Your last question implies that academic speaking could 'go beyond'
academic writing to recapture some of the richness of human experience
and communication. A large number of academics are trying to
re-introduce affect, ideology and voice into the written forms as well.
The crux seems to be a recognition that analytical, abstracted thought
is only a small portion of human discourse. The next step, as I see it,
is to develop sufficient understanding of the 'rest' of the discourse to
recognize it, evaluate it (by something sensible, not by naming it
'immature' or 'feminine' or 'demogogery'), and even teach it. That has
always been the aim of rhetorical theory, even while the theorists were
limiting themselves to the 'moral' discourse of analytical articulation.
dale