In response to the two class readings, “The Movement of Air, the Breath of Meaning: Aurality and Multimodal Composing” by Cynthia Selfe and “Composing for Sound: Sonic Rhetoric as Resonance,” by Mary Hocks and Michelle Comstock, I argue that the main and similar point both writings declare is that aurality, multimodal composing, and sound are diverse concepts enveloping a plethora of platforms of communication which differ between people, culture, and environment.
Aurality is a term that describes the complex interconnected ways of perception and receival of communicative practices by the ear through multiple sources such as speech, sound, or music. Aurality differs from compressive writing in that aurality emphasizes the importance of aural skills such as public speaking, oratorical debates, performing, and so forth rather than writing skills. Multimodality affects aurality in how it helps it be perceived but is mainly a term which encompasses the range of communication platforms like writing, print, images, sound, and speech. In “Aurality and Multimodal Composing” the author Cynthia Selfe clearly argues how while aurality is a concept opposite of writing, she is not arguing in it’s opposition but rather emphasizes it is important for teachers to teach both writing and aurality.
I found it very interesting when Selfe expanded on how aurality lost it’s space in university curriculum in the 18thand 19thcentury due to the demands of industrialization and colonization. With industrialization came the demands of developing a generation of working-class professionals; therefore, typing/writing skills were deemed more important than classical studies like Latin, poetry, and expressive aurality skills. Additionally, colonization by Eurocentric and American people tried to do away with cultural aurality in Latinos, African Americans, and Native Americans by putting children of these ethnic groups into schools where American and Eurocentric ideologies on English writing and comprehension were utilized to also erase their native tongues. Aurality in Native Americans, Latinos, and African Americans range from a plethora of mediums such as storytelling, music, cultural songs, and speaking rituals. I believe we see this happening even today, where bilingual education is constantly depleted by monolingualism in our American society. I agree with Selfe in that it is important to incorporate both writing skills and aurality skills since aurality allows a person to explore their communicative power through different cultural, environmental, and societal mediums.
In regard to Hocks and Comstock’s article on sound rhetoric, I agree with the fact that there are a multitudinous amount of sound mediums which should be further explored. Sound in it of itself is perceived differently by everyone, psychologically, physically, environmentally, socially, and culturally. What a musician with acute hearing may hear in a live orchestra concert may be different than a deaf person who perhaps perceives sound through their other senses. In this way, sonic literacy and sonic rhetoric encourages students and the general population to be educated in different sound mediums such as radio, podcasting, music, and other audio platforms. Sounds resonate differently to different people, whether it is on an emotional level or physical level.
Exploring sound platforms in conjunction with aurality and digital writing, allows for the perception of sound and aurality in different people to be united on different sound platforms.
Xochitl Santos Hernández 