sounds, and these people in this other part of the country make these other sounds." You can generalize, but still the accuracy of this map is not too believable for me. 

This map was made at the University of Pennsylvania in order to teach linguistics.