Changes

==The impact of literacy on culture==  

==The impact of literacy on culture==  

Ong draws on pioneering work by [[Milman Parry]] and [[Marshall McLuhan]], among the first to fully appreciate the significance of the [[word]] as a [[technology]].  McLuhan, in his work ''The Gutenberg Galaxy''<ref>Marshall McLuhan.  ''The [[Gutenberg Galaxy]]:  The Making of Typographic Man'', University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1962.</ref> shows how each stage in the development of this technology throughout the [[history of communication]] – from the invention of speech (primary orality), to [[pictograms]],  to the [[phonetic alphabet]], to [[typography]], to the electronic communications of today – restructures human consciousness, profoundly changing not only the frontiers of human possibility, but even the frontiers it is possible for humans to imagine.

Ong draws on pioneering work by [[Milman Parry]] and [[Marshall McLuhan]], among the first to fully appreciate the significance of the [[word]] as a [[technology]].  McLuhan, in his work ''The Gutenberg Galaxy''<ref>Marshall McLuhan.  ''The [[Gutenberg Galaxy]]:  The Making of Typographic Man'', University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1962.</ref> shows how each stage in the development of this technology throughout the [[history of communication]] – from the invention of speech (primary orality), to [[pictograms]],  to the [[phonetic alphabet]], to [[typography]], to the electronic communications of today – restructures human consciousness, profoundly changing not only the frontiers of human possibility, but even the frontiers it is possible for humans to imagine.

==Primary orality==

==Primary orality==

==Residual orality==

==Residual orality==

‘Residual orality’ refers to thought and its verbal expression in cultures that have been exposed to writing and print, but have not fully ‘interiorized’ (in McLuhan’s term) the use of these technologies in their daily lives.  As a culture interiorizes the technologies of literacy, the ‘oral residue’ diminishes.   

‘Residual orality’ refers to thought and its verbal expression in cultures that have been exposed to writing and print, but have not fully ‘interiorized’ (in McLuhan’s term) the use of these technologies in their daily lives.  As a culture interiorizes the technologies of literacy, the ‘oral residue’ diminishes.   

===5.  [[Conservative]] or traditionalist===

===5.  [[Conservative]] or traditionalist===

Because oral societies have no effective access to writing and print technologies, they must invest considerable energy in basic [[information management]].  Storage of information, being primarily dependent on individual or collective recall, must be handled with particular thrift.  It is possible to approximately measure oral residue “from the amount of memorization the culture’s educational procedures require.”<ref>Jack Goody, cited in his introduction to Jack Goody (ed.)  ''Literacy in traditional societies'', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1968, pp. 13-14.

Because oral societies have no effective access to writing and print technologies, they must invest considerable energy in basic [[information management]].  Storage of information, being primarily dependent on individual or collective recall, must be handled with particular thrift.  It is possible to approximately measure oral residue “from the amount of memorization the culture’s educational procedures require.” Jack Goody, cited in his introduction to Jack Goody (ed.)  ''Literacy in traditional societies'', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1968, pp. 13-14.

This creates incentives to avoid exploring new ideas and particularly to avoid the burden of having to store them.  It does not prevent oral societies from demonstrating dynamism and change, but there is a premium on ensuring that changes cleave to traditional formulas, and “are presented as fitting the traditions of the ancestors.” <ref>Walter J. Ong.  ''Orality and Literacy'', pp. 42.  

This creates incentives to avoid exploring new ideas and particularly to avoid the burden of having to store them.  It does not prevent oral societies from demonstrating dynamism and change, but there is a premium on ensuring that changes cleave to traditional formulas, and “are presented as fitting the traditions of the ancestors.” Walter J. Ong.  ''Orality and Literacy'', pp. 42.

===6.  Close to the human lifeworld===

===6.  Close to the human lifeworld===

* Asked to select three similar words from the following list “hammer, saw, log, hatchet”, oral subjects would reject the literate solution (removing the log to produce a list of 3 tools), pointing out that without the log there wasn’t much use for the tools.   

* Asked to select three similar words from the following list “hammer, saw, log, hatchet”, oral subjects would reject the literate solution (removing the log to produce a list of 3 tools), pointing out that without the log there wasn’t much use for the tools.   

* Oral subjects took a practical, not an abstract, approach to syllogisms.  Luria asked them this question.  ''In the far north, where there is snow, all bears are white.  Novaya Zembla is in the far north and there is always snow there.  What colour are the bears? ''  Typical response:  “I don’t know.  I’ve seen a black bear.  I’ve never seen any others. … Every locality has its own animals.”  

* Oral subjects took a practical, not an abstract, approach to syllogisms.  Luria asked them this question.  ''In the far north, where there is snow, all bears are white.  Novaya Zembla is in the far north and there is always snow there.  What colour are the bears? ''  Typical response:  “I don’t know.  I’ve seen a black bear.  I’ve never seen any others. … Every locality has its own animals.”  

* Oral subjects proved unwilling to analyze themselves.  When asked “what sort of person are you?” one responded:  “What can I say about my own heart?  How can I talk about my character?  Ask others; they can tell you about me.  I myself can’t say anything.” Walter J. Ong.  ''Orality and Literacy'', pp. 49-54.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orality]

* Oral subjects proved unwilling to analyze themselves.  When asked “what sort of person are you?” one responded:  “What can I say about my own heart?  How can I talk about my character?  Ask others; they can tell you about me.  I myself can’t say anything.” Walter J. Ong.  ''Orality and Literacy'', pp. 49-54.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orality]

[[Category: General Reference]]

[[Category: General Reference]]