Differences Between
Oral and Written Communication
Most of us intuitively understand that there are
differences between oral and written language.
All communication includes the transfer of
information from one person to another, and while the transfer of information
is only the first step in the process of understanding a complex Phenomenon, it
is an important first step.
Writing is a fairly static form of transfer.
Speaking is a
dynamic transfer of information.
To be an effective speaker, you must exploit the
dynamism of oral communication, but also learn to work within its
limitations.
While there
is a higher level of immediacy and a lower level of retention in the spoken
word, a speaker has more ability to engage the audience psychologically and to
use complex forms of non-verbal communication
The written language can be significantly more
precise.
Written words can be chosen with greater
deliberation and thought, and a written argument can be extraordinarily
sophisticated, intricate, and lengthy. These attributes of writing are
possible because the pace of involvement is controlled by both the writer and
the reader.
The writer can write and rewrite at great length, a
span of time which in some cases can be measured in years. Similarly, the
reader can read quickly or slowly or even stop to think about what he or she
has just read.
More importantly, the reader always has the option of
re-reading; even if that option is not exercised, its mere possibility has an
effect upon a reader's understanding of a text.
The written word appeals more to a contemplative,
deliberative style.
Speeches can also be precise and indeed they ought
to be.
But precision in oral communication comes only with
a great deal of preparation and compression.
Once spoken, words cannot be retracted, although one
can apologize for a mistake and improvise a clarification or
qualification.
One can read from a written text and achieve the
same degree of verbal precision as written communication. But
word-for-word reading from a text is not speech-making, and in most
circumstances audiences find speech-reading boring and retain very little of
the information transmitted.
On the other hand, oral communication can be
significantly more effective in expressing meaning to an audience.
This distinction between precision and effectiveness
is due to the extensive repertoire of signals available to the speaker:
gestures, intonation, inflection, volume, pitch, pauses, movement, visual cues
such as appearance, and a whole host of other ways to communicate meaning.
A speaker has significantly more control over what
the listener will hear than the writer has over what the reader will
read.
For these techniques to be effective, however, the
speaker needs to make sure that he or she has the audience's
attention--audiences do not have the luxury of re-reading the words
spoken.
The speaker, therefore, must become a reader of the
audience.
Reading an audience is a systematic and cumulative
endeavor unavailable to the writer.
As one
speaks, the audience provides its own visual cues about whether it is finding
the argument coherent, comprehensible, or interesting.
Speakers should avoid focusing on single individuals
within an audience.
There are always some who scrunch up their faces
when they disagree with a point; others will stare out the window; a few rude
(but tired) persons will fall asleep. These persons do not necessarily
represent the views of the audience; much depends upon how many in the audience
manifest these signals.
By and large, one should take the head-nodders and
the note-takers as signs that the audience is following one's argument.
If these people seem to outnumber the people not
paying attention, then the speech is being well-received.
The single most important bit of evidence about the
audience's attention, however, is eye contact. If members of the audience
will look back at you when you are speaking, then you have their
attention. If they look away, then your contact with the audience is
probably fading.
Speeches probably cannot be sophisticated and
intricate. Few audiences have the listening ability or background to work
through a difficult or complex argument, and speakers should not expect them to
be able to do so.
Many speakers fail to appreciate the difficulties of
good listening, and most speakers worry about leaving out some important part
of the argument.
One must be acutely aware of the tradeoff between
comprehensiveness and comprehension. Trying to put too much into a speech
is probably the single most frequent error made by speakers.
This desire to "say everything" stems from
the distinctive limitations of speeches: after a speech, one cannot go
back and correct errors or omissions, and such mistakes could potentially
cripple the persuasiveness of a speech.
A speaker cannot allow himself or herself to fall
into this mentality. At the outset, a speaker must define an argument
sharply and narrowly and must focus on only that argument.
There are certainly implications of an argument that
are important but cannot be developed within the speech.
These aspects should be clearly acknowledged by the
speaker, but deferred to a question-and-answer period, a future speech, or a
reference to a work that the audience can follow-up on its own.
Speakers must exercise tight and disciplined control
over content.
As a rule of thumb, the audience will remember about
one-half of what was said in a twenty-minute talk.
After twenty-minutes, recall drops off
precipitously.
Oral arguments should therefore be parsed down as
much as possible.
There are very few circumstances in which an
audience will recall a great deal of the information in a speech longer than
twenty minutes. Most evidence suggests that audience recall declines
precipitously after 16 and one-half minutes.
Oral communication uses words with fewer syllables
than the written language, the sentences are shorter, and self-referencing
pronouns such as I are common.
Oral communication also allows incomplete sentences
if delivered properly, and many sentences will begin with "and,"
"but," and "except."
The upshot of these differences is that one should
not think about speeches as oral presentations of a written text.
Speeches are genuinely different from written prose,
and one should not use the logic of writing as a basis for writing a speech.
Written Communication :-
1. It is accurate and precise.
2. It can be repeatedly referred
to.
3. It is permanent record.
4. It is a legal document.
5. It facilitates the
assignation of responsibilities.
6. It has wide access.
7. It is suitable to transmit
complex information
|
8. It is formal and
authoritative.
Oral
communication :-
1.
It
saves time.
2.
It
saves money.
3.
More
forceful.
4.
Conveys
shades of meaning.
5.
Immediate
feedback.
6.
Immediate
clarification.
7.
Can
be informal.
8.
Good
for interpersonal relationships.
9.
More
effective with groups.
No comments:
Post a Comment