History and Communication: Oral vs Literate

To differentiate between oral tradition and written word, and to argue that both are valuable sources for historical understanding.

Writing emerged as a complement to orality, not as a clean divergence.

The boundaries between the oral and the written.

<p>It shows that the written word was subject to the judgments placed on the spoken word, reflecting the manner of speech.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>That written words have a sound basis, and that sound has come to produce words.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Because of their literate nature, which makes them lean towards the archival written evidence.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The oral tradition can be used as a valid source for historical understanding, and should not be seen as inferior to written sources.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>They seek to uplift the oral tradition as a valuable source of historical understanding.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>To consider whether oral traditions can be considered a form of literature.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It highlights the importance of understanding oral tradition as a unique kind of 'text', rather than simply labeling it as 'literature'.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Both oral and written sources have their shortcomings, but they can both be used by historians to understand the past.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>By contextualising speech, oral tradition, and the written word.</p> Signup and view all the answers