Oral Vs. Written Communication

In our English class we had to tell an embarrassing story orally to the entire class. We then made transcripts of our oral story and wrote a descriptive version. Both versions were significantly different from each other in many ways. Our study is on the differences between oral and written communication. When we are speaking and writing to people, content, style, structure and process are all key factors that determine our delivery.

My oral introduction was short while my written introduction set the scene with details to introduce my story more formally and substantially. In my oral story I began with where I was and what time it was. In my written version I clearly introduced what time it was, where I was, how I was feeling, and where I was going. For example, "At 3 in morning I grabbed my skateboard and my backpack and left my friend's apartment..." While I was talking to my audience I could see their facial expressions and knew they understood and felt it was unnecessary to expand on those details. This is precisely where the structures of written and oral delivery differ. I can gage the reaction of my audience in real-time--their reactions to my story are instantaneous and visible to me--the speaker. Using audience reaction, a speaker can choose to incorporate or leave out certain details that are, perhaps, unavoidably features of a written story. This is not to say that reactions to written work are not instantaneous, for they are, but those reactions are invisible to the author and can only be received in the form of critical or evaluative communication after the fact.

My oral and written body paragraphs tell exactly what happened; however, the written version incorporates the details. My oral version was quickly explained, for example, "About mmm 30 seconds later I just got clothes-lined from the back." My written version is very detailed and informative missing minor details from the experience. For example, "They had funny expressions on their faces as if they weren't quite sure why they were talking to me." Naturally, my written version is more detailed because my audience was not present, and I could not engage in this sort of ongoing perception-of-delivery and re-adjustment process.

The oral version of the story ended abruptly while the written story concluded with everything that happened after the event. My oral story ended right after I got up from the grass while my written version ends later in the night when I decided to fall asleep. The written version contains more details about my condition and state of mind. I expanded the written version because I was able to close my eyes and recall the experience as it happened. I was then able to spend time describing details of my feelings and thoughts without regard for class time or audience reaction--I simply let my thoughts run their course in an attempt to fully re-create the experience. This is noteworthy, because both of these stories are told in suitable ways. The oral version was told in a quicker manner--a spare style more appropriate for conversation.

Style and structure differs during oral and written communication. The oral and written versions both flow in the same direction without repetition. In the oral version the story flows in one direction--what exactly happened. There is not much focus on detail and the story never re-tells details. I could tell by the look on people's faces that they were interested in what happened, and I treat the attention of an audience as a gift, not to be taken for granted. There is something about direct social contact, which for me requires this sort of courtesy. Just I as I would not want my time wasted, I seek not to waste the time of others. Just as I would like to hear the fascinating things people have to tell, I would not like them to drone on and on, killing it--so to speak. I knew that I needed to keep it short and sweet to reward and to capitalize on that interest. And so it is in part for this reason that the written version flows in a descriptive and detailed style--to keep the reader informed with a more developed understanding of the experience.

The oral version is strung together with coordinators while the written version flows more evenly. In the oral story ideas are conjoined with "uhs, ums, ands, and so's." For example: "and uh...about 30 seconds later I just...". There are still coordinators although the story is grammatically correct and flows smoothly. For example, "Eight males were walking in my vicinity with no apparent direction. I was minding my own business when I decided to take a quick glace at them...". If I used more descriptive and attenuated language in a story while speaking to my fellow classmates it would sound unnatural; using the word attenuated would lose about 75% of those kids. I wrote the experience differently because I wanted to develop an interpretation with some depth and let the