Implications of Writing Technology
In the first section, Speaking, Writing, and Literacy, of Chapter I: Old Media, New Media, and Knowledge of J. D. Applen’s Writing for the Web: Composing, Coding, and Constructing Web Sites, Applen discusses the implications of written language technology and the oral tradition. Frequently referencing Walter Ong’s Orality and Literacy, Applen seems to weigh the pros and cons of both oral language traditions and the written word.
In the second paragraph, Applen highlights the fact that writing is technology, despite our view of technology being solely connected to electronics. “Humans needed to invent an alphabet and something to write with and on,” writes Applen, “so they could record and see what they were thinking.” This is an interesting acknowledgement by Applen because it raises two important questions. 1) Was writing technology a necessary invention to benefit the human mind? 2) How much influence does the written word have on the human mind?
Orality VS Literacy
Applen wrestles with the first question the most in this section, identifying the advantages and disadvantages of orality and literacy. He asserts that writing is “arrested in time”. Therefore, it can be preserved, reread, edited, etc.. This allows us to “move on to other things” because our knowledge no longer depends on our memorization of it. However, Plato believed that written language is lacking in a certain characteristic that exists in oral communication. “Written words, however elegant and specific,” writes Applen, “just sit there on the page”. Writing cannot be interacted with, doesn’t allow for the exchange of ideas, and depends too much on interpretation.
Connections and Analysis
Applen’s analysis reminds me of Rachel Toor’s interview with Tressie McMillan Cottom, Scholars Talk Writing. Cottom says that “Writing is part of the research process, and writing is part of the intellectual process.” I think she means that writing and research are not separate from each other. Writing is actually a way to conceptualize your knowledge. You could say “you don’t know anything unless you write it,” but I think that’s a bit extreme. Just because you don’t write it down, doesn’t necessarily mean you don’t know what you’re talking about. I guess this is just another way of saying “pictures, or it didn’t happen.” I think writing is a way to record all of your thoughts, findings, and connections, so that it can ‘exist,’ so to speak.
As Cottom says, “Writing is the research. It isn’t just summarizing findings after you’ve done the ‘real’ work, right? It is an iterative process that helps you bring your findings back to your hypothesis, strengthen your theoretical model, refine your argument.” By this reasoning, writing would affect a person’s mind because writing is a manifestation of the mind. This gives meaning to Applen’s statement: “a literate person’s speech adopts some of the patterns that are found in writing.” Beyond often claiming “I speak how I write, and I write how I speak,” I do genuinely feel that much of my personal vernacular comes from what I read. And, since my writing is affected by my speech, I suppose it would be fair to say that my mind is affected by my writing, and vice versa.
Leave a Reply