Oral vs. Written

There are several components of communication that will lead to someone being able to communicate effectively. Oral and written communication can both be extremely effective, however, both have their setbacks. Oral communication can provide a visual aspect if necessary, but written communication is something that lasts and has resilience. 

In the book by Walter Ong, he starts off the book by discussing how written speech doesn't hold the same expressive capabilities as oral language. He discusses how Ferdinand de Saussure says that writing is useful, but has its shortcomings and dangers (5). With written language it is much more difficult for someone to express their thoughts or concerns about any given topic. Oral language also can have the nonverbal communication aspect tacked on. Nonverbal communication adds tone, expression, and color to a conversation.Additionally, the communicator is able to move their voice up and down, further adding more tone and mood to the topic. Oral communication provides a blank canvas for someone to add as much flair and pop to a conversation as they would like. Saussure stated that "he thought of writing as a kind of complement to oral speech, not as a transformer of verbalization" (5). 

Written language also provides a blank canvas for creativity, but just not as effectively. An author can add as many adjectives as possible to describe, add detail, and provide tone, but in the end it all depends on what the reader takes from it. With written language there is more room for error when it comes to the author getting their point across. 

The invaluable aspect of written language is that retention and preservation is much more possible. For example, written history lasts much longer and the history will end up with fewer discrepancies down the road. Additionally, with history being told orally it is like the game telephone after a while, at the end there will always be something different or wrong.