The distinction between oral and literate modes of expression, as elaborated in Walter J. Ong's Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (1982), concerns not merely the medium of transmission but the underlying cognitive and syntactic structures that organise thought. Oral discourse—shaped by the constraints of memory and real-time performance—exhibits characteristic markers: additive syntax, formulaic aggregation, redundancy, participatory engagement, and situational concreteness. Literate discourse, by contrast, exploits the affordances of writing (revisability, spatial arrangement, persistent reference) to achieve subordinative complexity, analytic precision, and directed energy.
A crucial clarification: the "objective distance" characteristic of literate register is a syntactic stance—a matter of how clauses relate and how agency is distributed—not an invitation to passive constructions, vague abstraction, or rhetorical anaemia. The literate register achieves its effects through structural sophistication, not by evacuating vitality. A sentence can embed multiple subordinate clauses while still driving forward with strong verbs and concrete particulars. Indeed, the compression that subordination enables intensifies energy rather than dissipating it; what oral discourse achieves through accumulation, literate discourse achieves through density and precision.
The transformation of a given text from higher to lower orality is thus not a matter of draining life from prose but of restructuring how that life moves: from the serial momentum of "and... and... and" to the directed force of embedded relationships, from formulaic approximation to exact statement, from diffuse repetition to single, load-bearing assertions.
The following taxonomy, derived from Ong's enumeration in "Some Psychodynamics of Orality," provides the structural basis for modulation:
| Oral Marker | Description | Literate Counterpart |
|---|---|---|
| Additive syntax | Clauses joined by coordination (and, then, so) | Subordinative syntax via relative pronouns, participial phrases, and embedding |
| Aggregative structure | Stock phrases, epithets, formulaic groupings | Analytic decomposition into precise, novel formulations |
| Redundancy | Repetition for mnemonic reinforcement | Economy; each element carries non-redundant information |
| Participatory engagement | Direct address, first/second person, imperatives | Adjusted distance; agency redistributed but not necessarily effaced |
| Situational grounding | Concrete, context-bound reference | Generalisation where appropriate; concrete specificity retained where it sharpens |
| Agonistic tone | Adversarial, interpersonal engagement | Neutral stance; energy redirected into precision rather than eliminated |
| Homeostatic focus | Immediate relevance, present-tense orientation | Systematic organisation; temporal and logical subordination |
Note that the literate counterparts describe structural features, not stylistic mandates. "Economy" does not mean "vagueness"; "adjusted distance" does not mean "passive and impersonal"; "generalisation" does not mean "abstraction for its own sake." The techniques enable precision and force—whether they produce these depends on execution.
Register transformation operates in service of the text's communicative function, not as an end in itself. Before applying transformations, identify what the text must accomplish and which features are load-bearing for that purpose.
Relevant questions:
-
Is personal voice constitutive of the genre? Some communicative contexts require the author's presence as an evaluable agent (applications, pitches, personal essays, "About" pages). Effacing agency in such contexts undermines the text's function regardless of register gains.
-
Does the reader seek information or relationship? Texts oriented toward establishing trust, rapport, or authenticity tolerate less transformation than texts oriented toward conveying analysis or documentation.
-
What is the naturalness ceiling? Every genre has a formality threshold beyond which increased literariness reads as affected, evasive, or parodic. Institutional reports accommodate heavier transformation than personal correspondence; academic prose accommodates more than technical tutorials.
-
Is directness a virtue in this context? Some contexts reward economy and plain statement; circumlocution—even syntactically sophisticated circumlocution—degrades rather than elevates.
The transformation target is the highest-quality version of this text for its purpose, not the maximally literate version abstractly. A well-crafted application that retains first-person agency and direct motivation statements outperforms a heavily nominalised version that obscures the applicant behind process abstractions.
The oral-literate axis concerns syntax and cognitive mode. Vividness—the quality of prose that moves, specifies, and lands—is an orthogonal dimension. The two combine to produce four quadrants:
| Vivid | Dull | |
|---|---|---|
| Oral | Energetic speech; good storytelling | Rambling, cliché-ridden chatter |
| Literate | Precise, forceful formal prose | Bureaucratic sludge; academic grey |
The danger in register transformation is movement from the upper-left quadrant (vivid oral) to the lower-right (dull literate)—trading energy for structure and losing both. The goal is the upper-right: prose that exploits literate syntax to achieve greater precision and more concentrated force than oral discourse permits.
- Strong verbs: "surfaced," "deepened," "overturned," "cut," "drove"—not "involved," "facilitated," "produced," "utilised," "was conducted"
- Concrete specificity: Numbers, names, observable particulars—not "relevant metrics," "various factors," "appropriate measures"
- Directed momentum: Each clause advances; subordination compresses rather than dilutes
- Earned abstraction: General claims arise from and remain tethered to specific instances, not floating free as vague gestures
Dull literate prose results from treating transformation techniques as ends rather than means. The writer:
- Converts active verbs to nominalisations (good technique)
- But selects weak verbs to govern those nominalisations ("involved," "was undertaken")
- Removes concrete particulars (misapplied abstraction)
- Replaces them with vague placeholders ("relevant," "appropriate," "various")
- Produces syntactically correct, rhetorically dead prose
The solution is not to avoid transformation but to execute it with attention to what makes prose live: verb strength, concrete reference, and forward motion.
Each technique below includes the principle, a poor transformation (correct syntax, dead rhetoric), and a good transformation (correct syntax, alive rhetoric). The difference lies not in the technique's application but in the care taken with verb selection, specificity, and energy.
The most consequential transformation involves replacing additive coordination with hierarchical embedding. Oral syntax chains independent clauses; literate syntax nests dependent structures within matrix clauses.
Oral:
I moved to London and I started working at a startup and I learned a lot about infrastructure.
Poor transformation:
The move to London, which coincided with employment at a startup, occasioned substantial learning in infrastructure.
What went wrong: "Coincided with" destroys the causal chain (the move was for the job). "Occasioned substantial learning" is pompous and vague. The original's energy has been evacuated.
Good transformation:
A startup role brought me to London, where the work deepened my grasp of infrastructure.
What works: Causality preserved (role → move). Strong verbs ("brought," "deepened"). The subordinate clause carries real information. Energy compressed rather than dissipated.
The subordinative structure is achieved through:
- Relative clauses (which, whose, where, in which)
- Participial phrases (having completed, driven by, resulting in)
- Nominalisation of verbal actions (used sparingly, governed by strong verbs)
- Prepositional embedding (in the course of, through which)
Nominalisation—the conversion of verbs and adjectives into noun phrases—shifts focus from agents to processes. Used well, it compresses; used poorly, it bloats.
Oral:
I analyse data because I want to find patterns.
Poor transformation:
The analysis of data serves the identification of underlying patterns.
What went wrong: "Serves" is a weak verb linking two nominalisations. The sentence is longer than the original and says less.
Good transformation:
Data analysis surfaces patterns that direct observation would miss.
What works: One nominalisation ("data analysis"), governed by a strong verb ("surfaces"). The second clause adds genuine information. Shorter than the poor version, more precise than the original.
The principle: nominalise to compress, not to obscure agency. Each nominalisation should be governed by a verb that does real work.
Oral discourse foregrounds human agents (I, you, we); literate discourse can redistribute agency without eliminating it. The goal is appropriate distance, not automatic impersonality.
Oral:
I built this system to help users find what they need.
Poor transformation:
The system's architecture facilitates efficient retrieval of relevant material.
What went wrong: "Facilitates" is weak. "Efficient retrieval of relevant material" is vague where the original was concrete ("find what they need").
Good transformation:
The system surfaces relevant material in seconds, guiding users directly to what they need.
What works: The system becomes agent (appropriate for describing its function). Strong verbs ("surfaces," "guiding"). Concrete specificity ("in seconds"). Preserves the user-oriented framing.
Note: Whether to retain first-person agency depends on genre (see "Communicative Purpose as Constraint"). In contexts requiring personal voice, keep "I built"; adjust syntax elsewhere.
Ong characterises oral discourse as "empathetic and participatory rather than objectively distanced." The literate register adjusts the reader-writer relationship:
| Oral Marker | Transformation Strategy |
|---|---|
| Direct address (you) | Specific reference (the reader, users) or omission |
| Rhetorical questions | Declarative restatement of the implicit claim |
| Imperatives (consider, note that) | Indicative constructions (it is worth noting) or direct assertion |
| First person (I think) | Hedged assertion (the evidence suggests) or unhedged claim where warranted |
| Informal discourse markers (well, so, anyway) | Formal connectives (consequently, moreover) or omission |
The adjustment should sharpen, not dull. "Consider the implications" (oral) becomes "The implications are significant" (weak literate) or "The implications reshape how we understand X" (strong literate).
Oral cultures, per Ong, remain "close to the human lifeworld"—concepts anchored in situational particulars. Literate discourse can generalise—but generalisation should increase precision, not replace concrete vagueness with abstract vagueness.
Oral:
When I started my blog, I would wake up early, check what papers had come out, pick the interesting ones, and write about them before work.
Poor transformation:
The curation process involved systematic monitoring of recent literature, selection according to criteria of significance, and composition within constrained timeframes.
What went wrong: "Involved" is a dead verb. "Criteria of significance" and "constrained timeframes" are vaguer than the original's concrete particulars.
Good transformation:
Each morning before work, I scanned overnight publications, identified what warranted attention, and drafted commentary under deadline.
What works: Retains concrete temporal grounding ("each morning before work"). Strong verbs throughout ("scanned," "identified," "drafted"). The generalisation is from specific routine to repeated practice, not from concrete to vague.
The principle: abstract from episode to pattern, not from specific to empty.
Oral redundancy serves mnemonic function; written text, being persistent and revisitable, requires no such reinforcement. Each clause should advance without recapitulation.
Oral:
The results were surprising. We didn't expect these results. The surprising nature of what we found made us reconsider our assumptions.
Poor transformation:
The unexpected results prompted reconsideration of prior assumptions.
What went wrong: Technically correct but limp. "Prompted reconsideration" is weak; "prior assumptions" is padding.
Good transformation:
What we found overturned assumptions we had carried into the study.
What works: "Overturned" is strong and specific—it conveys more than "prompted reconsideration." "Carried into the study" is more concrete than "prior." Shorter, more forceful, more precise.
Oral tradition relies on "ready-made formulaic expressions" (Ong) that chunk information into memorable units. Literate style disaggregates these—but must replace them with actual content, not literate-sounding placeholders.
Oral/Formulaic:
At the end of the day, it's a game-changer that moves the needle.
Poor transformation:
The intervention produces measurable effects on the relevant metrics.
What went wrong: "Relevant metrics" is exactly as vague as "moves the needle." The sentence has merely traded oral cliché for literate cliché.
Good transformation:
The change cut processing time by half and reduced error rates to under 2%.
What works: Concrete specifics replace both oral and literate vagueness. Strong verb ("cut"). The reader learns something.
The principle: formulaic expressions gesture at meaning; their literate replacement should deliver that meaning. If you cannot specify what "moves the needle" actually means, the problem is not register but substance.
The following failure modes produce either caricature or sludge. Their presence indicates that transformation has gone wrong:
-
Nominalisation pile-up: Multiple nominalised constructions within a single clause produce density without clarity. Limit to one per clause unless the domain specifically requires noun-heavy technical description.
-
Circumlocution: If transformation increases word count while decreasing clarity or specificity, the transformation has failed. Brevity and subordination are compatible; verbosity signals loss of control.
-
Uniform application: Not every sentence requires intervention. Variation in register across sentences is natural; applying maximal transformation to every clause produces monotonous, airless prose.
-
Density fetishism: Maximising subordinate clauses per sentence as an end in itself. Complex syntax should serve logical articulation, not perform intellectual identity.
-
Weak verb syndrome: Defaulting to "involved," "facilitated," "produced," "prompted," "utilised," "was conducted," "was undertaken" when stronger verbs exist. These verbs do no work; they merely connect nominalisations. Prefer verbs that specify action: "cut," "surfaced," "deepened," "overturned," "drove," "exposed."
-
Vague abstraction: Replacing concrete oral clichés with equally empty literate placeholders. "Moves the needle" → "produces effects on relevant metrics" is not progress. If you cannot specify, the problem is knowledge, not register.
-
Energy evacuation: Draining momentum from sentences such that the literate version is not merely more formal but less alive. Every transformation should be tested: does this sentence still move?
-
Gratuitous Latinate substitution: Replacement of common words (get, use, show, help) with formal synonyms (obtain, utilise, demonstrate, facilitate) without corresponding gain in precision. The literate register is not defined by vocabulary pretension.
-
Purpose-blind agency effacement: Removing the author from texts whose function depends on authorial presence. The question is not can agency be effaced but should it be, given what the text must do.
-
Achievement exhibition: Presenting credentials, metrics, or affiliations as lists rather than as elements of narrative. The structure implies "be impressed" rather than "understand how this developed."
-
Affect evacuation: Systematically replacing emotional or motivational statements with abstract descriptions, such that the text contains no trace of the author's felt experience. Some affective presence is appropriate even in formal registers.
-
Hollow abstraction: Abstraction should increase analytical precision. Formulations that gesture at meaning without delivering it ("represents a continuation of this trajectory," "aligns with broader objectives") are evasions, not elevations.
When output exhibits these patterns, the solution is not to abandon transformation but to execute it better: find the strong verb, supply the concrete particular, preserve the energy.
The oral-literate distinction is orthogonal to interpersonal warmth. Oral discourse achieves connection through participatory engagement, concrete specificity, and agentive presence; literate discourse can achieve connection through precision, earned authority, and glimpses of the author's felt relationship to the material. But it does not do so automatically.
Unmodulated application of literariness techniques produces prose that is syntactically sophisticated but emotionally frigid—or worse, prose that reads as intellectual performance rather than genuine communication.
Pretentious prose is not merely prose that uses complex syntax or abstract vocabulary; it is prose in which the display of capability overshadows the transmission of meaning. Characteristic markers:
-
Achievement-stacking without narrative: Lists of credentials, metrics, or affiliations presented as evidence rather than embedded in story. The reader perceives exhibition rather than explanation.
-
Conceptual substitution for emotional statement: Replacing direct expression of attitude ("I enjoyed," "I found it exciting") with abstracted descriptions ("proved generative," "demonstrated the viability of"). The original carried affect; the replacement carries only cognition.
-
Lexical elevation without precision gain: Selecting vocabulary that signals erudition rather than achieving specificity. "Traces to formative experience" says nothing that "started when" does not, but announces the writer's self-image.
-
Absence of concession or vulnerability: Prose that presents the author as uniformly accomplished, methodical, and correct. Human communication typically involves acknowledgment of uncertainty, limitation, or development over time; its absence reads as posturing.
To maintain warmth while achieving literate register:
-
Embed achievements in narrative: Rather than listing metrics, show them functioning within a story of action and consequence. "Several hundred subscribers" lands differently when it arrives as outcome of described effort rather than as credential assertion.
-
Preserve selective emotional directness: Not all affect need be abstracted. Statements of motivation, enjoyment, or curiosity often benefit from first-person, present-tense, verbal expression: "I want," "I enjoyed," "I'm curious about." These anchor the literate superstructure in human intention.
-
Vary sentence density: Alternate between complex subordinated structures and short declarative sentences. The contrast prevents monotony and allows key points to land with force.
-
Audit vocabulary for necessity: For each elevated term, ask whether a simpler word would sacrifice precision. If not, use the simpler word. Reserve technical or Latinate vocabulary for contexts where it genuinely compresses or clarifies.
-
Include concessive gestures: Acknowledge limitations, uncertainties, or developmental arcs. "I didn't know X at the time" or "this approach has tradeoffs" humanises the author and signals intellectual honesty rather than performance.
The target is prose that a thoughtful reader would describe as clear, capable, and human—not as impressive or sophisticated. If the dominant impression is of the author's intelligence rather than the content's substance, the transformation has failed.
Beyond sentence-level transformation, document-level organisation distinguishes oral from literate modes.
Literate documents employ explicit metadiscourse to indicate structure:
- Section headings that categorise content
- Topic sentences that announce paragraph function
- Transitional phrases that mark logical relations between sections
- Cataphoric reference (the following section addresses, as demonstrated below)
Oral narrative tends toward chronological, left-to-right disclosure; literate exposition may front-load abstraction (thesis, framework, methodology) before instantiation.
Reference to external sources—characteristic of literate scholarship—introduces hierarchical embedding at the discourse level: the present text positions itself within a network of prior texts, a structure unavailable to purely oral transmission.
The techniques enumerated above admit of degree. Full application produces prose suitable for academic publication or institutional documentation; partial application yields intermediate registers appropriate to technical blogging or professional communication.
A calibrated approach might:
- Apply nominalisation and subordination selectively, preserving verbal directness where it serves
- Retain first-person reference where authorial stance is relevant or genre-required
- Balance abstraction with concrete instantiation for accessibility
- Preserve energy above all—no transformation is worthwhile if it deadens the prose
The objective is not the elimination of oral residue—Ong notes that "secondary orality" persists even in highly literate contexts—but the deliberate modulation of register to suit purpose and audience, executed with craft.
| Dimension | High Orality | Low Orality (Done Well) |
|---|---|---|
| Syntax | Coordination, parataxis | Subordination, hypotaxis |
| Agency | Explicit human agents | Redistributed appropriately; not automatically effaced |
| Engagement | Direct address, participation | Adjusted distance; precision, not coldness |
| Reference | Concrete, situational | Concrete and general; specific, not vague |
| Redundancy | Mnemonic repetition | Economy; each clause advances |
| Formulaicity | Stock phrases, idioms | Precise statement of actual meaning |
| Structure | Additive, chronological | Hierarchical, logical |
| Energy | Accumulative, serial | Compressed, directed |
Before accepting a transformed passage, verify:
- Verb audit: Are the main verbs strong and specific? Or have "involved," "facilitated," "produced," and "utilised" crept in?
- Specificity check: Has concrete content been replaced with vague placeholders ("relevant," "appropriate," "various")?
- Energy test: Does the passage still move? Read it aloud—does it drive forward or sag?
- Purpose alignment: Does the register suit the genre? Has agency been preserved where the text requires it?
- Warmth audit: Is there any trace of human presence, or has the author vanished behind abstractions?
- Length comparison: Is the transformed version longer? If so, does the additional length purchase precision, or merely bloat?
If any check fails, revise—not by abandoning the transformation but by executing it with greater care.
Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Routledge, 1982.
Havelock, Eric A. The Muse Learns to Write: Reflections on Orality and Literacy from Antiquity to the Present. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.
Goody, Jack. The Interface Between the Written and the Oral. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.