Similarities and differences between oral and written communication have been a topic of interest in the educational field and related disciplines for many years. Several authors have described the relationship between these two modalities as a continuum of "orality" versus "literacy" (Rubin, 1987; Wallach, 1990; Westby, 1985). Tannen (1985) discusses a broader form of interactional continuum in terms of the relative focus of the speaker on conveying involvement versus information.
Facilitated communication adds an interesting piece to this puzzle in that as a form of "conversational literacy," it has characteristics typically assigned to both "oral" and "literate" ends of the continuum. Tables I and II describe characteristics of "orality" and "literacy" found in the literature, and whether or not they are also associated with facilitated communication.
CHARACTERISTICS OF SOURCE ASSOCIATED "ORALITY" WITH FC? ___________________________________________________ Used to regulate Westby, 1985; Yes social interactions Hildyard & Hidi, 1985; Chafe, 1985 Topic usually here and Westby; Rubin, 1987 ? now Familiar words; Westby; Rubin ? repetitive syntax and ideas Intonation and non- Westby; Tannen, 1985; No verbal cues important Hildyard & Hidi; for cohesion and Wallach, 1990 conveying meaning Usually has fragmented Chafe; Redeker, 1984 ? quality Rapid rate contributes Chafe No to dysfluencies Usual lack of Chafe depends on permanence device Listeners often give Redeker; Rubin Yes immediate feedback
As shown in Table I, characteristics of orality which are common in facilitated communication include its use in regulating social interactions and the opportunity for the listeners/ communication partners to give immediate feedback to the speaker. Clarification and rephrasing can occur "on-line."
Facilitated communication is unlike oral communication in that use of intonation and nonverbal cues is not integral to message construction. In fact, the facilitated communication user's affect and nonverbal signals may not be in agreement with the spelled message being constructed (Duchan, in press).
CHARACTERISTICS OF SOURCE ASSOCIATED "LITERACY" WITH FC? ___________________________________________________ Slow, deliberate Chafe, 1985; Rubin, Yes process because of 1987 mechanical constraints No need to worry about Chafe No keeping the listener's attention Often abstract or Westby, 1985 ? unfamiliar topics Concise use of syntax Westby ? and ideas Cohesion based on Westby; Tannen, 1985 ? linguistic markers Can be polished and Hildyard & Hidi, 1985; Yes and no perfected before it Chafe; Redeker, 1984; is read Rubin, 1987 Integrated quality Chafe; Redeker; ? Westby; Rubin Usually detached Chafe; Redeker; Yes and no spatially and Westby; Rubin temporally from readers Visually permanent Chafe; Redeker; depends on Rubin device
One characteristic of "literacy" listed in Table II which is problematic for facilitated communication users is the slowness of message construction. Although technological advances such as word prediction programs can reduce keystroke requirements, the process remains a painfully slow and inefficient means of communication (Higginbotham, Sonnenmeier & Duchan, in press.)
Another characteristic of literacy, visual permanence, is dependent on the facilitated communication device used. Messages constructed on letterboards are more "oral" in that they are immediately lost, whereas messages spelled on a computer or typewriter are more "literate" because of their visual permanence and availability for re-scanning. The spatial and temporal detachment of the message from the audience similarly varies depending on whether the message is part of an "on-line" conversation, or a message to be read to a different audience at a later time.
Many of the characteristics listed in Tables I and II, such as integrated versus fragmented quality, or use of linguistic markers for cohesion, cannot be affirmed or negated for facilitated communication at this time because so little is known about the process, language structures and interpersonal dynamics that surround the facilitated communication message construction. What is apparent is that facilitated communication blends oral and literate characteristics in a unique manner that requires further investigation.