Language Beyond Words: Achebe I

Chinua Achebe illustrates many aspects of a Nigerian culture in the late 1800's in his book, "Things Fall Apart". Although it is a novel, some parts of it read like an ethnography.

In reading this book with the topics of literacy and orality in mind, there were certain events that seemed to help show how the culture of Umuofia operated in terms of language. For example, there are a few mentionings of common sayings such as "when the moon is shining the cripple becomes hungry for a walk" or "a man who pays respect to the great paves the way for his own greatness" (pg. 10 and 19). Such small caplets of language can teach so much. Only a few words are needed. Perhaps it can be implied that critical thinking is needed to fully understand the gestalt meaning of such tiny phrases.

These types of sayings or proverbs are common in many cultures today as well. Even in the American culture today. . .a country on an entirely different continent than Nigeria, we say things like, "a picture is worth a thousand words"or "look before you leap". Within these little caplets of language there are lessons.

Language is an important part of culture regardless of the means by which it is conveyed. Early on in "Things Fall Apart", Okoye comes to attempt to collect a debt from Unoka. Previous to Okoye bringing up why he is there, there is a wonderful display of cultural protocol. The two engage in simple, warm conversation and share a kola. This act displays civility between Okoye and Unoka. They speak with their actions until finally Okoye explains that he has come "asking Unoka to return the two hundred cowries he had borrowed from him more than two years before" (pg. 7). As all of this verbal and physical language is unfolding, Okoye notices, "groups of short perpendicular lines drawn in chalk" (pg. 7). Here is yet another form of communication. Unoka explains that, "each group there represents a debt to someone, and each stroke is one hundred cowries" (pg. 7). Well, at least he keeps track.

There are countless other displays of language throughout this book as other cultures become involved.

Storyline: Ong II

Verbalized stories of an oral culture have come to have a certain cadence and plot to them that is often times different from that of a literary culture.

For example, it makes complete sense that the Iliad and the Odyssey would have been written with such rhythm (regardless of the validity Homer's methods or identity/identities). Even if an individual can read, they are more capable of recalling what they have read if there is some sort of "flow" to the story. As Ong puts it, "One of the places where oral mnemonic structures and produces manifest themselves most spectacularly is in their effect on narrative plot, which in an oral culture is not quite what we take plot typically to be" (pg. 138)

Individuals in a literary society are typically more familiar with a plot that follows Freytag's Pyramid. This requires that the story remain fairly linear with a defined beginning, climax, and end. In the case of Homer's works, they are very episodic and tends toward action first, details later. Why does this work?

As Ong stated, ". . .episodic structure was the only way and the total natural way of imagining and handling lengthy narrative. . .starting in 'the middle of things' is not a consciously contrived ploy but the original, natural. . .way to proceed for an oral poet approaching a lengthy narrative" (pg. 141). There was no way to try to put things of such length in order on paper. Everything was committed to memory. Imagine telling a story, and all you can remember is the highlights, the climaxes. As soon as you begin to verbalize those high points you begin to recall the events leading up to the more memorable moments in a story. This method is slightly reminiscent of journalism in the written form-- write the highlight and then work your way through the details.

Telling a story from a "start from the middle" perspective probably only solidified these key points in the stories as they may have been told first over and over again in episodic format. This is not a format typically followed in modern literate culture.

Consider an individual recalling an account of their day. They may begin by telling of the events that happened at lunch, and may preface it by saying that nothing noteworthy happened before this. Or they may tell of something that occurred later in the day, then suddenly remember what happened earlier on and take the listener back a bit on the timeline. In this example, there is a need to at least faintly fill in the linear structure in terms of time. Most literate societies of today's world need for things to fit inside of measurable increments of time-- we tend to see this in a linear way. Using this as only one of many possible examples, it makes sense that our stories would push to follow suit.

Literacy and Culture: Ong I

It's easy to forget that writing has not always been in use. It's easy to read history about civilizations and cultures that communicated with primary orality. . . and read the history as though it were a fairy-tale-esque story of some far off land.

We don't need to be told the stories of the early civilizations of Mesopotamia by our elders-- we read the history. And we believe what we read.

The current American majority grows-up learning how to read and write with the goal of eventually incorporating these functions into every day tasks with ease. Our culture requires this. And to achieve this goal, we must engage in "study" an activity that we have built entire infrastructures around by necessity. But not every culture thrives off of literacy.

In Orality and Literacy, author Walter Ong brings to light the concept that, "Human beings in primary oral cultures, those untouched by writing in any form, learn a great deal and possess and practice great wisdom, but they do not 'study'" (pg. 8-9). According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, to study literally means to be in a "state of contemplation". In fact, the dictionary goes on further to note that the word study can also mean "a building or room devoted to study or literary pursuits". By this particular cultural definition, a literate culture not only creates such a concept as 'study' by which to absorb written materials, but also assigns actual geographical spaces in which this activity should be carried out. These brief definitions only begin to hint at how deeply engrained literacy is in literate societies. Everything from thought processes, learning styles, building structures, community interactions and social norms are touched-- not to mention countless other avenues of every day living. How does this compare with the "untouched" cultures that Ong speaks of?

He elaborates on the fact that these cultures left untouched by literacy learn through "apprenticeship. . .discipleship. . .assimilation. . .[and] participation-- not by study in the strict sense" (pg. 9). There is no expectation to see any such room set aside for the purpose of studying. A culture based on orality functions free of writing. Is this meant to be an easily comprehensible concept to an individual from a literate society? Ong thinks not. He states, "Fully literate persons can only with great difficulty imagine what a primary oral culture is like. . .a culture with no knowledge whatsoever of writing or even of the possibility of writing."

Since it's easy for individuals of a literate culture to take writing for granted, great care must be taken to absorb and study the information on primary orality without trying to fit it into the confines of literacy; rather, understand it as a separate entity-- and then begin to see how orality and literacy compare.