Week 3: Language Systems, Academic Vocabulary, and Language Variation

Importance of Language Systems for Teachers:

All the systems of language are interconnected and related to each other. Teachers must understand each system of language individually and how it interacts with other systems to help their students glean meaning from texts. Pragmatics is the most overstretching system of language. It aids in a reader/writer into recognizing the external coherence of a text. Pragmatics relates to the external context and functions of language. Teachers must be aware that language has many more functions beyond just informative function of communicating information. Children must be allowed to interact with various functions to fully understand how these functions work in the real world.

One important group of interconnected and related systems that teachers must be aware of is the text type, genre, and text structure. Teachers must understand that a particular text type can include several genres, and these genres follow particular text structures, thus creating internal coherence in text. For example: the text type of narrative usually uses the text structure of temporal order. This text type and structure are displayed in the genres of a novel, short story, mystery, or a folktale.  By showing that text follows these types of patterns, students are able to read expository, narrative, poetry, and dramatic texts in a manner that allows them to be more easily understood, as well as practice using these genres, patterns and genres in their own writing. Teachers must also remember to point out that one text can display various structures at the same time.

The close tie between the semantic system and the syntactic system is important for teachers to be aware of. Both of these systems are used to determine meaning through the use of internal context. By being aware of the relationships of words within a sentence, teachers can help their students use to create semantically meaningful sentences, which is where syntax comes in to help. Syntax gives grammatical names for the semantic systems/roles children have already assigned to words. Syntax is essential because it gives further structure to sentences. Students are able to create more complex sentences with knowledge of the syntactic system, as well as understand more complex sentences found in academic texts.

The morphemic system of language is essential for teachers to understand because it breaks down words into morphemes, the smallest unit of meaning. Morphemes have several categories which teachers use on a daily basis, but may not have understood how they fit into the big picture of language. Understanding bound and unbound morphemes allows for teacher to teach about base words, prefixes, suffixes, and roots. Understanding that function morphemes are the glue or mortar that put content morphemes together allows teachers to show how the syntactic parts of speech (nouns, verbs, adverbs, prepositions, adjectives, etc.) work in real texts. In addition, connective and signal morphemes allow for students to recognize specific words or phrases that give coherence and structure to genres of texts, while employing these signal and connection morphemes in their own writing experiences.

We tend to view the final systems of language, orthographic, graphophonemic, and graphemic, as the most important for beginning literacy students. They are what we spend most of the early years of formal instruction on. Teachers must understand the alphabetic principle governing that 26 letters represent 44 letters, so they can convey that to their students. Knowing this sound-symbol correspondence is the very essence of decoding. The orthographic system is important because it gives students access to patterns that govern the spelling of words. Once students know these patterns exist and start looking of them, they are more able to spell and read new words. The formation of letters, the graphemic system, is important because it is the very foundation of literacy. If students to don’t recognize letters then they cannot read or write entire words.

How Language Systems Support Young Children’s Literacy

Teachers working with young children must have a clear understanding of the systems of language, so they can help their students create a good foundation that will lead to becoming expert readers and writers. As I already stated, young children are greatly exposed to morphemic, graphophonemic, and grapheme systems. Common activities such as creating words with affixes and roots, breaking words into onsets and rimes, and practicing letter recognition all prepare these students for more complex aspects of using language. Teachers need to model appropriate syntax and semantic structures for their early childhood students in the form of shared writings. Young students can be exposed to various text structures, genres, and types through read-alouds or self-selected books. These stories, articles, and poems can become mentor texts for students to create a variety of writings. To help students understand the various context and functions of language, teachers can provide them opportunities to produce advertisements (instrumental), directions (regulatory), cards (interactional), experiments (heuristic), and newspaper articles (informative). Sadly, some young children are only exposed to imaginative and personal writing in the early grades which is not realistic for what they will experience in higher grades or as a professional adult.

Response to Language Variation

Language variation is a part of everyday life. Every person is bidialectal in some aspect. The way I speak to my students in my classroom is much different than the way I speak to my friends.  I code-switch depending on the context and the audience. In my classroom, I try to create an accepting and open community that treats everyone with respect. This allows for differences of speech, writing, and reading to exist without stigmas. I try not to correct a student’s use of nonstandard English while they are speaking or reading. In writing, I do correct it if we are in a one-on-one situation, so the child will not be embarrassed. Usually if I read the use of nonstandard dialect out loud from students’ writing, they notice that it is not standard and correct it themselves without prompting. Meaning is the ultimate goal I strive for.

I also like to use books where the characters have dialects. We listen to the audio version of The Cay by Theodore Taylor, in which Timothy has a Caribbean island dialect. At first the students have trouble understanding his meaning, but eventually they understand how his surface structure connects to his meaning. We also read The BFG by Roald Dahl. This book has English words they think are misspelled or they have never heard of, as well as the giants have a dialect all their own. Both of these books, help to make dialect acceptable and a normal part of life!

Revised Definition of What It Means to Know a Word

Knowing words is three-fold: the concept of the word, the oral expression of the word, and the written form of the word all must be known. It is not enough for a child to display two of three characteristics; they must exhibit all three to have a basic knowledge of the word. Kucer suggests that even though these three things must be in place, there still may be more criteria such as connectedness that determine true word knowledge. 

Revised Definition of Text

I think my original definition of what text is was partially correct, yet missing some key components. I was correct in stating that the purpose of text is to gain or construct meaning. I recognized that text can be multimodal and go beyond the purely linguistic. In today’s world, linguistic text is partnered with photos, charts, videos, instant messaging, and hyperlinks. One thing I did not recognize was that text must be part of a larger whole. Because of this feature, text can be considered discourse because text is continuous, connected bits of language that understood by a certain group.  For a text to be meaningful, it must be found in a logical context (externally coherence). Within the text, the systems of language must work together to make it internally coherent and understandable by the reader/viewer/observer.

Relationship between Kucer and Silverman & Hartranft 

One similarity between these two readings is they both discussed the context of language. S&H’s focused on the difference between contextualized and decontextualized language. We know that simple, concrete, cued contextualized language is what most young children are familiar with, but for students to be academically successful, they must develop the more abstract and complex decontextualized language. Kucer focused on how the systems of language are contextualized with internal context being determined by semantics, syntax, and morphemes while external context is determined by situation and communicative register. I liked how S&H pointed out how the systems of language, which were extensively covered in Kucer’s book, create depth of vocabulary. Each book commented on the fact that ELL or dialect speaking students must become competent code-switchers between vernacular language to academic language. The ability to have depth and breadth of academic discourse is paramount to success in the upper grades and future schooling. Teachers who explicitly teach vocabulary are helping their students, but the most effective vocabulary instruction is individualized.

Discussion Questions:

1. Should assessment we give as teachers require student so maintain a high-integrity stance about texts or low-integrity stance about texts? (Kucer pg. 31) Is the idea of intertextuality obsolete in a Common Core-moving education climate?

2. After reading Ch. 2 of Kucer, is there one activity, lesson, or unit you do or have done in your classroom that ties directly to one of the systems of language? Tell about that experience. 

3. How do you teach academic vocabulary in your classroom? Does it contribute to vocabulary breadth or vocabulary depth? How do you go beyond simple fast mapping to extended mapping? 

Chapter 12 - Kucer - Mediating the Written Language System

Chapter Summary

I will try to be concise here, but as a warning I highlighted most of this chapter because it answered so many questions I have about the home-school literacy connection.

Mediation in literacy is defined as an attempt by an adult (or "more capable other") to support a child's literacy learning. This support occurs in constructing the systems of language (linguistic), the thinking processes (cognitive), and in groups (sociocultural). Table 12.2 on page 315 outlines characteristics of literacy mediation, some of which include the ideas of relevance and meaningfulness, reflection, demonstration, feedback, and motivation. A distinction is made betweeen learning, which is what the learner can do with support from a teacher, and development, which is what the learner can do independently. The key to this is the focus on meaning and communication, which is the theme of this chapter.

Parents naturally tend to focus on the meaning and intention behind their child's oral language, rather than trying to correct their child and make their language follow explicit rules. Adults serve as guides, mediators, and demonstrators throughout their children's development. Table 12.5 on page 319 shows various ways teachers can make language visible in the classroom. It gives a number of sentence starters to get students thinking about thinking. As these starters are used and as language is made more visible in the classroom, children develop a greater sensitivity to oral and written language. Furthermore, what a child knows is shaped largely by the community in which he grows up.

The Zone of Promimal Development (ZPD) by Vygotsky describes the difference between a child's potential or what he can do with help, and what a child can do independently. In the zone of promixal development, children are learning and making meaning. All teaching should be done in an effort to get children to become independent (developed). The student begins with support from a teacher, then practices with the teacher, then performs independently without the teacher. The examples used included teachers reading and writing to students; teachers reading and writing with students; and students reading and writing independently, from greatest support to least or no support. "In fact, the ZPD comes into being because of the desire of the child to engage in an activity that is beyond his or her reach or grasp" (p. 325). So motivation becomes an important part of learning language.

Another section of the chapter is devoted to culture and literacy. The author disspells the myth that parents in lower-income households read less to their children than is commonly assumed. Studies have shown "that in most U.S. homes, literacy activities permeate the lives of family members" (p. 327). There have been discrepancies in the amount of shared book reading that is done in homes in the U.S., however. There is a correlation between the amount of shared book reading at home and the ease with which children are able to learn school-based literacy practices. Shared book reading seems to be the most significant practice in the home that helps literacy learning at school. Storytelling in the home also can help with written expression.  If students do not have shared reading experiences at home, it's suggested that teachers can help fill the gap by reading to those students themselves.

My Comments

First, it really surprised me that most U.S. schoolchildren experience literacy in some form in the home. It doesn't seem like that to me, based on my teaching experiences. I am not surprised that shared reading experiences are the most critical factor in whether children learn literacy practices easily in school, though. It's interesting to note that shared reading, or a lack thereof, crosses all socioeconomic barriers.

Second, it surprised me that if students do not get shared reading experiences at home, a teacher can remedy or offset this by simply reading to the student(s) herself. That seems to obvious and simple! I do this with a couple of my students, however, and they love it. It doesn't seem like teaching in the formal sense, but it is critical.

Last, it intrigues me that reader motivation is key to whether the ZPD is filled and independence is attained. This is what I want to explore more in depth in my dissertation. I feel so strongly that children should choose their own reading material or subject matter because what they're reading can motivate them to overcome literacy hurdles. It seems like this is what is missing in public schools across the United States --- children's choice. Their cultural backgrounds and background knowledge are oftentimes disregarded when school publishing companies sell boxed reading materials with no real releveance to school systems with multicultural or special needs students. Ultimately, without choice, children may be thwarted in their efforts to learn to read and write.

My Question About the Reading

So my main question is: What would school look like if we encouraged students to choose their own reading material, and encouraged their interests and cultures and paths? What if testing wasn't the goal, but making meaning and reading for understanding were the goals instead? What if we didn't test students at all on their reading? I'd still keep track of their progress and encourage them along, but no high-stakes, all-or-nothing testing. What would literacy look like in school then?

Kucer, Chapter 11 - Constructing the Written Language System

Summary of Chapter

Written language consists of rule-governed systems that build on and extend oral language. The building of meaning is a selective and constructive process that involves the use of numerous mental strategies and processes. Figure 1.1 on page 286 shows a spiral of liveracy development, where children learn little bits about literacy at young ages, and add to this understanding as they age. In fact, this process continues throughout our lives.

We learn language not consciously or formally (although it can be taught and learned formally), but we learn language as a way to connect to others around us, to be social, and to understand our world. Language learning is thought to be constructivist in nature. That is, children bring certain experiences with them while learning language and build upon those experiences.

There are three dimensions of language: linguistic, cognitive, and sociocultural. Children are involved in all three dimensions as they are learning a language. Language development is an inductive process and is learned tacitly, indirectly. Understanding written language can vary greatly from child to child, from culture to culture. Also, when it appears children are backsliding in their language development, for instance they may say fish correctly then fishes incorrectly, they are actually stretching the boundaries of what they have learned about linguistic patterns. Children remix and recontextualize, transport and transform, material encountered in previous settings to new situations routinely (p. 297). This is evidence of how they are constructing linguistic knowledge for themselves.

Further, the nature of written language development changes constantly, even as we age and even as we become more educated. "Regardless of any student's general writing ability, control of coherence within one writing activity was not predictive of control within another" (p. 302). There are different kinds of writing and proficiency in one type does not confer proficiency in another type necessarily.

Children use a variety of cues in order to make meaning of written and oral language. Children use body language, like smiling for example, to determine what the oral message is, and pictures to determine what the written message is. Table 11.2 identifies five oral language and five written language cues children (people) use to communicate. These cues are labelled the same for both types of communication:  linguistic, paralinguistic, intent, extralinguistic, and background knowledge.

Reading and writing are intertwined. Reading contributes to the use of text structures when writing (p. 308). Children learn written language conventions by reading, not just by formal, direct instruction. Further, experience and text were fused together. In addition, reading comprehension is directly, positively affected by writing development. Table 11.3 on page 311 outlines the connection of intertextual relationships between the reading and writing processses.

A section of the chapter was devoted to phonics. The author stated there are a variety of issues that must be taken into account when considering phonics. Written language is not speech written down, so therefore there is only a loose relationship between phonics and the written word. Cognitively and socioculturally phonics may vary as well, which is not necessarily reflected in written work.

My Comments

There were a couple of places in the chapter where I made notes. One was on page 286, where there was a figure of the spiral to show the difficulty of literacy. I immediately made a connection to it because I used "spiraling" in my teaching. That is, I teach a little bit of a concept to my students who have special needs, then I return to that little concept at the next lesson and add to it. Each time I teach, I use this model of instruction. This is one way to ensure understanding and to build background knowledge with my students (if they lack it). So this visual of the way literacy is learned made sense to me.

On page 287, it struck me that there is no one fully articulated theory of literacy learning that can account for all three dimensions of literacy (linguistic, cognitive, and sociocultural). I'm surprised by that. Is that because literacy research is fairly new? Or because no one has looked at literacy from that perspective?

I liked the three written examples the author used on pages 291 and 292 to show that different children's sociocultural backgrounds and exposure make a huge difference in how and what children write. This underscored the truth that literacy learning begins in a constructivist way.

Because I'm a special educator, I was particularly interested in the section titled "Resistant, Oppositional Learners or Fearful, Unskilled Learners?" I felt that section of the chapter was a little underdeveloped from the standpoint that many students throughout the United States who receive inadeqaute educations, especially in reading and writing, are frustrated. They need a different teaching approach in order to reach them. I was surprised the author spoke mostly to African American students when there are so many other groups who could have been mentioned. I have worked in urban, impoverished, inner-city schools and have seen firsthand how public school curriculua can turn off so many children because they can't relate to it, and because they lack the foundational skills to follow along. In my experience, misbehavior seldom has to do with bad actors and has much more to do with irrelevant and boring teaching, teaching materials, and reading materials.

Finally, I did not understand the paragraph on page 313 where the author wrote, "Socioculturally, different communities or social groups emphasize the use of letter-sound relationships and "close" readings to various degrees. Certain religious communities, for example, see the use of phonics and the exact rendering of particular texts to be vitally linked to their salvation." What is he talking about? I don't understand.

Questions about the Reading

1.  Can children learn to read and write adequately, or well even, without direct instruction? How much teaching do children need in order to develop literacy skills? Are classroom teachers the only ones who can amply provide instruction? If not, who are others in a child's life who are appropriate teachers of literacy?

2.  How do the examples of literacy development that parents provide, like their own reading habits, relate to literacy development? I am questioning the relationship between home and school, and how does a teacher overcome poor examples or lack of support at home? Can a child learn to read and write well if his/her parent is illiterate?

3.  How do the "new literacies" tie into this chapter on constructing written language? For instance, computer/iPad/iPhone language is quite different from conventional, standard English. Is this newly created language, or literacy, undermining, supporting, or bypassing current literacy in America? How do the new literacies fit in to our conventional literacies?