Speech vs. Writing.

In society people relay messages from one person to another and that is the way in which we communicate. Whether it is through writing or speech (even sign and body language) both are the only ways to transfer information from one person to another. Throughout the ages speech has always been around and has generally stayed the same. However, writing has developed and become easier throughout many different varieties and forms. In earlier prehistoric times the notched stick was a form of communication in which societies communicated and kept outside information that they couldn’t remember from their brains. Now-a-days instead of people using a notched stick, technology has made it so we can use computers or pens and paper. Therefore, from the computer and the cell phone to the pencil and paper writing has become the dominant form of communication for our society.

Without the creation of the alphabet writing would never have become a form of communication. Johanna Drucker writes about the alphabet, how it came about and its purpose. “The basic principle of alphabetic writing is to represent a single sound of a spoken language by a single letter.” She then goes on to say, “In addition to serving as the means to record speech or ideas of writing, the letters of the alphabet also constitute a set of visual symbols.” (Drucker, 46). Her main point is that the creation of the alphabet made it easier for our society to remember words and speech.

Although, speech may seem to be the more dominate, easier, or better way to communicate writing allows individuals a chance to get their point across in their own timely fashion. They can take time and pick their choice of words before transferring the information to whom ever they are writing/talking to. For example, when text messaging or writing an email anyone can put their thoughts down and think about what they want to say and how they want it to come across. But, if they were to not have time to think about what they wanted to say or word it the way they wanted to, then the message or information might come out wrong. Also once someone speaks, it is harder for him/her to take back what he or she said rather than writing it down and making sure their message got interpreted the way in which they wanted it to.

Writing is defiantly less confrontational for the exact reason that I could write down what I wanted to say instead of blurting something out that maybe at the time I might have felt, but in the long run, not have meant. For example, I got in an argument with my sister on the phone and instead of hanging up and letting myself cool off, I said what was on my mind. I didn’t really mean anything that I said and if I would have given myself some time and written down what I wanted to say or sent her an email I wouldn’t have upset her as much as I did. (I said some rude and mean things.) Writing has permanence and that is why it has the upper hand in communication and in our society. That is what Walter Ong is trying to portray in his essay, “Orality, Literacy, and Modern Media”. “Sound exists only when it is going out of existence. It is not simply perishable but essentially evanescent, and it is sensed as evanescent. When I pronounce the word “permanence,” by the time I get to the –nence,” the “perma-“ is gone, and has to be gone. There is no way to stop sound and have sound.” (Ong, 67). Ong’s point is that when people want to remember something important they will write down what has been said. This is why in classes for example, the majority of students take notes and write down their teachers lecture in order for them to go back, remember, and understand what was being taught. Personally I am a very visual learner and I can sit and listen to what my teachers have to say, but I also need notes to understand exactly what he/she was trying to teach.

In Howard Gardner’s essay “The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading” he states that, “Computers, they maintain, are destroying literacy.” What he is trying to demonstrate is that, with the invention of computers and the Internet, literacy and writing in a few years are going to be completely diminished in the American society. He thinks that because of the Internet, people do not know how to read and write since we do everything on the computer. I disagree with him because I think that with the invention of computers and the Internet writing and literacy for Americans has only gotten better. Now instead of writing a letter we can type an email or send an instant message. Also I think that even though people might not be reading books or going to the library for research we are still reading things online and doing our research with a much faster and easier tool. Later on in the article he goes on to say that, “In the past 150 years, each new medium of communication -- telegraph, telephone, movies, radio, television, the digital computer, the World Wide Web -- has introduced its own peculiar mix of written, spoken and graphic languages and evoked a chaotic chorus of criticism and celebration.” So, really he is saying that throughout all of these inventions new ways to communicate have been created and used by society. Therefore, I do not understand why the Internet and computers are such awful tools for communication.

Although I think that speech is a strong from of communication and I use it a lot, I think that overall writing has and will always dominate our society. Speech and talking can get the job done, but without writing and literature, communication will never succeed in society.