Mammal communications — Druid Life

On Sunday, a heavy horse pressed his nose against the palm of my hand, and snuffled a bit. It was a moment that I found both affecting and affirming. Mammals do a lot of communicating through touch, and use touch as a part of social bonding. Most mammals are willing to touch and be touched […]

via Mammal communications — Druid Life

Orality and Literacy DISTINCTION, not metamorphosis

By Jence Carlo Servano and Ardeth Sinamban

Linguistics has been sounding a faint alarm. The human tongue and hand have been in quite a combat as millenials and traditionalists flag out their linguistic methods to be more effective than the other. Other intellects have even argued that writing has “changed” or “taken over” orality, and that it should be already, with what of the modern human intellect. However, Ferdinand de Saussure commented that: writing has “usefulness, shortcomings and dangers”, but he saw writing as a complement to verbal speech, not a transformer of it.

To really think about it though, it already seems pretty obvious that orality and literacy are different. According to Ong’s Orality and Literacy, there are roughly 3000 languages spoken today to which only 78 have a literature. Writing also extends word resources: English has more than 1.5million words, and most oral dialects have only several thousand words. In short, writing implies some orality in a culture, orality does not imply writing.

Orality was and is mainly used by the tradional oral cultures, and they depend mostly in their memories. They must invest greatly in repeating and memorizing which they arduously learned in years. Indeed to remember things one should established a high set of conservative mind. At the time writing was invented, it gave humans access to limitless memory. It’s not aiming to annihilate oral cultures but because it’s a human need. To know more and learn more. What’s written down, that idea can now last without being forgotten. No need of vivid repeating and memorizing, but making people learn new things faster and share more information without forgetting. With this, intellects and experts of the modern world have commended writing to be used by schools, millenials, and society of the modern world since it is proven to be significantly more convenient, appropriate, and advantageous compared to the acquirements or erudition of orality. However, there still are oral cultures who stood firm in their cultural linguistic ways of learning despite the “evolution” of the modern society.

To sum things up, even with how quite evident it is to see that writing is easier when it comes to studying, and that millenials and majority of the people in the world today do use literacy or writing over orality, that does not imply that it has totally taken over or metamorphosized orality. There are oral cultures still existing that keep faith to their traidtion linguistic method.



Ong, W. J., & Hartley, J. (2013). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group

Retrieved from


ORALITY VS LITERACY : A Fight for Equality


By: Glannerry Kate Salarza and Reyban Sabordo


“No man is an island”

Perhaps, this is one of the most factual aphorisms I have encountered in my entire existence here on Earth. Indeed, no one and nothing could survive without the assistance of the other.

Now, how is this related to orality and literacy?

Throughout the years, these two cultures, oral and literate, have paved their way to get a spot in the realms of language and communication.

Orality, by definition, is a medium of language originated long before chirography was unraveled, whereas people communicate personally. Long ago, since there are no concrete basis or representations, the language our ancestors used was just merely vague sounds. In fact, it doesn’t matter even though they vary with the sounds as long as they understand each other. As a result of the face-to-face connection, conversations tend to be more additive, aggregative, redundant, conservative, close to the human world, agnostically-toned, empathetic and participatory, homeostatic, and situational, than usual.

Literacy, on the flip side, is one aid of connecting with other people in a chirographic demeanor. As years go by, humanity has learned and embraced the essence of communication through written letters, whereas they have come up with an idea to write all the things they want to say to the other person in a sheet of paper. However, in the fast-pacing world of today’s generation, technology has become powerful and influential to the people, especially the millennials. Today, technology has been a wide medium of communication. From letters, people can now communicate through text messaging, chat, e-mail, and the like. Through literate culture, conversations tend to be more analytic, copious, traditionalist, objectively distant, and abstract, compared to oral.

Though they vary in a lot of aspects, primary oral and literate culture have become “best buds” in the given field. Having being said that no one and nothing could succeed alone, we believe that orality and literacy are the support systems of each other. Thus, we do not consider orality as superior or inferior than literacy and vice versa. In lieu, we treat them just the same as a “win-win situation”. These two are interconnected cultures, meaning that they both are dependent with each other. Obviously, you cannot enjoy the zenith level of effectivity of each one by utilizing it individually. Orality and literacy may differ in model and medium of communication, but allowing them to work as one will be a perfect combo.

Hence, orality and literacy should be inseparable, and we should always bear in mind that every person or everything has its own unique trait. We are all different from each other, but that doesn’t mean that one is superior or inferior than the other. Never.




Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen. Retrieved from:

Photo References:

Croman, J. (2017).



Kariton Klasrum Project: Appreciation of Oral and Literary Convergence

By: Donovan Aguilos, Marvin John Saijo, and Erika Xim Paola Santos

“You are the change that you dream as I am the change that I dream and collectively we are the change that this world needs to be.” –Efren Peñaflorida (Founder Kariton Klasrum Program; CNN 2009 Hero of the Year).

While some of us were enjoying the luxury of life, CNN 2009 Hero of the Year Efren Peñaflorida roamed around the streets of Cavite with his kariton delivering free education to all street children. Peñaflorida wasn’t just a typical hero. Since 1997, this ‘slumdog educator’ and more than 12, 000 teenage volunteers have taught basic reading and writing skills to more than 1, 800 children living on the streets and consequently bringing global fame to this Kariton Klasrum Project. These pushcarts were stocked with school materials and even folding tables and chairs. The volunteers then, create school settings in locations wherever the children were.

On the other hand, “How do orality and literacy impact the Kariton Klasrum Program?” The dialogic relationship between these two influences its mission which was clearly focused on developing life and civic skills necessary in producing lifelong learners.


In the project, orality as speech communication was used in leisure activities such as games and storytelling for the children to enjoy learning instead of just immersing them in books. However, the literary culture was observed through different literacy and numerical assessments. There was equilibrium in the teaching methods wherein both oral and literary cultures are involved.


With this teaching method, it showed efficacy based on the results of street children’s learning performance. This only showed that classes weren’t really supposed to be tedious by reading books and copying notes, but it should also engage students in the aforementioned leisure activities. Through these, both mentors and students are engaged in a mutual understanding of the topics by presenting activities that do not deviate from the lessons.

Furthermore, the project promotes the understanding that each student has different learning capabilities, since each of them have different upbringings, and the mentors have to simply put themselves into their position to relay the information in a manner that a child of a certain age group can retain, and make it more comprehensive and enjoyable among the street children.

The study of proper treatment on our thought processes and social structures can develop sustainable teaching strategies which can encourage even the lost street children to go back to the walls of proper education. It is in the appreciation of the convergence of oral and literary cultures we are able to innovate and uplift the value of Philippine education and perhaps envision “Education for All” in a different perspective.

“Before, they saw [a pushcart] as a symbol of poverty, but now they see a pushcart as a symbol of hope.” -Peñaflorida

Askew, L and Beger, D. (2010). Filipinos embrace Hero of the Year, ‘pushcart classrooms’ for poor. Retrieved from

Postigo, N. (2017). Efren Peñaflorida of ‘pushcart classroom’.  Retrieved from

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2015). Promising EFA practices in the Asia Pacific. The Philippines: Kariton klasrum. Retrieved from:

Photo References:

Corpuz, J. (2010). Efren Peñaflorida aka kariton kid [Online Image]. Retrieved from

Dennis, M. (2011). Karitun klasrum [Online Image]. Retrieved from

Magbanua, D. (2009). CNN hero 2009: Efren Peñaflorida [Online Image]. Retrieved from

Push Cart Education [Online Image]. (2011). Retrieved from

The Nature of Vlogs and Blogs

By: Joshua Steven C. Rose and Socorro Bay H. Sarabia

Professor Walter J. Ong’s book entitled “Orality and Literacy” delved into different factors that may have somehow changed our thought processes, personality, and social structures that resulted to the development of speech and writing. Moreover, the book explained the vast differences and similarities between oral cultures and literate cultures, and even the relationship of their orality and literacy.

Reflecting on what we have learned from Professor Ong, my partner and I thought that we can relate his concept to the emergence of vlogs and their association to blogs. To start with, we all know that a blog also known as “weblog” is a discussion and informational website wherein authors share their knowledge about any topic they desire. It can also be a form of journal or diary. Moreover, the author of a blog is known as a “blogger”. Similarly, a vlog stands for “video blog” which is an enhanced type of blog and is a major trend in the present time that gives the “vlogger” the opportunity to post videos in his/her website about almost anything under the sun to give entertainment, share information, create tutorials and etc.

Both blogs and vlogs have the same objective and that is to communicate to their audience. Same is true with orality and literacy. The only difference is that one form requires a physical presence to be able to be created. Furthermore, although most of the time the receiver of information in these types of media is indefinite and not present, it can still be considered that both approaches are intersubjective. It is because vloggers and bloggers could only come up with their posts’ content if they share a similar consciousness about a certain topic with their target audience. They imagine a series of anticipated feedback in order for them to present information in their vlogs/blogs and for the content to be more interactive and closer to the human world. The emergence of these modern forms of communication gives us a unique view of the communication model that we know because while it uses a medium and reflects a one-way approach of communicating, it is still intersubjective.


Ong, Walter J. 1982. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen, pp. 171-173