Reading for meaning or de-coding? GENEVIEVE KOUTSOUMANIS explores phonics and whole language literacy approaches

 

Choosing the correct method(s) to teach children to read has been an ongoing controversial issue, with two opposing sides in the debate: phonics and whole language. However, the question we need to first consider is: what is reading?

Leipzig (2001) states that “[r]eading is a multifaceted process involving word recognition, comprehension, fluency, and motivation […]. It is a process in which we make meaning from print”. The areas in which reading instruction divides people regards to what extent we should focus on each of these elements of early literacy. Pro-phonics advocates believe in developing the child’s reading skills first, with a strong focus on coding (i.e. segmenting <cat> into the separate sounds /c/ + /a/ + /t/ before blending it back into the whole word). Whole word advocates believe in a strong focus on learning to make meaning and comprehend the text through learning to read whole words. Ultimately, both are needed for a child to be able to read efficiently, but the main debate is to what extent a certain method should be used. Keeping this in mind, I feel an area to focus on is how both sides of the debate help children to learn to comprehend texts as this is an essential part of reading.

In 2005, the UK Government introduced systematic synthetic phonics as the main method for teaching literacy. Children are expected to learn the phoneme- grapheme correspondence (the sound and letter relationships) before being able to segment and blend the sounds. The Department for Education (2013) supports phonics as the most effective way of teaching children to read. In addition, the Government stated that children who learn reading through phonics do better than those who were taught using alternative methods (DfE, 2013).

However, Torgerson et al. (2006) found that “while there is an association between synthetic phonics and reading accuracy, “the weight of evidence on reading comprehension was weak, and no significant effect was found for reading comprehension” (p.10). This suggests that while phonics can be useful for children to be able to understand the connection between sound and print, there is not much evidence to show that children understand what they read. Furthermore, Lyle (2014) criticised phonics for putting too much emphasis on decoding and stated that “when we read, we care about meaning and not decoding – we want to understand what we read, not merely to decode words.” (p.4).  Therefore, teaching children early on with phonics (and not emphasising that reading is meaningful) suggests a flaw in the current way phonics is taught, particularly as the phonics screening check is done without contextual clues, in isolation and with non-words (also known as pseudo/alien words like ‘tord’ and ‘geck’).

On the other hand, whole word is a method that puts a strong focus on words having meaning (Davis, 2014). Whole language supporters argue that “students in these classes do better on tests of reading comprehension, with no difference on skills tests” (Krashen 2002, p 2). Unlike phonics supporters, advocates of the whole language approach claim that children will gain phonological awareness as they go (Willingham, 2015). Whole language advocates could therefore argue that their approach not only teaches the skills of reading, but also supports comprehension.

However, the whole language approach does not provide the child with a strategy for unfamiliar or new words. Phonics, on the other hand, provides children with a strategy for figuring out new words and once a child has decoded a word, they can then use context clues to confirm what they have read. Therefore, whole word alone does not necessarily teach children effectively.

Dombey (1999) stated that “Phonics is an essential element in literacy learning, and for the vast majority of children it needs to be taught. But phonics on its own will not teach a child to read” (p.10). Phonics can be useful in helping children begin to decode texts and read the words but without sustained attention to meaning and comprehension, children will struggle to become competent readers. However this discussion is far from over and it will continue to engage and interest  those who search for the way forward in the teaching of literacy but for now, what do you think?

GENEVIEVE KOUTSOUMANIS, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester

References

Davis, A. (2014). To read or not to read: decoding Synthetic Phonics. Impact: Philosophical Perspectives on Education Policy, (No. 20).

Department for Education, (2013). Gov UK.

Dombey, H. (1999). Picking a path through the phonics minefield, Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 27:1, 12-21.

Krashen, S. (2002). Defending Whole Language: The Limits of Phonics Instruction and the Efficacy of Whole Language Instruction, Reading Improvement, 39 (1): 32-42.

Leipzig, D. H. (January, 2001). What is reading? WETA.

Lyle, S. (2014). The limits of phonics teaching. School Leadership Today, 5 (5).

Torgerson, C.J., Brooks, G. & Hall, J. (2006). A Systematic Review of the Research Literature on the Use of Phonics in the Teaching of Reading and Spelling. Nottingham: DfES Publications.

Willingham, D. (2015). And the victor in the reading wars is… Times Educational Supplement, pp. 24-28.

The part or the whole? SHANNAN KELLY explores the great literacy debate

How should we teach children literacy skills? Is there a definitive approach? With crowds of parents, politicians and PhD persons shouting for their favoured contestant like supporters at a boxing match, it is difficult to make sense of such a boisterous discussion.

Simply put, the argument centres over two main methods: synthetic phonics or the whole language / ‘look and say’ approaches to teaching literacy.

These latter approaches tackle learning to read by teaching children to recognise whole word shapes and through this method they learn to read by way of association. For instance, an image will be shown to a child and then they will be asked what the word underneath says. As a result of this, the children learn that the spoken word corresponds to particular word shapes.

The synthetic phonics approach works differently. It attempts to teach children the sounds (phonemes) that each letter (grapheme) makes. For example, they will be taught that <t> makes the sound /t/ as in <tan> or <pot>. As they learn the 44 phonemes of the English language they are also taught to ‘blend’ their sounds to make words. It is here where <t>, <a>, <n> will be formed into the single sound /tan/.

An enthusiastic promoter of this approach is the UK government’s Department for Education. In 2012 they dictated the implement of phonics screening checks in all primary schools within the UK for school pupils aged five to seven. Under their infallible authority they declared phonics as: “the most effective way of teaching young children to read” (Department for Education, 2013).

However, despite the governmental assurances, each adversary has its weaknesses and no punches have been pulled. For example Dombey (2009), previously argued against phonics to insist that “[t]he difference between spoken and written language, and between the processes involved in listening and reading, coupled with the overlap between decoding and comprehension (particularly noticeable in English with its problematic orthography) indicate that to teach children to read English effectively, we need to do more than teach them synthetic phonics and careful listening.”

Dombey points out two main things here. You need context to read a word correctly. For instance, the word  <read>  can be decoded in two different ways –  /ri:d/ and /rɛd/ dependant on context. And decoding and reading are not necessarily the same thing. A child may be able to decode a word correctly, just as I may be able to decode German, but that does not mean we would understand the words on the page. For this reason she calls to those in the middle for solutions.

In the middle there are those who call for an end to the tensions between the two sides, to put aside their differences and work together in order to resolve the debate and compromise with a balanced approach. Children should be taught the skills to decode words accurately and with understanding. In this idealist community, children would learn to decode the words phonetically, in context within interesting texts, and without the pressure of standardised tests.

The findings of the University of Sheffield (2006) suggest that this may not be the best solution. Their Systematic Review of Research Literature on the Use of Phonics in the Teaching of Reading and Spelling concluded that, “phonics instruction within a broad literacy curriculum appears to have a greater effect on children’s progress in reading than whole language or whole word approaches”. Therefore those who support phonics-only teaching, such as the Department of Education, and the Reading Reform Foundation may be correct in asserting that it is “the most effective for teaching everyone to read” (2016).

On the other hand ‘everyone’ may be a broad statement on the part of the RRF, because there are findings which suggest phonics teaching is not suitable for all students. Marshall (2013) has claimed that those with learning disabilities such as dyslexia, can “resist progress even under the highly intense and careful phonics teaching”. With this in mind perhaps it should be considered that ‘one size does not fit all’ and there that a mixed approach would be more beneficial to more children than the ultimatum of phonics or whole language.

The debate may continue as those passionate enough search for definitive answers but for the meantime: where do you stand?

SHANNAN KELLY, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Department of Education. (2013). Learning to read through phonics; Information for parents. 

Dombey, H. (2009). The simple view of reading. ITE English: Readings for discussion. 

Marshall, A. (2013). When Phonics Doesn’t Work. Davis Dyslexia Association International 

Reading Reform Foundation (2016)

Torgerson, C., Brooks, G., & Hall, J. (2006). A systematic review of the research literature on the use of phonics in the teaching of reading and spelling. Nottingham: DfES Publications.

Reading skills: a strict phonics diet or mixed methods? MELISSA TAYLOR investigates

The best approach to teaching children how to read has divided opinion. The government urge systematic synthetic phonics (SSP) as the “first, fast and only” way to teach reading (Rosen, 2014), so that phonics screening checks (tests) for five to seven year-olds have been compulsory in England since 2012. However, this ‘one size fits all’ approach “simply does not work” according to Sue Lyle (2014, p.68-74).

Children are taught the relationship between sounds (phonemes) and letters (grapheme) correspondence and how to blend sounds together .For example, “[shop] would be pronounced as /sh/-/o/-/p/ and then blend those phonemes to produce [ʃɒp]. This is the first important step in learning how to read and also to master spelling” (Education, 2012, p.6). The National Literacy Strategy (1998) states the English language has encoded “44 phonemes” which represent “26 letters” with “140 graphemes” throughout the written English language. Children are required to identify the phonemes and how they are “spelt, blended, segmented and manipulated”.

According to the former UK school’s minister Nick Gibb, evidence shows that systematic synthetic phonics “can boost children’s reading age by an average of 28 months above their chronological age by the time they turn seven” (Gibb, 2016). Dr Marlynne Grant, an educational psychologist conducted a longitudinal study of SSP (2014). Her research demonstrated SSP is an “excellent opportunity to drive up literacy standards. Children picked up reading quickly and become enthusiastic and confident readers”.

Despite this, opponents of SSP challenge this theory, arguing that phonics does not teach children how to read everything. Due to the complex, chaotic and irregular spelling system of English, problems will occur when it comes to reading for pleasure and taking meaning from a text. It is claimed that phonics does not take into consideration homographs (words that are spelled alike, but have distinct pronunciation) or homophones (words spelled differently but pronounced the same) or that combinations such as <th> can be voiced in the, this or that and also be voiceless as in thin, thank and thick. Also an <s> can be voiced, for instance, when in a verb, but voiceless in the noun form of the same word:

The cattery housed the lost cat (verb voiced)

Look at the house” (noun voiceless).

So the pronunciation can differ depending on the context.

Also, as Lyle, (2014, p.70) explains, “we read for meaning and decoding is not reading”. When confronted with a squiggle on paper, we look for meaning and understanding, usually by the context and pictures around the squiggle. The “first, fast and only” approach has led schools into using only decodable texts and preventing children being exposed to non-decodable texts (Rosen, 2014).

However phonics experts claim that English being too irregular to use phonics is just a myth. Hepplewhite (2007) for instances agrees that “the English Language is complicated with its spelling and pronunciation variations”. However, all this means is that “tweaking the pronunciation and examining the irregular parts need to be taught”.

The Department for Education is strongly encouraging schools to follow phonics programmes claiming “a single approach is more effective than mixing different methods”. They explain that “beginning and struggling readers need to understand that they do not have to know the meaning of every word they read. They need to be confident that when they encounter an unfamiliar word, they can decode it, even if it has no meaning to them” (Education, 2012, p.6).

Daniel Willingham (2015) claims that there is an “increasing evidence confirming that children learn better from different activities, depending on their strengths and interests they bring to learning. Therefore there should be a balanced literacy which is the best solution. The best cause of action is to react to the child with different strategies, not to make the child react to just one”.

In my opinion, SSP programmes were devised first to help children who could not grasp alphabetic codes, so it seems peculiar to apply this to everyone, especially when mixed methods worked. I am not anti-phonics, although I do agree it should be used as a method amongst other methods. Fixating on phonics has caused schools to overlook the significance of reading for meaning and pleasure. I do not think phonics alone equips children with these crucial, life skills.

MELISSA TAYLOR, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Davis, A. (2014). To read or not to read: decoding Synthetic Phonics. Impact: Philosophical Perspectives on Education Policy (No. 20).

Dept for Education (2014, June). National curriculum in England: English programs of study. 

Dept for Education (2015, March). Reading: the next steps. Supporting higher education in schools

Dept for Education (2012). The Importance of Phonics: Securing Confident Reading.

Gibb, N. (2014, 16 June). Phonics tests show progressive teaching is doomed to failure. The Telegraph.

Grant, D. M. (2014). Longitudinal Study from Reception to Year 2 (2010-2013). The Effects of a Systematic Synthetic Phonics Program on Reading, Writing and Spelling, 2-24.

Lyle, S. (2014). The limits of phonics teaching. School leadership today 5, pp. 68-74.

Rosen, M. (2014). Teaching phonics ‘first, fast and only’ is an absurdity’ Teach Reading and Writing.

Willingham, D. (2015). And the winner in the reading wars is…. Times Educational Supplement, 24-28.

 

 

 

 

 

Is Standard English worth all the fuss? LOGAN VINTERS explores whether Standard English should have a place in education

A repeated discussion you may hear is whether or not Standard English has a role to play in education in Britain. Is Standard English purely cosmetic or does it bring with it a certain prestige and notion of sensibility?

The concept of a standardised language in general seems very appealing. Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) and Modern Standard Mandarin (MSM) has revolutionised the way that people who would typically be mutually unintelligible to each other because of their geographical location, to communicate with a fair amount of ease. Both of these languages have a regulating board that gives some guidelines as to what constitutes part of the standardized language.

So what seems to be the difficulty with Standard English? Well to begin with it seems that critics cannot come to an agreement on what constitutes Standard English. Hayley Davis explains that for her, it is a variety of English that is usually seen in print and the variety that is taught to non-native speakers of the language (1999: 70). Peter Trudgill says that Standard English is purely ‘a social dialect’ and that it no longer has a geographical location linked with it (2001: 124). Paul Kerswill goes as far to say that Standard English is ‘subject to how the observer views the matter’ and that it is more of a ‘social judgement’ (2009: 238).

Differing opinions on what constitutes Standard English makes it extremely difficult for any individual to make a decision on whether it has a place in education. How can it be taught if we do not know what it is? Trudgill finds it in his heart however, to explain what Standard English isn’t. According to him Standard English is neither a language, an accent, a style nor a register (1999). Put simply, Standard English is a dialect; a singular dialect amongst many of the English language. A common misconception that people tend to make is thinking that Standard English has a bearing on accent or pronunciation – specifically with Received Pronunciation (RP) – but this is simply not true. All RP speakers will be able to speak Standard English but not everyone who speaks Standard English must speak in RP.

Why bother with Standard English (SE) then? There does seem to be some use in teaching SE. The idea is to have something similar to MSA/MSM where there is a middle ground in terms of language that everyone can converse in, making communication easier between geographical locations in the country. This carries over into written forms of SE, anyone familiar with speaking SE will be able to read it in written form which encourages the idea that written forms should be in SE.

There is the argument that for a child it is beneficial for them to learn SE to prepare them better in later life. The Newbolt Report encouraged this line of thought and reports that ‘it is emphatically the business of the Elementary school to teach its pupils to speak Standard English’ (1921: 65). Furthering this, the Daily Mail recently reported of a school in Middleborough who handed out letters to parents asking them to correct their children’s speech to something more akin to SE. Christopher Rollason agrees with the teaching of SE and says that SE ‘is a means to individual empowerment’ (2001: 11)

The other side to this argument however, is the notion that the teaching of SE will result in the destruction of regional cultures. Tony Bex and Richard Watts explain that ‘learning Standard English can lead to devaluation of other dialects’ (1999: 14). If certain elements of knowledge are ingrained in a region’s culture and dialect and this is lost, there is the possibility of losing this information; this being an argument very similar to ‘language death’. Also, try and imagine watching the film Trainspotting without the regional dialect. The loss of regional dialects means a loss of different forms of expression, which for creative writing would be a disaster.

In my opinion it seems to be an extremely difficult task to teach children to verbally speak SE; a child will continue to converse in the dialect that they use at home because it is used more frequently. The Bullock Report sums this up quite sensibly when it talks about the teaching of SE. It reports that the idea of teaching SE is not to‘alienate’ the child from their regional dialect but more so to ‘enlarge his repertoire’ (1975: 143). I agree with this and – especially in written form – believe that SE has an important role to play.

LOGAN VINTERS, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Bex,T. Watts, R. (1999) Standard English: The Widening Debate. London: Routledge.

Culpepper, J. et al (2009) English Language: Description, Variation and Context. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Davis, H. (1999) ‘Typography, lexicography, and the development of the idea of ‘standard English’’ in Bex, T. and Watts, Richard J. (eds) (1999) Standard English: The Widening Debate London: Routledge.

Department for Education and Science (1975) A Language for Life [The Bullock Report]. London: HMSO.

Holborow, M. (1999) The Politics of English. London: Sage Publications.

Rollason, C. (2001) The Question of Standard English: Some Considerations on John Honey’s Language Is Power. Published in Terminologie et Traduction / Terminology and Translation: A Journal of the Language Services of the European Institutions (Luxembourg: European Commission), No 3. 2001, pp. 30-60

Trudgill, P. (1999) ‘Standard English: What it isn’t’ in Bex, T. and Watts, R.J. (eds.) (1999) Standard English: The Widening Debate. London: Routledge, pp. 117-128.

The Newbolt Report (1921) http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/newbolt/

How do we define ‘Standard English’? JAMIE GLASSON discusses the difficulties

What is ‘Standard English’? Many linguists have different ideas as to what they perceive Standard English to be, but is there actually a universal definition for this term? Some believe it is the correct way to speak English, others believe that it is just a way of separating the intelligent from the unintelligent. So many different definitions, where do we begin?

Tony Crowley (1999, p.271) believes that “Standard English is the medium of writing in the English language, grammatically stable and codified”. Based on this, Crowley is saying that Standard English is applied to just writing, and not so much speech, and is essentially the ‘correct’ way to write using the English Language. While this is definitely a good attempt at trying to define what Standard English is, it doesn’t cover spoken English and therefore needs to be addressed. Ronald Carter (1999, p.163) states that “Standard English consists of a set of forms which are used with only minimal variation in written English and in a range of formal spoken contexts in use around the world.” With this definition, Carter acknowledges that Standard English is not just limited to writing, but also applies to speech as well. With this interpretation, we are at least getting a broader idea of what Standard English is, in the sense that it is not just limited to written or spoken English, but is rather a mix between the two instead. However Crowley (2003, p.266) also acknowledges that there is standard spoken English as well. It is ‘standard’ not in the sense of making and having something in common. It is ‘standard’ in the sense of being able to share sense and meaning through common effort and participation.” This encourages the belief that as long as you and the person you are talking to are able to understand each other successfully, then it is classed as Spoken Standard English.

 Hayley Davis (1999, p.70) goes on to say that Standard English is a “variety of English which is usually used in print, and which is normally taught in schools and to non-native speakers learning the language.” Davis here is saying that Standard English is the preferred variety to be taught in schools and to non-native speakers. Whilst I firmly believe and agree that having Standard English as the set way to teach English in schools, it is definitely a skewed concept because of the fact there is no exact definition of what Standard English actually is. Yes there are many different ways of interpreting what Standard English is, and while we seem to have managed this long without coming to a conclusive idea as to what it is, it certainly makes the idea of teaching it in schools questionable.

John Honey (1997, 21-22) believes that “[t]he speakers of non-standard social and regional dialect forms suffer comparable forms of disadvantage.” This is because Honey believes those who are not able to speak or write Standard English are dubbed as unintelligent. However, Honey’s idea of what Standard English means seems rather skewed as well, claiming “[b]y standard English I mean the language in which this book is written, which is essentially the same form of English used in books and newspapers all over the world.” (Honey, 1997, p.1). Again, just like the definitions shown earlier on, none of these interpretations can seem to agree on what Standard English is, and each seem to offer a different perspective of what it could actually mean.

After exploring the different interpretations of what other linguists believe Standard English to be, it is clear that this particular term is void of an exact definition. I believe that if you are able to understand each other, and are able to communicate successfully between one another when using different varieties of English, then the need for Standard English is surely exaggerated. However, it is blatantly clear that nobody can actually define what Standard English is, and therefore it has to remain described only by its characteristics.

JAMIE GLASSON, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Carter, R. (1999). ‘Standard Grammars, spoken grammars: Some educational implications’ in Bex, T. and Watts, Richard J. (eds) (1999) Standard English: The Widening Debate. London: Routledge.

Crowley, T. (1999). Curiouser and Curiouser: Falling Standards in the Standard English Debate. In: Standard English: The Widening Debate,ed. by Bex, T & Watts, R.J., London.

Crowley, T. (2003). ‘Language against Modernity’ in Standard English and the Politics of Language. (2nd edn) Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

Davis, H. (1999). ‘Typography, lexicography, and the development of the idea of ‘standard English’’ in Bex, T. and Watts, Richard J. (eds) (1999) Standard English: The Widening Debate. London: Routledge.

Honey, J. (1997).  Language is Power: The Story of Standard English and its Enemies. London, Faber and Faber

 

Grammar tests: raising standards or stress levels? TAMSIN TAYLOR investigates

Standard English is a difficult thing to define – even linguists struggle to describe exactly what it is. Most dictionary definitions relate Standard English to the educated or the most ‘correct’ form of English. However, some dictionaries seem to apply it more to speech than writing whereas linguists like Strevens (1985) argue that Standard English has nothing to do with pronunciation but more to do with grammar and vocabulary. The only thing everyone seems to agree on is that it is related to the language of ‘educated’ users which is a controversial claim.

Grammar and Standard English go hand in hand. The great debate surround the teaching of grammar finds most of its roots within controversies of Standard English. Trudgill (1999, p.163) points out that Standard English is used in newspapers and published words, and argues that standard grammar is necessary in these texts or communication may break down. It is also suggested that standard grammar forms need to be known, especially when writing, in order to be part of the wider community (Crystal 1996).

There are many arguments both for and against the explicit teaching of grammar. Some views, such as Honey’s desire for Standard English and grammar teaching to reinforce cultural, economic and social privileges (1997), are rather outdated and old-fashioned. However, Hudson and Walmsley (2005) offer a balanced result offering seven reasons why grammar should be taught in schools after assessing the arguments for each. The most understandable suggestions include: to expand grammatical competence in order to understand the grammatical patterns which are used in adult life, but that are not found in the casual conversation of children; to reinforce writing, reading, speaking and listening skills so that teachers and pupils are able to communicate about their performance and are able to explore more complex elements such as genre; and to support foreign-language learning, essentially making it easier. Some of their reasons are unusual and difficult to see the logic behind, but they do make some good points.

But there is another side to the argument. Most arguments against are in support of language being natural and therefore grammar knowledge and acquisition should be achieved naturally. Krashen (1981) is one of those people, offering the suggestion that there is really no need for grammatical teaching and that Chomsky had the right idea to suggest there is a ‘universal grammar’. Thompson (1969) also questions how useful grammar teaching is, even going so far as to suggest children are simply unable to learn it because it is just too hard. There’s also reasoning by Thompson (1969) that those who do learn the explicit rules of grammar, find it to be pointless knowledge and of no use. But is Thompson really reliable when his comments come from a time period where grammar teaching was viewed by all as a ball and chain on children?

The current debate largely surrounds the Spelling, Punctuation and Grammar tests at Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2. The tests were introduced in 2013 by the Government (HM Government, 2013) and there has been a lot of media attention focusing on these tests over the past year. Both teachers and students have many problems with the tests and have condemned them, stating that they are simply too hard. Everyone is asking “How can we put our children through this when we can’t even answer the questions ourselves?”

The teachers themselves have united to share their unhappiness with the testing in a NUT Report (National Union of Teachers, 2016). The high percentages shared are really shocking: 96% of respondents said they thought recent changes to KS1 and KS2 curriculum and assessment will lead to children being expected to learn content before they are ready. 96% said they were worried that the spelling, grammar and punctuation test (SPAG test) and preparation for SPAG tests will cause too much stress for many children. 92% agreed that much of the material in the KS1 SPAG test is too advanced for seven-year-olds and the same high proportion (91%) agreed that much of the material in the KS2 SPAG test is too advanced for 11-year-olds.

If the parents and the teachers don’t think the tests are right, surely the government should be listening by now. I personally see no problems with tests at KS1 and KS2; however the tests at the current standard are simply ridiculous. The wording is vague and many questions could have multiple answers but teachers can only mark one as correct. It’s simply unfair for everyone involved. Once again I ask, is it right for our children, our brothers and our sisters to be put through these tests? Or is it all just too much? I know where I stand.

TAMSIN TAYLOR, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Crystal, D. (1996). Discover grammar. London: Longman

HM Government (2013). English grammar, punctuation and spelling test framework end of key stage 2 framework for assessment 2013–2015. 

Honey, J. (1997). Language is power: The story of standard English and its enemies. London, UK: Faber & Faber.

Hudson, R. & Walmsley, J. (2005). The English Patient: English grammar and teaching in the twentieth century. Journal of Linguistics. 3(41).  593-622.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Strevens, P. (1985). Standards and the standard language. English today. 1(02). 5-7.

Trudgill, P. (1999). Standard English: what it isn’t. In Standard English: The Widening Debate. London : Routledge, pp. 117–28.

 

AMANI NIAZ asks: ‘Is texting and CMC detrimental to literacy?’

For many years there has been an ongoing debate as to whether computer-mediated communication (CMC) and texting are imposing detrimental effects upon our literacy skills. Some say that it does have an impact on literacy and others believe that it does not and that it is simply just another form of the English language. In some ways it encourages the younger generations to explore and play with language, through the use of, for instance, contractions and acronyms. However some argue that it has been proven to affect the literacy skills of some young people.

“The popularization of CMC spread after the launch of the World Wide Web in 1990”  according to Tagliamonte and Denis (2008, p. 5). Due to the rising popularity of online messaging services and websites such as MSN and Facebook new forms of language became increasingly used. Crystal states that “people found the linguistic novelty to lie chiefly in the slang and jargon of its enthusiastic proponents, as well as in their penchant for playing with language and for breaking conventional linguistic rules of spelling and punctuation” (2004, p. 64).

As this was the new trend more and more people started to use this form of language. It was something new and intriguing. So intriguing in fact, that not just teenagers but also adults started to use it to seem somewhat cool….

According to the Daily Mail (2010), “[a]dults mimicking teen-speak are to blame for spreading sloppy English which is putting the future of the language at risk”. However, has it really put our language at risk? Today my believe is that text-message abbreviations are on the decrease. This could be due to the introduction of smartphones. In the early 2000s pay-as-you-go phones were commonly used. This type of phone had a limit to how much text you could send in a message. If you went over the limit you had to pay extra. Thus abbreviations and contractions were frequently used. Nowadays with smartphones and iphones, there is no limit to the amount of text we can input into a message. Also mobile phones now contain autocorrect, which automatically corrects a words spelling. Thus text language is less frequently used as messages are largely made up of full words and sentences.

However, some have argued that this form of language has been seen to venture beyond children’s technological devices and has become frequently used within their everyday language. Mphahlele and Mashmaite (2005; cited by Verheijen, 2013, p. 587) found that “[s]tudents fail to distinguish contexts in which text language is acceptable”. As texting is used by many on a day to day basis, this has become a linguistic norm for the younger generations. This may lead to it appearing in their schoolwork. Some are extremely concerned that texting is found in writing requiring more formal Standard English and gives the impression that young people are unable to distinguish when they are able to use it in a satisfactory circumstance. A study by Pew Internet & American Life Project found that “[n]early two-thirds of seven hundred students surveyed said their e-communication style sometimes bled into school assignments” (Lewin, 2008, p. 1) and “about half said they sometimes omitted proper punctuation and capitalized in school work” (Lewin, 2008, p. 1). Surely they must have some sort of knowledge to know when it is appropriate to use textisms?

Bernard (2008) found that “[s]ome teachers are not banning mobile phones from the classroom, as they believe it allows for more opportunities”. If the increased use of texting is detrimental to the English Language and is also harming students’ grades, then why are some teachers encouraging the use of mobile phones within the classroom? Evidently this is going to be harmful to students’ education. It will not only cause distractions, but also lead to text language becoming even more frequently used within the school environment.

As regards to the wide spread use of phones, Crystal (2004 p.81), stated that “[t]ext-messaging is often cited as a particular problem. Children of the future will no longer be able to spell, it is said.” This claim could very much be true. Children are becoming lazier now with language use. Technological devices have autocorrect built into them therefore they do not have to spell for themselves.

Overall I feel the technological advances in recent years have had an undesirable effect upon the younger generation’s literacy skills. More people have become extremely reliant on technology due to its popularity. I firmly believe that boundaries have to be put in place for when it is and is not acceptable to use this form of language, particularly for students who use this form within the school environment.

What do you think?

 AMANI NIAZ, English Language student, University of Chester, UK

References

Bernard, S. (2008). Zero-thumb game: How to tame texting. Retrieved November 17, 2015.

Crystal, D. (2004). The language revolution (1^st ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press

Lewin, T. (2008). Informal style of electronic messages is showing up in schoolwork, study finds. The New York Times, April 25. Retrieved November 17, 2015.

Mphahlele, M., & Mashamaite, K. (2005). The impact of Short Message Service (SMS) Language on Language Proficiency of Learners and the SMS Dictionaries: A challenge for educators and lexicographers. IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning, 161-8.

Tagliamonte, S. & Denis, D. (2008). Linguistic? LOL! Instant messaging and teen language. American speech 83 (1), 3-34.

Daily Mail (2010). Informal style of electronic messages is showing up in schoolwork, study finds. Retrieved November 17, 2015.

Are Computer Mediated Communications dumbing down literacy? KIM NGUYEN INVESTIGATES

Many different forms of Computer-Mediated Communications (CMC) became available following the launch of the World Wide Web in the early 1990s. Due to the rapid expansion of technology, they are now available across all different social media platforms and devices. Baron (2004) defined Instant Messenging (IM) as “a one-to-one synchronous form of computer-mediated communication” (cited by Tagliamonte & Denis, 2008, p.3). However, IM has since become much more advanced and is no longer restricted to a one-to-one exchange. In the present day, it is common for most young teens to have possession of a mobile device, and they too prefer using these devices for communication because “most do not think of their electronic communications as real writing” (Lenhart, Arafeh, Smith & Macgill; cited by Vosloo, 2009, p.2). More recently linguists, including Vosloo (2009, p.2) have taken the view that “texting is the written lingua franca of many youth today”. However, the important question to what extent, if any, CMC is having a negative effect on students’ literacy?

Contrary to popular belief that texting is ruining the English language, there has been very little research conducted to prove this, as Wood, Plester and Bowyer (2008) point out. Some studies –  such as the one conducted by Plester, Wood and Joshi (2009) and Wood et al., (2008) – have found that texting has positive correlations with levels of phonological awareness amongst students, as many abbreviations are actually acceptable phonetic representations of a word, such as ‘b4’ for ‘before’. Therefore abbreviation usage requires the user to have phonological understanding (Vosloo, 2009, p.3), and thus regular use actually enhances phonological comprehension.

There have been alleged cases where the use of text language, also known as ‘textese’, has been found to be creeping into various pieces of academic work. Pew Internet and American Life Project found that 66% of the 700 students in their study said that their “e-communication style sometimes bled into school assignments” (Lewin, 2008). This strongly supports Mphahlele and Mashamaite’s (2005) viewpoint that students are failing to recognise that texting is context and audience specific (cited by Verheijen, 2013, p.587). Additionally Clark (2008) highlights that some students are still losing marks for the use of IM abbreviations in their papers even after specifically proofreading for them.

Interestingly, many teachers do not mind e-communications sneaking into their pupils’ schoolwork, in fact some are even encouraging it. Some teachers are allowing students to use abbreviations during the drafting stage of their work, but emphasise the need to use Standard English when revising their final draft (Lee, 2002). So why not allow abbreviations and acronyms in schoolwork if they are more time efficient than typing out whole words? Moreover, some teachers purposely incorporate the use of CMC into their classroom activities. One teacher asked her class to translate the passage from Shakespeare they had been discussing, from text speak into Standard English, and vice versa, in order to confirm the students’ understanding of the text (Bernard, 2008). This teaching strategy is similar to the one used with foreign students, to improve their comprehension of their mother tongue, and thus stands to be effective (Bernard, 2008).

In my opinion, the benefits of CMCs have shown to outweigh the minor negatives found within studies. Not only does CMC act as another output for students to practice the language they have learnt at school, the use of group chats allows for discussions to be conducted in social and collaborative ways, which Bernard (2008) states to be very beneficial. Technological communication also allows for features of spoken communication to appear in written modes which before has never been possible. Emoticons replace facial expressions which are vital in contributing to meaning in spoken conversation, and capitalisation indicates hyperbole within IM (see Brown-Owens, Eason & Lader, 2003; Varnhagen, McFall, Pugh, Routledge, Sumida-MacDonald & Kwong, 2010, pp.729-730). As Crystal (2001) says texting is a “new species of communication” with its own set of usage conditions (cited by Tagliamonte & Denis, 2008, p.4). So why knock a creative form of language play, which helps to create beneficial opportunities for students?

KIM NGUYEN, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Baron, N. (2004). See you online: Gender issues in college student use of instant messaging. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23: 397-423.

Bernard, S. (2008, May 28). Zero-thumb game: How to tame texting. 

Brown-Owens, A., Eason, M., & Lader, A. (2003, August 21). What Effect does Computer-Mediated Communication, Spevifically Instant Messaging Have on 8^th Grade Writing Competencies? 

Clark, L. (2008, December 12). Two-thirds of teachers allow children to use slang and text message speak in school tests. The Daily Mail

Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, J. (2002, September 19). I think, therefore IM. New York Times, 

Lenhart, A., Arafeh, S., Smith, A., & Macgill, A.R. (2008, April 24). Writing, Technology and Teens.

Lewin, T. (2008, April 25). Informal Style of Electronic Messages is Showing Up in Schoolwork, Study Finds. The New York Times.

Mphahlele, M., & Mashamite, K. (2005). The impact of short message service (SMS) language on language proficiency of learners and the SMS dictionaries: A challenge for educators and lexicographers. IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning: 161-168.

Plester, B., Wood, C., & Joshi, P. (2009). Exploring the relationship between children’s knowledge of text message abbreviations and school literacy outcomes. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 145-161.

Tagliamonte, S., & Denis, D. (2008). Linguistic ruin? LOL! Instant messaging on literacy. English Studies, 95(5), 582-602.

Varnhagen, C. K., McFall, P., Pugh, N., Routledge, L., Sumida-MacDonald, H., & Kwong, T. E. (2010). Lol: New language and spelling in instant messaging. Reading and Writing, 23(6), 719-733.

Verheijen, L. (2013). The effects of texting on literacy and instant messaging on literacy. English Studies, 95(5), 582-602.

Vosloo, S. (2009). The Effects of Texting on Literacy: Modern Scourge or Opportunity? South African Funding Organisation,  The Shuttleworth Foundation.

Wood, C., Plester, B., & Bowyer, S. (2008). A Cross-Lagged Longitudinal Study of Text Messaging and Its Impact on Literacy Skills: Preliminary Results. Poster Presented at the British Psychological Society Department Section Conference, Oxford Brookes University, September 2008.

 

MEGAN ARMSTRONG asks: ‘Texting and CMC: destroying or improving our literacy?’

Since the rise of the internet in the 1990s and the sending of the first text message in 1992, technology has rapidly become essential to our the 21^st century lives.  The development of Google in 1998 would also contribute to the changing of the way we live our lives, as the term ‘I’ll Google it’ is used daily by most people I know. In fact by 2007 it was recorded that 3.8 billion Google searches were being made per month in the USA (Baron, 2008, p. 13).

Baron (2008, p. 11) suggests CMC in the 1980s included email, chats or IM, but this term has broadened since social network sites and smartphones were introduced. The popularity of CMC and texting has been stirring up opinions as to whether these ‘amazing’ advances are actually having a negative effect on literacy. John Sutherland declares “texting is penmanship for illiterates” (The Guardian, 2008) but do you agree with this statement? Can texting really affect literacy?

Verheijen (2013, p.584) displays features of language variation of textese, such as the use of single letter/number homophones – ‘c’ = ‘see’ and ‘2’ = ‘to/too’, typographic symbols – ‘@’ = ‘at’ and acronyms such as ‘ttyl’ = ‘talk to you later’. These examples are frequently used in text messages, so many fear it will mix into schoolwork. Conversely, McIntyre (2009, p. 123) suggests that our writing can change depending on circumstances, perhaps arguing that textese features would not be carried over to school work.

Teachers are worrying that children will bring textese into the classroom as suggested by Verheijen (2013, p. 587). A study to support this theory would be the one conducted by Mampa, Mphahlele and Kwena Majhamaite (2005, pp. 161–8; cited by Verheijen 2013, p. 587) who explored the influence of textese in South Africa. They noted increasingly more use of textese in work and believe that students are “victims of SMS language” and blame exposure on the media.

Some newspapers have implied that texting is negatively affecting literacy, as according to Woronoff (2007; cited by Wood, Kemp and Plester, 2014, p.24) “texting influences kids to spell incorrectly”. In 2004 the Daily Telegraph stated that “pupils resort to text language in GCSE exams”. In addition,  in 2003 the BBC highlighted the alleged case of an essay written by a 13-year-old where textese was used repeatedly.  However, Crystal (2008, p. 151) implies that these essays may not have even existed. So how reliable are these sources in determining that our language is being affected by texting? Crystal states that “[e]vidence from examiners […] suggests that the vast majority of students are well aware of the difference, and do not use textisms in their writing” (2008, p. 166). It could be that pupils resorted to text language in the early 2000s as texting only became popular in the mid-1990s. This could play a role as the craze of texting was fairly new and it was likely deemed ‘cool’ to write in textese. However, now in 2015 it would be less likely that children would use textese in their schoolwork, as the craze has died off.

Texting and CMC is not always viewed negatively. Many linguists believe that it is positively influencing language. Varnhagen et al. (2010, p. 719) state that “electronic communication has generated a new language of abbreviations”. For example ASAP and PS are used daily in emails. Crystal (2008) suggest that texting encourages the coining of interesting neologisms such as ‘unfriend’ and ‘tweet’ which would not exist without social network sites. Crystal (2008, p. 41) also suggests that we already use initialisms, such as ‘BBC’ which is fully integrated into the English lexicon. So why are initialisms such as OMG and TBH seen as such a negative? Textese is slowly becoming more accepted as words such as ‘OMG’, ‘chillax’ and ‘unfriend’ have been added to the dictionary.

More recent views on this debate would suggest that texting is an addition to language. For instance, Tagliamonte and Denis claim “CMC is not destroying literacy skills or ruining this generation, but [is] an expansive new linguistic renaissance” (2008, p. 27). Baron (2008, p. 161) states that “[d]istinguishing between language change and language decline is a very tricky business”, so maybe prescriptivists cannot accept that language is evolving, and choose to believe that CMC is dumbing down literacy. Aitchison’s (1997) ‘crumbing castle’ metaphor would apply as the idea that language should be ‘preserved’ would suggest that teachers believe school work should stay standardised. My personal opinion is that technology does encourage creativity but would not have an effect on my literacy. All things considered, this debate is a matter of opinion. Some will believe that texting has a negative effect, and some will support the advancements in technology and encourage new additions to language.

MEGAN ARMSTRONG, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Aitchison, J. (1997). The language web: The power and problem of words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Baron, N. S. (2008). Always on: Language in an online and mobile world. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.

BBC. (2003). Is txt ruining the English Language. BBC News [online], 6^th March 2003 . Retrieved November, 3, 2015.

Crystal, D. (2008). Txting: The Gr8 Db8. New York: Oxford University Press.

Henry, J. (2004). Pupils resort to text language in GCSE exams. The Telegraph [online]. Retrieved November, 2, 2015.

McIntyre, D. (2009) History of English. Oxon: Routledge.

Mphahlele, Mampa L., and Kwena Mashamaite. The impact of Short Message Service (SMS) language on language proficiency of learners and the SMS dictionaries: A challenge for educators and lexicographers. IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning (2005), 161–8.

Tagliamonte, S. & Denis, D. (2008) Linguistic Ruin? LOL! Instant Messaging and Teen Language. American Speech (83) 1, pp. 3-34.

Varnhagen, C.K., McFall, P., Pugh, N., Routledge, L., Sumida-MacDonald, H., & Kwong,. T.E. (2010) LOL: New language and Spelling in Instant Messaging. Reading and Writing 23, pp. 719–733.

Verheijen, L. (2013) The Effects of Text Messaging and Instant Messaging on Literacy. English Studies, 94 (5), pp582-602.

Wood, C., Kemp, N., & Plester, B. (2014). Texting and literacy – The evidence. London, UK: Routledge.

Woronoff, P. (2007). Cell phone texting can endanger spelling. Retrieved November, 1, 2015.

Texting and Literacy: Tears of joy or tears of sadness (emoji..!). JOHANNA BOISSON investigates

The fast rise of technology has resulted in an increased availability of communication devices to the public domain. This has led to the belief that it has caused a decline in literacy skills. Does the use of technology make the lines between the spoken and written register blur? Or, as Tagliamonte and Denis (2008, p. 5) acknowledge, is there a whole new “hybrid register” that stems from computer mediated communication (CMC)?

Vosloo (2009, p. 2) acknowledges the negative stigma that is received from both parents and teachers as regards texting affecting literacy. Plester, Wood and Joshi (2009; cited by Vosloo, 2009, p. 3) found no association between texting and the spelling scores of 10 to12-year-old children. There was, however, an association between textisms and phonological awareness, suggesting that exposure to a wider variety of types of language, even in a non-academic context, may result in children developing their comprehension of the construction of language (Wood, Plester and Bowyer, 2008; cited by Vosloo, 2009, p. 4).

Crystal (2008; cited by Vosloo, 2009, p. 4) acknowledges that abbreviations in language are constantly used, for example ASAP (as soon as possible), thus textism abbreviations such as BRB (be right back) encourage creativity in language. Verheijen (2013, p. 586) supports this notion that texting allows creativity in language, suggesting that the use of technology and CMC “would motivate young people to read and write” and therefore develop their literacy skills. This is shown by Durkin, Conti-Ramsden and Walker (2011; cited by Verheijen, 2013, p. 589) who found that teenagers had better literacy skills when they were likely to reply to a text message, particularly from writing longer messages and using a variety of textisms.

Craig (2003; cited by Verheijen, 2013, p. 587) believes that “as language naturally evolves these novel creations may eventually become part of the Standard English lexicon”. This has been illustrated recently as the Oxford English Dictionary has announced the word of the year for 2015 as “face with tears of joy emoji” (Parkinson, 2015), which shows that CMC is becoming more accepted. Baron (2008, p. 177) acknowledges that as technology develops, changes to language may occur, such as the introduction of new words to accommodate innovations like email. Also, when neologisms appear, they should be considered rather than disregarded straight away because “distinguishing between language change and language decline is a very tricky business” (Baron, 2008, p. 161).

Although these all demonstrate the positive side to texting and CMC, it has also been shown to have an adverse effect on literacy skills. Geertsema, Hyman and van Deventer (2011; cited by Verheijen, 2013, p. 595) found that students would incorrectly use punctuation and also non-Standard English spellings, which therefore had “a negative impact on student’s academic achievement”. De Jonge and Kemp (2012; cited by Verheijen, 2013, p. 595) state that textisms could be used by some young students to deter from their underdeveloped literacy skills. Although these are differing views of the effects of texting and CMC relating to literacy, it is difficult to definitely determine whether there is an association. Verheijen (2013, p. 596) states that we should acknowledge that different results in studies can be obtained through using different independent variables, such as age, gender and education level of the participants. There will also be differences when considering how familiar a participant is with mobile phones and texting (Verheijen, 2013, p. 596).

So, are the literacy skills of future generations doomed by the existence of communication through technology? Not as much as some may think. There may isolated examples involving children are not being able to distinguish when is suitable to use textisms. However, in my opinion, most children have sufficient knowledge that CMC is in its own category for use. Therefore they would be less likely to use it in academic contexts. In my experience of academia I have not witnessed the use of textisms in any person’s work; it is more likely that someone may make a grammatical or syntactical error, which is something that can be corrected with proper guidance from teachers and thorough proofreading of work. Any encounter with language should be seen as a positive one and we should make the most of using technology to communicate. Who knows where it will take the English Language to next!

JOHANNA BOISSON, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Baron, N. S. (2008). Always on: Language in an online and mobile world. New York: Oxford University Press.

Craig, D. (2003). Instant Messaging: The Language of Youth Literacy. The Boothe Prize Essays, 116-33.

Crystal, D. (2008). Txting: The Gr8 Db8. New York: Oxford University Press.

De Jonge, S., & Kemp, N. (2012). Text-message abbreviations and language skills in high school and university students. Journal of Research in Reading 35(1), 49–68.

Durkin, K., Conti-Ramsden, G., & Walker, A. J. (2011). Txt lang: Texting, textism use and literacy abilities in adolescents with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 27 (1), 49–57.

Geertsema, S., Hyman, C., & van Deventer, C. (2011). Short Message Service (SMS) language and written language skills: Educators’ perspectives. South African Journal of Education 31 (1), 475–87.

Parkinson, H. J. (2015, Nov 17). Oxford Dictionary names emoji ‘word of the year’ – here are five better options. The Guardian.

Plester, B., Wood, C., & Joshi, P. (2009). Exploring the relationship between children’s knowledge of text message abbreviations and school literacy outcomes. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 145-161.

Tagliamonte, S., & Denis, D. (2008). Linguistic Ruin? LOL! Instant Messaging and Teen Language. American Speech 83(1), 3-34. Doi: 10.1215/00031283-2008-001

Verheijen, L. (2013). The effects of text messaging and instant messaging on literacy. English Studies, 94(5), 582-602. doi: 10.1080/0013838X.2013.795737

Vosloo, S. (2009). The effects of texting on literacy: Modern scourge or opportunity? Shuttleworth Foundation (1), 1–8.

Wood, C., Plester, B., & Bowyer, S. (2008). A Cross-Lagged Longitudinal Study of Text Messaging and Its Impact on Literacy Skills: Preliminary Results. Poster Presented at the British Psychological Society Developmental Section Conference, Oxford Brookes University, September 2008.