ORALITY, LITERACY AND THE NET
by Neil p Corcoran
The development of the worldwide microcomputer ``network of networks'' known as the Internet introduces an interesting twist into the history of human communication. Recent and ongoing developments in digital technology -- miniaturization and speed, as well as numerical popularity -- have allowed the development of new creative forms of human interaction to occur and fill up the communicative space that has been developed. The advent of a cyberspace within which individuals can communicate and interact on a mass level poses interesting questions of the abilities offered by this new communicative medium, the types of creative adaptations of social groups in response to this 'evenement'.
Arguably, the most important feature of the Internet is the mass bi-directionality of the communication vectors. Unlike television's massive one-way information flow, and the telephone's bi-directional nature between only 2 or so participants, the Internet has the capability to allow immediate interactions between nearly unlimited participants on a global scale. An individual equipped with a computer and a connection to a service provider has the ability to engage, affect and influence tens, if not hundreds or thousands of people wholly unknown to her, with a single action.
Until the technologies of video and audio transmission over the Internet become more widespread and less consumptive of bandwidth, the essential bi-directional interaction on the Internet remains textual. The content of interactions occurs in the transmission of encapsulated text messages, usually through email, but also in postings to the Usenet news, or the brief messages of various 'chat' channels, and recently the hypertext of the World-Wide Web.
In this paper I will deal primarily with the more common communication spaces of the Net: the Usenet news and email. I will try to suggest concepts applicable to 'chat' areas and the hypertext of the Web. What I will identify is some of the attributes of what I will call that net.text, which leads to questions about text as speech, and the discoursal value of intrinsically recorded communication.
One of that main social 'spaces' on the Internet is called Usenet, or 'the Usenet news' with the term 'news' having little to do with commonly held assumptions of 'TV news' or 'newspapers'. It is rather an open forum for users interested in different topic-oriented discussions or information. Arranged in the format of a global electronic bulletin board1, users both read and post messages to specific 'newsgroups' arranged alphabetically. Within any particular newsgroup conversation 'threads' are engaged in as the main form of discourse as users post follow-up messages to an original posting creating an asynchronous 'multilogue'2 of textual conversational responses.
This format engages the user in the producing and/or reading of typewritten messages with in the context of a conversation that 'appears' over time on the networks. This conversation takes the form of a social discourse with participants jumping in at any point, and in response to any particular posted message in the thread. (See Appendix 1 for a visual 'map' of such a conversation.)
The content of these messages can be shown to have a distinctly 'oral' quality to it, while still being a typewritten message. John December (1994) posits an emergent 'discourse culture' on the Net that exhibits distinctly oral qualities while remaining in textual form. His hypothesis utilizes and extends Walter Ong's descriptive traits of groups experiencing a ``primary orality'': cultural groups that have not been exposed to, or developed any form of text or scripting system, and where all communication is performed orally.3 December outlines the elements of a ``tertiary orality'' that applies directly to net.interaction. This depiction of orality is based in part on the conception of Tannen that ``oral strategies grow out of emphasis on interpersonal involvement between speaker/writer and audience and rely on social context and shared interpersonal context for meaning'' (see December 1994). December takes this application further on the Internet identifying Ongean oral characteristics in the textual responses of netizens which are known to have a familiar style and personal tone in the messages. December suggests that Ong's eight characteristics of ``primary'' oral communication and thought can be successfully 'applied to' or 'seen within' the types of net.text interaction commonly seen/experienced on the Net.
Ongean Oral QualitiesSo although ``writing establishes what has been called 'context-free' language or 'autonomous' discourse, a discourse which cannot be directly questioned or contested as oral speech can be because written discourse has been detached from its author'' (Ong 1982), the type of writing that takes place on the Net is interactional and very context dependent. Written statements now have the fluidity of open conversation, but also the power of the press; (one can be taken to court on libel charges for what one 'publishes' on the Net). Discourse on the Net depends on the speed of messages offered by the technology. Net.texts are 'printed' with such frequency and between such a geographically diverse group of people that the interaction becomes a very dynamic process, both on the physical computer level, but also on the social/interactional levels of meaning creation and social reality negotiation. All of this while leaving a temporary textual artifact of the interaction, removing some of the temporal limitations of spoken conversation.(i) Additive rather than subordinate -- December shows the use of parataxis (rather than subordination or coordination) to indicate relationships between clauses. ``Clauses connected with 'and' illustrate this quality'' (1994). December cites the phenomenon of a 'cascade' to illustrate this.4
(ii) Aggregative rather than analytic -- December cites the technique of quoting the text of the author to whom one is responding as an example of this, this function is built into most email and news software. Each respondent preserves the meaning by accumulating contextual cues, eventually forming crystallized phrases that are kept in tact.
(iii) Redundant or 'copious' -- Again December cites the communality of quoting the previous author's statements in order to respond to them, often point-by-point, building up lengthy messages containing the text(s) of many authors.
(iv) Conservative or traditionalist -- The existence of FAQs, or Frequently Asked Question files pertaining to a particular group, subject, or topic represents this conservative trend of knowledge. FAQs are created by the group having an interest in a particular subject, and thus it is a group-generated document, reflecting individual predilections and knowledges, that is maintained and updated as new information is found.
(v) Close to the human lifeworld -- December notes the extensive requests for help in moving around the digital environment since ``few adequate, widely accessible manuals exist for using Usenet.'' This is akin to Ong's concept of learning by apprenticeship; a personal and immediate transference of knowledge. One also sees the use of personal anecdotes to support statements as an element of this proximity to the human lifeworld.
(vi) Agonistically toned -- Orality ``situates knowledge within a context of struggle'' (Ong 43), listeners are challenged to respond to statements made, on the Net this cycle of posted statement and response represents that struggle -- putting net.text right in the middle of contested truths and dialogue. ``Unlike a literate culture which separates the author from the reader and removes speech from situations in which humans interact and struggle,'' (Ong 44) the Net encourages communicative interaction and debate, despite its textual origins.
(vii) Empathetic and participatory rather than objectively distanced -- December notes that ``participants in Usenet often gain a close sense of connection with each other'', individuals have been known to engage in romantic relationships as well as personal friendships and relations through this medium.
(viii) Homeostatic -- December avoids this quality in his discussion of Usenet, however it is possible to recognize some elements of this in certain organized newsgroups. Users that frequent a particular newsgroup over long periods -- the 'core' of users on the group -- take it upon themselves to patrol content; individuals that post threads 'off-topic'. My personal experience on alt.folklore.urban highlights this: I asked a question that pertained more to rumor than to actual urban folklore, the responses ranged from comments on my intelligence to parodies, exaggerated reactions or sarcastic additions to my original question. Having been thoroughly ridiculed, I was more careful in future postings. While highly dependent on the motivations of the individuals that frequent any particular group, this is one way newsgroups maintain a certain 'homogeneity' of content.
(ix) Situational rather than abstract December cites the way that Usenet participant string words and previous postings aggregatively creating situational meanings rather than abstract definitions. This is not an exact equivalent, it is noted, as the use of the textual medium caters to more abstract terms and meanings.
These qualities elaborate ``the existence of a tertiary form of orality, exhibited in computer-mediated communication systems''; communication that uses the textual form as the primary sign system for dynamic interaction. These descriptions show that qualities of 'orality' are not necessarily located within purely spoken-aural environments and can take place in any communicative situation that allows a certain speed and frequency of response, in effect a dialogue. The Net overcomes the abstract literal dimensions of its textual sign system (print) with the net.text through the capabilities of high-speed microcomputer connections and existing telephone networks, providing users with the ability to engage in creative net.speech -- a form of cultural multilogue -- that is textually oral5.
Subjective / Objective Interactions
Speech is an inherently subjective experience, and net.speech is no different. Email responses, listserv groups, Usenet postings, and chat sessions all depend on subjective individual actions and communication, otherwise there is nothing there. The types of communication can be fruitfully analyzed using Fairclough's discourse model and perspectives.
A corollary to Fairclough's uses of earlier Saussurian aspects of language is that langue has come to describe the personal/individual aspects of a language, with parole as the interactive/social dimension. One realizes that each person contains their own langue within themselves (cognitively in the brain, and perhaps also 'imprinted' in the bodily action as referred to with Bordieu's habitus). This personal langue Fairclough describes as a member's resources (MR); the reference material one uses as they participate in a dialog with others, each person's MRs being slightly different from one another: ``The social stock of knowledges differentiates reality by degrees of familiarity'' (Berger & Luckmann 43) across any particular (linguistic) community. Being geographically scattered, the individuals forming 'communities' on the Net vary drastically in terms of the similarity of their MRs and degrees of social intersubjectivity. For example, one posting to 'alt.syntax.tactical' can reach individuals in 17 countries, if not more, with all the members of the 'audience' being completely unknown to the original speaker.
The individual acts of parole, postings that produce a literal text on the net, can be seen within Fairclough's discourse model (25): the process of production derives from the social conditions of production, which, when internalized can be considered the member's resources, from which an action, or text, is objectivated. The typewritten creation (net.text) becomes as an externalization of one's self, as one's ``own being becomes massively and continuously available to [one]self'' in an objective way (Berger & Luckmann 38). One sees what one wrote on the screen as a linguistic-textual externalization of one's thoughts; however with the net.text there is time for the ``'interruption' of deliberate reflection'' that is not present in vocal speech (B & L 38). This time for reflection allows for digitally clean editing of the content of a message, the user can ask herself: is the message clear? did I include all the relevant information? etc. This highlights the fact that a (net.)text is the transcription, or interpretation, of one's own speech, or merely thoughts in the case of silent writing. Once written (and perhaps edited) a net.text is sent to either another user, or a multi-user social space where it becomes publicly available.
This extension of the print medium in electronic form is perhaps the most tightly coded characteristic of Usenet, for it is not merely textual, but monospaced typeface print6. This particular medium of exchange acts as a drastic filter of the total human communicative capability, and thus leaves the majority of one's impression of 'the other' up to sparse clues and imagination. With so many gaps to fill, is would be safe to assume that users actively fill in the lapsus of information themselves in order to build a coherence within a particular text message, and between that text and the conversation, as well as one's own experience. Of course the global constituency7 of Internet users presents a difficulty in accurate comprehension as, following Fairclough's model of discourse, the social conditions of production may be vastly different from the social conditions of interpretation, thus creating gaps in coherence that might not be as easily filled.
Once a net.text is written and 'sent' it enters an intersubjective space, usually a discourse thread, where it becomes objectively available to an audience (singular or plural), and is reinterpreted by them. This reinterpretation is undertaken through the lens of each audience member's resources who engage with the text and create/receive its multiple coherencies (Fairclough). This reinterpretation, --massive due to the dis-parity of MR commonalties--, introduces potentially high levels of polysemy into a text. One finds out quickly that ``to write is to risk having one's ideas perverted, wrenched out of context and exposed to all manner of mischievous reinterpretation'' (Norris & Benjamin 7) and the explicitness of one's text/speech becomes highly important, perhaps even honored in some quarters, as it is the textual content alone that must convey the message; there are no raised eyebrows in cyberspace. This ``interpretation of an interpretation''(Fairclough 80, original italics) is kept in check partly through the aggregative and the redundant/copious tendencies of oral net.texts, the respondent often quotes the text of the person to whom she is responding, thus preserving some of the contextual meaning and maintaining the coherence of the message.
However the differences in the interpretation, coupled with the 'deprivation of subtleties' of monospaced text, as noted by other observers (Reid 1989, MacKinnon 1992), lends itself to gross misinterpretations, often degenerating conversation threads into a flame war of vociferous name-calling and antagonistically leveled textual attacks. This breakdown of meaning seems to result in a basic level of negative interaction. It would be interesting to follow the patterns of this breakdown more closely. Although flamewars are often considered 'noise', they can also become a spectacle for others to watch and comment upon in their own turn, either joining the fray, or remaining 'objectively' removed.
``The written medium of Usenet 'filters' or interferes with communication among
users. The effect of this interference is the 'deprivation of subtleties' of
verbal and nonverbal communication'' (MacKinnon 1992). In the recognition of
this tendency to misinterpret text, users have creatively adapted the print
medium to a level of new varieties of meaning and subtlety. These new
communicative elements -- sometimes referred to as 'metatextuals' -- fill in the
expressive gaps left out by the medium of text-alone. Using many of the small
print symbols existent on the computer keyboard, individuals have created the
now conventional emoticons and other concentrations of meaning. The often cited
emoticons evoke small graphic facial references to indicate humor or sarcasm [
:) :-) ], or perhaps insinuate common subtle meanings [ ;) ;-) ], as well as
other variations; typed and demarcated 'actions' help illustrate the context of
one's message with suggested physical/emotional reactions [
These elements widen the expressive realm and introduce a level of
intersubjectivity to the members using the nets. Such 'style' guides as the
document known as ``How to Work with the Usenet Community'' and versions of
'netiquette' have helped to establish a ground of communality of communication
between users on the Net. The Net subcultural text/ure has very much to do with
the individuals who use the networks, and the very textuality of their messages.
The typewritten text(s) leave a semi-permanent record of net.discourse because
most news servers (the computers that pass the Usenet messages around, and to
which users connect as their local Usenet source) maintain individual postings
for up to 3 weeks or so. This means that there is an inter-objectively
available chronicle of interaction that can be reviewed, and/or saved on
individuals' personal computers. Despite the 'permanence' of this record of
interaction, the 'material' of the electronic text is made of ephemeral
electrons that can be deleted with no visible remains. While a net.discourse
can leave the rich fossils of interpretation, these vanish forever leaving only
subjective personal memory to hold the meaning and context. What was at one
point inter-objectively available text, becomes either recorded and 'codified'
within FAQs -- the group knowledge -- or relegated to individual recall. Like
text we see an objective record, but like speech the subject material becomes
lost to the objective eye after a time. This is a permanence with flux, a
limited time window of inter-objectivity, but retaining the oral subjectivity in
the end.
These new elements of subjectivity and objectivity available through this form
of communication allow a different view of discourse altogether. While they are
dialogic, and use identifiable sign systems as a communicative medium, they use
what was previously an objectified act (print) in a widely subjective manner.
This contextualized situation allows familiar human qualities to come through
the underlying anonymity. However it is compensated for, net.texts remain acts
of information that motivate the reader to fill in the substantive gaps in the
text with their own subjective interpretations, while being able to negotiate
that subjectivity with others in a social space of objectively available text.
Following Ricoeur, ``exteriorization into material [writing] (the separation of
the act of speaking from what is said) necessitates the mediation of
understanding by explanation'' (153). As netizens write text their 'act of
speaking' is that of textual transcription. Since their are not 'fully real' to
other wired individuals they must rely heavily on the use of explanation in
their messages to maintain a common understanding. As mentioned above, this is
done partly through context-maintaining practices (quoting, aggregative
meanings), 'metatextuals' and creative use of text, but explicit explanation is
the major route to a common understanding between netizens.
``The maintenance of the existence of persona requires users to continuously
participate in the cycle of statement and response'' (MacKinnon 1992), and it is
that continuous multilogic cycle of discourse that creates and maintains the
interaction, being and knowledge on the Internet. One's persona is made
present to other members of a particular online community only through the
assertion of opinions or views; the undertaking of the action of posting a
message to the Net. Where speech is written and exists as the sole form of
interaction, the act of net.speech declares your existence. This is also
recognized in the term lurker referring to someone who merely reads Usenet
threads but never posts. These individuals are known to exist, but are not
'seen' by the rest of the groupings and for all intensive purposes do not exist.
``But the more fundamental reason for imperfect recall is that with print there
is more complete separation of the visual sense from the audile-tactile. This
involves the modern reader in total translation of sight into sound as he looks
at the page. Recall of material read by the eye then is confused by the effort
to recall it both visually and auditorilly'' (McLuhan 116)
The recognition of the visual nature of print and the lack of 'fully real'
interaction on the Net leads one to consider that the Net is a silent
communicative space. For each posted message, the words are potentially never
said aloud, they are taken in visually and processed through the optical areas
of the brain, not the auditory. The cultural space of the Net then is less the
physical elements of hard drives and RAM memory than in the heads of the
individuals who read and respond to the thousands of messages a day. The silent
readings reinforce individuals' personal assumptions when reading another's text
and perhaps maintain the plentiful misreadings of one another.
These silent acts are the substance of the Net and the humans that use the
internetworks to carry on day to day business, establish friendships, do
research, and explore information. At some point these interactions may become
actively voiced, but the original textual side of the Net may never diminish.
The net.text is a silent act of speech, taking place in the communicative
'space' of the digital print medium. However we must be careful of exercising
too much technological determinism:
``The medium in itself cannot give rise to social consequences -- it must be use
by people and developed through social institutions. The mere technical
existence of writing cannot affect social change. What counts is its use, who
uses it, who controls it, what it is used for, how it fits into the power
structure, how widely it is distributed -- it is these social and political
factors that shape the consequences. (Finnegan 41)
We must remain aware of this fact and recognize in the technological
capabilities of the Internet and the Usenet news opportunities for certain types
of development and use. We know that use and development also exist in a
dialectical relationship: as the beginnings of the Internet were put in place,
software was developed to make use of its capabilities for humans. This in turn
allowed more humans to use the Net, and in this way more software applications
were created as new ideas percolated and were developed. This was how Usenet
came to be, for example. In this dialectic we have to ask, as Finnegan does:
who controls it? who has access? and how does it fit into the power structure?
Through these questions we can discern some of the directions that the Net may
be heading.
In terms of net.texts and the current usage, we see a large number of people
being exposed to a variety of opinions and personalities (filtered through text)
as well as gaining the ability to access a wide variety of information with
little personal effort. Will these exposed opportunities allow individuals and
groups to balance the power of those who created and maintain the Net? or will
the final development be one of control of the medium and control of
individuals' access? In many cases we will have to wait and see.
For the short term we can develop lines of inquiry based on some previous
exercises in communication studies: conversation analysis, critical language
studies, and perhaps a variety of graphological study could be used to examine
the patterns of human net.usage. These formats may need to be adapted for the
silent typewritten world of the Net, but they may become very useful in the
coming years.
How will human interaction change based upon the capabilities afforded by
immediate global textual information? Greater speed of action and reaction to
political and social events, the potential of more equal interaction (as
suggested by Sproul and Keisler), and perhaps the capacity to create even larger
conceptual structures as people come into contact with ever greater amounts of
information. The possibilities are great, and the Net is out there waiting,
waiting for the next posing.
net.speech.text.act
``When the eye of modern copyists leaves the manuscript before him in order to
write, he carries in his mind a visual reminiscence of what he has seen. What
the medieval scribe carried was an auditory memory, and probably in many cases,
a memory of one word at a time'' (Chaytor 19) [Quoted in McLuhan 115].
Conclusions
@_____________________________________________________________________
Anti(-c)opyright 1995 Neil p Corcoran (corcora5@pilot.msu.edu)
(@) All Wrongs Reversed.
end.