Reflection on written and verbal forms of communication

    In preparation for our midterm exam, our class discussed the differences between written and verbal communication. The conversation highlighted some basic cultural differences, such as some cultures’ need for written confirmation versus others’ ability to rely on verbal confirmation for meetings and contracts. Towards the end of the discussion, we touched on how the two forms of communication affects the individual’s knowledge and relationship with the information. I was inspired to reflect upon this, as it was intriguing that the manner by which we encounter information can shape our experience.
    As a college student, textual and written communications are the most frequently used forms to measure knowledge. Information becomes objective through tests and exams, and often is forgotten after the examination or over time. Our temporary relationship with the material plays a direct role with our involvement in text-based communication, as accuracy and exactness are the main objectives. For example, look at the involvement of the author of a book and its reader. As the author, they experience a beginning and ending role in the book’s life. However, since they dictate this time period, they can re-write and edit the material until they create something that accurately expresses their message. In contrast, the reader has unlimited time with the book. They are able to read and re-read the book until they understand exactly what the author is trying to say. More often than not, relationship between the author and reader is anonymous outside the author’s words, and this contrasts the relationship of verbal communication.
    In many cultures of oral tradition, knowledge and information can exist for the communal good and become a form of intellectual property for the individuals. This structure creates the opportunity for active participation in how one interprets information, and places importance on the orator’s productivity to deliver a message. In comparison to a reader, the audience gets a single interaction with the speaker and their delivery. This experience encourages the audience to interpret the information as it affects them, and can only revisit it through their memory. Similarly, the orator has only one chance to communicate, and they forfeit the opportunity to edit their message after speaking. On the other hand, the performer and the audience do engage directly and thus the speaker can use different tools to project their ideas. For example, they can use physical movement, vocal inflection, change in volume or pitch, and even add in pauses or silences for dramatization. These instruments are arguably more effective in communicating information between parties; however, they limit the information’s distribution beyond these performances and lectures.
    As our generation sees more and more global interrelations between cultures, we might be able to experience more oral forms of communication in our travels. In the meantime, we must continue to depend on the written form’s more important attribute, continuous accessibility to its reader, as oral tradition is not as prominent in our culture.