- In Walter Ong’s “Some Psychodynamics of Orality,” he illustrates the consistent trends we see in oral culture. This ranges from formulas, to repetitions, and to relation of relevance of time. The reason why there are traits within orality is because of the mnemonic devices that orators must conserve and retain. Along with this, it needs to keep the audience interested in the orator’s story. Ong details oral culture with technique and skill that preserves the entertainment of oral storytelling. I will analyze “Version II: Sundiata” by John William Johnson and textualize this lens through Ong’s oral culture traits. In this case, it was Griot’s who told stories who were talented historians and “can read its [country] future” (1).
One of the first traits that Ong notices within Oral poems is the rhythmic power that is present that is shown through patterns and repetition. In Johnson’s “Version: II,” “baobab leaf”, “Will you never rise?” are extremely repetitive within the first section of this poem. To give it context, these repetitional phrases are used to emphasize situations (the Kòndiè woman’s despair and strength). In this particular oral poem, there is no rhymes that are present in which Ong describes the need for this. In replacement of rhymes, I believe this poem shows a lot of redundancy/ copias. Ong believes it’s fond to repeat a phrase many times, rather than hesitate or let alone- a pause. For example, “And upwards drew himself, And upwards drew himself/ And squeezed them, And squeezed them.” This would be a good rhetoric device since it’s best to keep speaking, even if unintentional it adds suspense and makes points clear. Along with Ong’s list is being “conservative” with oral poems, in other words, writing it down. Here we have written down an oral poem that has been conserved for centuries that 21stcentury college students are analyzing. In relevance to time (Ong’s list), there are many phrases that I personally do not understand such as, “bilika” and “tunyu” which possibly has relevance to oral culture when this was first composed. As Ong mentions, you want to keep it as relevant as possible to keep the audience drawn, you don’t want to leave them confused. Overall, this poem conforms to some of Ong’s list such as patterns, redundancy, conservative vs. liberal, and homeostatic qualities.
2. I believe Saracas extends Ong’s claim of conservation of oral texts with dis/advantages of new writings. Ong Claims that writing down a poem conserves the history and knowledge of the older generation to preserve meaning. Saracas goes further in mentioning that even though it conserves it physically, does it orally? What he means by this is once you write it down, you are using different parts of your brain and sense to interpret an oral poem that’s written down. There are benefits to this such as creative writing especially in terms of storytelling, but the memory isn’t as alive as opposed to using and applying mnemonics straight from memory.
3. An important claim that Sullivan brought up was if we don’t write, then there are mental acts we cannot perform because of the capacity of our memory. I believe this is relevant because the human mind is extremely limited especially in memory. We can’t do extreme algebraic equations without writing it down (unless you’re a complete math-wiz-genius). This is where our ability to perform other mental acts comes in place. Along with this, in terms of writing, we’re able to express what we intend by writing it down. To improvise and speak on the spot without any written motion will not be as abstract as opposed to a text, idea, or thought that you have written down; this allows for deeper thought an understanding.
I think it’s interesting that you spoke on the advantages of oral language. Written uses different parts of your brain, and doesn’t necessarily preserve the same message as mnemonics and spoken language. In my interpretation, I focused largely on the downsides of writing as a growth of literacy leads to a decrease in writing as an art, and more on an expectation of immediacy in communication.
LikeLike
This is a well-done overview of the readings. I want to know, the words you didn’t understand, do you think they’re what Ong expects to be “artifacts” of old words gone, or are they remnants of a translation that has no equivalent? I see them as nonequivalent translations because they can preserve a meaning, but then it distracts from the empathetic response Ong deems required of all oral texts. What do you think?
LikeLike
I like that you pointed out Ong’s claim of time and relevance in your “Sundiata” analysis. I was also lost when words of another language were repeatedly used in the song. I believe it has a purpose, otherwise Johnson would have translated it with the rest of the story. But as a typical reader, these words like “bilika” and “tunyu” do not aid to my understanding of the piece.
To extend your example of solving algebraic expressions on Young and Sullivan, we were taught to solve these through several small steps instead of instantly having the problem and answer memorized in our head. Therefore we need to use writing because each small step has an answer we need for future steps, and our brains cannot preserve these answers for longer than a few seconds. Writing helps us organize, filter, and bring clarity to the mess of what goes on in our heads.
LikeLike