The Unnatural Discourse

Sean Tucker
Professor Mary Boland
English 329
17 February 2009

One of the most obvious shifts in discourse I make is in writing. Here, in this format, I can take much more time to think about what I want to communicate. For example, I just stopped writing for about thirty seconds to take a sip of my coffee and to think about how I wanted to continue this discussion after writing the first two sentences. If I were to pause for only a fraction of that time in an oral conversation, the listener would assume I was finished with my turn in this discourse and he or she would take over the conversation. Maybe there would be questions or maybe the listener would change topic. However, here, I can pause and think or continue to write as my thoughts enter my mind and I translate these through my fingertips and on to this page. It seems that this is almost a selfish type of discussion in that I can control the topic, the voice, the organization, and the tempo of the words here and you, the reader, will keep following along, or not—I will never know. I can write short sentences. I can write sentences much longer with many more words than the previous sentence that go on for a few lines and cover more than one particular thought that enters my mind as I write these words for you to read or not to read—it is entirely up to you to continue if you wish to do so.
Indeed, this type of discourse seems unnatural compared to speech. For example, I would very rarely use the word indeed in a casual conversation. I would never think about punctuation, spelling, paragraphs, or grammar while I speak; but in writing, these issues and devices are constantly on my mind as I write. I use reference materials such as a dictionary and a thesaurus when writing, but I would never make use of these in oral discourse. In fact, I would not say, “make use of these in oral discourse,” when speaking—I would simply say, “I wouldn’t use them when talking.” While writing, I use all of the formalities and tools I was taught to use as a college student. These formalities sound dry and unnatural in speech in that they convey a sense of eruditeness and superiority that does not carry over well into conversation. This language could possibly make the listener feel like this speaker is talking down to him or her. There is something else required and expected in conversation that does not translate well into writing. Perhaps it is a sense of belonging to the same community or having a common point of reference. Either way, the discourse of writing in this format does not fit well with oral discourse.
Simply, speaking is more intuitive and instinctive and writing is something that is done consciously. We all learn to speak without explicit instruction. However, writing is taught to us formally by teachers. This is perhaps why writing is more unnatural sounding in everyday oral discourse and conversation. For example, a comparison could be made between a speech given wherein someone reads a prepared speech directly, word for word, from what he or she prepared as opposed to a speech made from a simple outline that leaves room for reading the audience’s reaction and making adjustments for that. The latter sounds much similar to everyday oral discourse where as the former sounds very formal and unnatural in oral discourse. Another example is when someone gives a PowerPoint presentation and reads exactly what they have written verbatim on the slide instead of using the slides as a tool to highlight important points, i.e. outline what it is that he or she is discussing. It comes down to making speech sound natural by leaving the written discourse on paper and using what we’ve all learned naturally in oral discourse.