Oral Speech vs. The Writen Work

I, respectively, disagree completely with Mona. While the written language is open for mis-interpretation, the spoken word is as equally open for misunderstanding. Mona writes, “orality guarantees that we hear every word, and every inflection, but in reading written texts we can sometimes accidentally overlook words, important and insignificant alike,” and I dispute this claim for many reasons. Addressing the issues of oral speech first, regardless of the context (person, place, or subject) there is always a situation when the hearer must stop and rethink some of the given information. The information could be syntaxitily awkward, complex enough to require additional interpretation, or simply a thought of great ideas which supersedes the orality of the situation.

Secondly, Plato argues writing is a copy of a copy. In that, writing leaves the reader with an illusion, or assumption of the writers real meaning, of the readers truth which is to say that the reader will take what he chooses as valid and true and use only as one sees fit. While Ong and Plato argue, that within conversational discourse one is always allowing complete clarity in the subject at hand. One is able to ask questions directly from the source, thus leaving no room for assumptions.

Mona argues, “We can very effectively receive and internalize meaningful information without a speaker.” However, I am in agreement with Ong, and moreso Plato, that writing is artificial. Writing is not always going to represent the true thoughts of the speaker, especially in formal writing since we are limited within a specific context. Take for example, the classic example of how Adoph Hitler has twisted the sacred text of Biblical terminology using it to justify his attempt to commit genocide on the Jewish religion. This example goes to prove how texts can be used and taken out of context for one’s own personal gain. With the clarity of formal speech we can be assured that all hope is not lost. Just as within the court room. Till this day if a case is tried in front of a judge, the arguments are heard orally from both the defendant and plaintiff. I believe this is for the reason of “The Appeals,” allowing the speaker to portray Pathos, Ethos, and Logos. I think The Appeals are mostly effectively portrayed in the oral context. In the written context, there is no intonation to portray ones Pathos.