Two or three years ago I began talking about a "shifting semiosis" and I felt like Cassandra - although I wasn't prophesying a disastrous war, but rather a massive, fascinating and largely positive change. It was clear to me that we were at the start of a change in the way we humans signify meaning that will dwarf the printing press, audio & visual recording, and mass media combined. And now, in my daily newspaper, I find that my intuitive recognition is being substantiated. <br /> <br /> I read an article, found at http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thesta in the Toronto Star<a href="http://, www.thestar.com">, www.thestar.com</a> - called <span style="font-style:italic;">Old Idea, New Media</span>. The subheading asks this provocative question - <br /> <blockquote>Are you reading this text on paper, or as pixels? Does it matter? Some think not.<br /> <br /> As newspapers realize that they sell content, not ink, their future is taking hold.</blockquote><br /> I put down my paper and went immediately to my computer and read the same story in pixels, because I wanted to share this increasingly undeniable change. I wanted to blog about it.<br /> <br /> The article is about how newspapers are still remarkably profitable (many at 20% a year!)about how newspapers are a natural fit as a web portal, about how the papers' managers are finally beginning to realize that, <span style="font-style:italic;">and</span> about how transportable digital downloads are coming. I picture these as much like ipods in function but looking more like paper or a book.<br /> <br /> So, yes, our semiosis <span style="font-style:italic;">is</span> shifting! Not that I expect any more attention to my message than Cassandra got to hers. (In some ways I wish I was more like Paul Revere;->)<br /> <br /> The papragraph that electrified me, which follows, clearly indicates that the web is a platform, not a medium.<br /> <blockquote>A newspaper of the future might employ web editors for each section of the paper whose task would be to rapidly accumulate multimedia content relevant to each story. Articles posted on reformulated newspaper sites will be accompanied by related photos, audio and video clips, speech transcripts, discussion forums and archival images from the CBC, CPAC, C-SPAN, the National Film Board and other partners.</blockquote><br /> Such wonders we are seeing as human communication continues its development <br /> <ul><li>from speech and drawings <br /> <li>to (chirographic) writing <br /> <li>to printed text and engravings <br /> <li>to photography, audio recording, film, & television</li></ul><br /> and now to versions of all of these available asynchronously on the World Wide Web!

I am preparing myself for a course I'm teaching on Oral Rhetoric - starting in January - by doing some reflective thinking and writing. I wrote up a declaration of my framework beliefs which I may post in the Elgg Owned Community that I have set up, along with a Wikispaces course wiki. I would appreciate any comments or suggestions. My imagined audience is my students, whom I want to encourage to think and blog in response.

Here is my declaration:

Meaning has an emotional dimension that is more powerfully present in the oral-aural medium than in the written/printed medium. The visual can add a lot, but try the simple test of listening to the sound of a TV show or movie without the visuals and then watching the visuals while muting the sound. I suspect that you will find that the oral-aural carries more meaning than simply the visual without sound. Try it and see if you agree or disagree and figure out why - a good topic for a blog post.

While I argue that sound carries a profound amount of the meaning, especially the emotional content, I also acknowledge that the visual can magnify that meaning. There are gestures and facial expressions that can contradict, undermine, or intensify the meaning. I think of Colin Powell in the United Nations holding up the small bottle that was supposed to contain anthrax. He communicated most powerfully with that gesture. I also think of Jon Stewart's ability to play word/emotional games combined with his very expressive grimaces - his ability to communicate has made him a very powerful person. And I think of some (often TV news) interviewers when they get raw and real emotion from the person they're interviewing we are riveted with an almost voyeuristic fervour.

However we "read", sound, especially the complex messages in the voice, virtually unconsciously. It was the first sense we experienced, while we were still in our mothers' wombs, and because of that we are "blind" to it. Music and voice, indeed, any sounds are, in my opinion, (another good blog topic) the most affective and effective conveyers of emotional meaning. Voices carry many and complex messages, which we react to. But nearly everyone finds it terribly difficult to analyze the actual words as they are spoken rather than simply react to the emotional messages carried in the voice's tone and timbre.

Yet our responses to the oral-aural have become more sophisticated over the last 100 or so years. We have been listening to all kinds of music, usually highly designed and worked over sounds, ever since recorded sound became common. Whether taught or not, we are able to hear all kinds of patterns and textures of emotion at a sophisticated but usually unconscious level. If you get a "fan" or an experienced and knowledgeable listener to tell you what they hear in a recording, they would be able to name and comment on a number of different aspects. In comparison, an uninterested or naive listener is likely to mainly mention the feelings the voice or music have evoked in them. Ask your friends and see if your experience matches my assumptions.

The more you are actively aware of what your responses are when you are a listener, and analyze why you respond that way, the more you will be able to successfully predict what will work with an audience when you are speaking. Just as with writing, the more you attend to the spoken word, the more you will understand how to speak.

It is essential to think of your audience while you try to communicate with them. (Unless, of course, you are with your 'buds' and already know their thinking patterns, prejudices and nuances.)

I don't mean that you will all learn to hear the same elements and become the same kinds of speakers when you speak to the same audiences. Just as in your writing,your very different life experiences and knowledge shapes your 'voices'. You will all have your own speaking and communicating styles.

You have to find and develop your very own voice; you have to make use of your strengths, and learn how to turn your weaknesses into advantages. The soft-spoken person who speaks shyly and almost whispers, but can be clearly heard, may make more of an impression than the person with a smooth delivery who doesn't actually pay attention to the meanings of the words and simply pronounces their sounds. The person with an accent may have the advantages of Demosthenes, an ancient Greek teacher of rhetoric who had a speech impediment. "To improve his elocution, he talked with pebbles in his mouth and recited verses while running along the seashore over the roar of the waves." (http://www.demosthenes.com/) You may have to try harder, but you will also be more conscious of what happens when you speak. One of the best student presentations I experienced last term was a young woman with a fairly strong accent, who actually spoke more slowly, clearly, and effectively when she was formally presenting then when she was just talking.

You are responsible for the development of your own speaking voice. When you tell your story, in your own voice, people will listen. When you tell your story in your own voice, using current and appropriate rhetorical skills, people will listen and respond. Developing your own voice and learning how to shape your message for a variety of audiences in a number of media is the aim of this course.