Exemplary Assignment 2 responses
February 3, 2009

Assingment: Due 5pm on Monday, February 2, 2009.  Submit via bSpace.

In his 1987 study of the cognitive effects of word-processing systems, Electric Language, Michael Heim wrote:
    The accelerated automation of word-processing makes possible a new immediacy in the creation of public, typified text. Immediacy in the sense of there being no medium quod, no instrumental impediment to thinking in external symbols, but only a medium quo, or purely transparent element. As I write, I can put things directly into writing, My stream of consciousness can be paralled by the running flow of the electric element. Words dance on the screen. Sentences flow smoothly into place, make way for one another, while paragraphs ripple down the screen. Words become highlighted, vanish at the push of a button, then reappear instantly at will. Verbal life is fast-paced, easier, with something of the exhilaration of video games....
    Because this playful way of putting things is immediate, enjoyable, and less constrained by materials, it encourages on-screen thinking, that is, thinking in a typified, public element.... Digital writing is nearly frictionless. It invites the formulation of thought directly in the electric element....

Reading this passage, would you say that Heim's view of the effects of writing technology comes closer to that of Havelock or of Scribner and Cole? Why? Write a 200 word paragraph briefly defending and explaining your view.


Havelock:

Heim’s view of the effects of digital writing technology is more in line with Havelock’s view of the effects of written language on ancient Greece than with Scribner and Cole’s view of literacy on cognitive abilities. Havelock’s argument follows “the premise that the technology of communication controls the content of what is communicated,” that is to say that a particular technology enables and defines a particular form of communication. Moreover, Havelock argues that written language enabled man to develop intellectually as a result of the technology of the alphabet.  Havelock differentiates between a “pre-alphabetic” and “post-alphabetic” society, in which the laters’ use of written language enabled cognitive advancements. Scribner and Cole take an opposing view to Havelock, arguing instead that there is no evidence to prove a definite cognitive divide between literates and non-literates. As a result, Scribner and Cole view writing as a general improvement of particular skills rather than “promot[ing] general mental abilities.”  In arguing that automated word-processing enables man to improve the translation of thoughts into text with greater immediacy, Heim is making an argument for cognitive advancement. Heim’s argument therefore falls in line with Havelock’s central argument, as the technology of word-processing systems produces and “controls the content of what is communicated” referred to as “on-screen thinking”.
-Dennie Bates

Heim and Havelock both view writing technology as mutators of cognition.  The physical nature of language seems to change when touched by technology.  Havelock says "language ... ceases to be an unseen impulse carried through the air - the winged word - and becomes an artifact, a thing itself".   Language has turned from nothingness into an observable substance.  It takes on concreteness, has properties such as grammar, and new complexity not possible in oral tradition.  Heim too says his language changes in a fundamental way.  But he describes something almost the opposite of Havelock.  Communication has been electrified and seems to take on electricity's properties: it's frictionless, immediate, flowing.  This new form of writing is almost speech like: it is public; there is no "instrumental impediment";  it allows thoughts to pour from the mind like water from a faucet. But both men would say these available technologies allowed new ways of thinking. Scribner & Cole seemed concerned with literate versus non-literate members of a society whereas Heim and Havelock are examining shifting societies (oral -> written, written -> digital).
- DAVID BELFORD

Heim's view of the effects of writing is more in line with Havelock's essay than Scribner and Cole's essay. Essentially Heim wants to say that writing--particularly the frictionless writing of word processing--allows for a joyous and inviting formulation of thought. Havelock speculates similarly that "alphabetic literacy" allowed the abstract (concepts) to substitute for the concrete in Hellenic society. His speculative argument goes further to suggest that written language created the possibility of the authorial "authority" via the possibilities of revision inherent in written forms. This statement mirrors Heim's exhilarating and poetic pronunciation of the possibilities of editing one's work. He celebrates the ability for organized thought that writing gives, while Scribner and Cole's essay precisely counters that claim--even citing Havelock's essay as a source that they question. Scribner and Cole analytically come down to the argument that literacy doesn't improve general thought whatsoever, though it does improve memory in some experimental environments. Scribner and Cole would be more likely to append statements regarding the necessity of cultural networks surrounding the word processor to Heim's statement because they found that social and cultural factors are the more important elements with regards to abstract thought, wheras Heim and Havelock treasure the advances emerging from the "technology" of writing as emerging more or less singularly from the technology itself.
-WILLIAM BOTTINI 
 
Effects of Writing Technology
Heim’s way of articulating the cognitive effects of word processing technology is similar to the way in which Havelock argues alphabetic literacy led Greeks to a wider comprehension of content. Heim obviously supports a connection between digital writing and “thought directly in the electric element.” Analogous to this kind of direct relationship is Havelock argument that the creation of an alphabet led to a shift in human consciousness: the ability to make connections between abstractions – he cites an explanation of the opening lines of the Iliad, and works of Plato and Aristotle as examples of direct consequences. Scribner and Cole, however, are less willing to make such general statements of consequence. They argue that there is a lack of proof of the relationship between writing and thinking. And after they conduct a research to acquire evidence, they conclude that the consequences of literacy are highly specific and closely tied to actual practices with particular scripts. Scribner and Cole would consider Heim’s passage an overstatement, since the actual function of the word-processing technology for individuals was not taken into consideration. Havelock does make the causal relationship between technology and the progression of human consciousness – alphabet, then organization, and then comprehension.
-Andrea Brizuela
 
Heim's view of the effects of writing technology is that the mode of communication will affect our way of thinking.  This comes closer to Havelock's view that "something happens" to the users of language as the written word.  Interestingly both authors are postulating the consequences of a shift in modes of communication, Heim from written to "electric" and Havelock from spoken to written.  Both are concerned with the freedom of thought flow between subjects.  Havelock correctly points out that writing a word down captures it- it is no longer "the winged word" and that writing is less immediate than speaking.  Heim is also concerned with immediacy and tries to argue that the word processor will make communication more immediate and less constrained by tools only because it is faster and more flexible than writing.  Apparently, he has not used Microsoft Word.  
Scribner and Cole have studied different cultures where writing plays a lesser role then in does in Western culture and have found similar effects on memory and cognitive skills even without writing.  They therefore do not attribute human cognitive changes to modes of communication, or writing. 
- SANJA CURGUS
 
Heim's view of the effects of writing more closely relates to Havelock's article. Scribner and Cole had concluded that "in general", writing/literacy did not improve memory, language, and mental skills, among the test groups described. However, Heim says that writing, in particular word processing systems, helps to put ideas immediately into writing so that a person can continue thinking about their ideas and expanding upon it. Similarly, Havelock pointed out that writing takes the pressure off memorizing so that a person can think instead of having to focus on remembering what he had just thought about. Havelock also mentioned that writing has allowed communication to shift from talking to writing, so that communication can travel farther and more accurately. He gave an example of a composer being able to write down his composition so that it can be reviewed, corrected, and revised. If that composition is written, it can be saved and given to future generations exactly as it was written instead of being changed as it is spread by word of mouth. I believe this example sums up the truth of how writing has actually helped improve human thinking and advancement of human knowledge.
-ANDREW SY
 
Heim's view seems to come closer to Havelock's because Heim is intrigued with the idea of words as a poetic rendition of our thoughts. Heim indicates that words are created and destroyed to find the equilibrium in the thought that needs to be expressed. This conforms to Havelock's idea that we are verbal creatures first where our thoughts are first indicated by our speech. This contrasts with Scribner and Cole who say that the uses of writing was done first and foremost for two main functions: memory and communication. In their view these functions precede whatever else is needed for writing which is what they discovered in their analysis of the Vai script. They showed that the language was not done for anything poetic but for simple tasks of communication and record keeping. Heim states, "Words become highlighted, vanish at the push of a button, then reappear instantly at will." This metaphoric take of playing with writing on the screen seems to indicate a need to make the writing correct, a need for an abstraction in putting ones thoughts into a written message. As I write this passage shuffling text I sense the same need to clearly explicate my thoughts.
-KESAVA YERRA

 I think that Heim’s view of the effects of writing technology aligns more closely to Havelock’s because Heim talks about the profound advancements that the alphabet brought.  He says the alphabet “increased fluency of recognition” and removed “the pressure to memorize”.  Havelock also states that the introduction of the alphabet substituted “the eye for the ear in the reception of communication”, and lastly, he argues that the alphabet brought about a more personal relationship between what was being communicated and the person doing the communicating.  On the other hand, Scribner and Cole state the following: “Nothing in our data would support the statement quoted earlier that reading and writing entail fundamental ‘cognitive restructurings’ that control intellectual performance in all domains”.  Although the length of Heim’s excerpt doesn’t necessarily allow him to disagree or disagree with Scribner and Cole’s argument, he seems to have a much more optimistic outlook on communications societal and mental effects.  However, like Havelock, Heim argues that a new form of communicating brought about monumental change in the way people communicate.  They both agree that the alphabet and accelerated word-processing, respectively, resulted in more efficient ways of communicating.  Therefore, I think Heim’s argument coincides more clearly with Havelock’s argument.
-RYAN HANLON
 
 
Scribner and Cole:

Heim's view comes closer to Scribner and Cole’s. Heim writes that word-processing systems "encourage on-screen thinking." This medium does in fact change how our thoughts are expressed but not how our thoughts are processed in the mind. Havelock writes of this incredible shift in the ability of the human mind to process information with the introduction of the alphabet. He claimed that "alphabetic literacy substitute the abstract for the concrete" (132).  It is difficult to parallel the rise of word-processing systems with the development of the alphabet. Alphabetic literacy had to develop its own phonetic foundation whereas word-processing follows the general foundation of hand-writing. Immediacy has changed how people express themselves. But Scribner and Cole's experiment with Vai literates and Arabic literates demonstrates that writing allows for societies to perform certain functions but does not drastically change how the human mind thinks. The reading comprehension and type of memorization differed across the groups. However, the information itself was not processed drastically different in each group. Havelock's article concludes that the human mind process changed due to the shift from oral to writing. But Heim and Scribner and Cole address more subtle shifts, resulting in arguments that are more closely aligned.
- CHENG, LILY CHAN