Post #12: Research Essay

Bushra Zaman

English 360 Section 1

Essay #2- Final Draft

Question #1

The great thinker Aristotle defines rhetoric as the ability to find, in any given situation, the available means of persuasion. During the renaissance rhetoricians would gather in coliseums to argue and listen to each other’s speeches. During those times they did not have any official form of government, hence all stately problems were addressed in said manner. Yet as time drew on and such meetings had begun to be recorded, it was found that writing and print had started to compliment oral speech. For without it, we would not have a solid recollection of what occurred. The work titled “Orality and Literacy,” by Walter Ong, states that oral expression cannot exist without verbal expression, and vice versa.

In this day and age, it is difficult to not see how Ong’s theory strikes true in rhetoric. When a text is read out loud, it is adapted into sound, which is derived from spoken language itself. Oral culture in turn leads to verbal production, and speech is then recorded and written down. The turning of such a tide brought about a whole new way of thinking in the world, starting with the renaissance and leading into the enlightenment period. This meant that written text had been broadened in its availability to other classes, and eventually led other peoples to revolt for a chance and a say in their own history.

Oral speech and its style brings about many different interpretations. For example, tone and change in style brings about different levels of persuasion. At a young age, people are socialized to adapt to a certain way of communicating; speech becomes a learned behavior, showing the difference between the right and wrong ways of speech by society’s standards. It is from this that oral speech is recognized as the more personal form of communication. However, without its humble beginnings of written language and text, oral speech would not hold the same connotations.

In written speech, it is key to have all the ideas available; for, without it, one’s speech is incomplete, and therefore their argument does not exist or is very weak. The advantage with written speech is relative to its abundant knowledge as well as the history behind the language itself. Without such knowledge, it would be impossibly difficult to move forward. When inspecting written and oral speech’s views on rhetoric, it is key, especially, to examine which is dominant today.

Ong relates his work to Aristotle’s “Art of Rhetoric,” forming the idea that rhetoric in itself is a production of writing. “Rhetorike, or rhetoric, basically meant public speaking or oratory, which for centuries even in literate and typographic cultures remained unreflexively pretty much the paradigm of all discourse, including that of writing” (9). Here one may see that Ong is drawing a strong connection between rhetoric, oratory speech, and writing. While it may be quite clear that all of these are connected, by delving deeper, one can see that before man had even come to think of oratory speech and writing, rhetoric was above all. Similar to that of the renaissance, it was the only way in which language and thought was communicated, not leaving very much room for the thought of written texts until later in history. It was not until much later in history, somewhere around the 16^th century, that the relationship between oral and written language had built its foundation. There was no doubt that oral art was conceived without writing, whether consciously or subconsciously. Written and oral language have developed rhetoric of today to great lengths, going above and beyond by drawing upon the ideology of the technological world.

Ong explains the concept of “secondary orality,” which is the new present day orality that is sustained by the technological culture. This “secondary orality” is a new orality that relies upon the workings of telephone, radio, television, and other types of electronics that rely upon writing and print for their survival. “Today primary oral culture in the strict sense hardly exists, since every culture knows of writing and has some experiences of its effects. Still, to varying degrees many cultures and subcultures, even in a high-technology ambiance, preserve much of the mind-set of primary orality” (11). Here Ong is seen comparing today’s “secondary orality” to “primary orality,” stating that due to the world’s views on, and increasing usage of technology, no aspect of life is untouched, especially the use of oral and written language. This corresponds to “primary orality,” which Ong states is “a culture totally untouched by any knowledge of writing or print” (11).

Walter Ong’s work, “Orality and Literacy,” detail the idea that oral and written language cannot exist

simultaneously without one another. Although the world had known oral language to have been bred first, written

language slowly started to develop in and on its own. Writing and print had slowly grown to form as one, each

making a mark on the works of rhetoric.