How does the language system of pragmatics help us to understand why written language is more structured than spoken language Letrs?

At Cambium Learning® Group, we focus on providing the elements that are most essential to the success of education. And the most fundamental skill not only for school success, but lifelong success, is reading.

Scienceofreading.jpg

Given that 85% of the curriculum in school is presented through reading, using effective instruction is critical (Fielding, Rosier & Kerr, 2007). There has been much debate over the best approach to teaching reading, but the Science of Reading provides certainty to the answer of the best approach.

The Science of Reading has shown that learning to read and write is not a natural act, rather, this undertaking requires explicit, systematic, and cumulative instruction (Castles, Rastle, & Nation, 2018; Gough & Hillinger, 1980; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD], 2000; Seidenberg, 2017).

After years of debate, even some long-standing champions of Balanced Literacy are acknowledging the need for an increased emphasis on Structured Literacy.

Structured Literacy instruction is beneficial for all students and essential for students who are most at risk for reading difficulties due to dyslexia, language-based learning disabilities, processing weaknesses, low socioeconomic status, status as an English learner (EL), or other factors.

But what is the Science of Reading? It is evidence: Evidence from the accumulation of research on reading acquisition and instruction that has been conducted using gold-standard methodologies and has identified effective practices (Reyna, 2004; Seidenberg, 2017). Simply put, the Science of Reading is not an opinion, nor is it a philosophical belief.

Structured Literacy is an instructional approach that is informed by the Science of Reading and integrates listening, speaking, reading, and writing (Moats, 2020). The approach includes the components of phonology (the speech sound system), orthography (the writing system), morphology (the meaningful parts of words), semantics (the relationships among words), syntax (the structure of sentences), pragmatics (the use of spoken and written language to achieve a goal), and discourse (the organization of spoken and written communication).

The principles of Structured Literacy instruction emphasize that skills are directly taught (explicit), and there is a logically ordered presentation of skills that begins with the most basic concepts and progresses to more difficult concepts (systematic), with new learning builds on prior learning (cumulative). Students’ instructional needs are identified (diagnostic), and instruction is adjusted accordingly (responsive). And yet many teachers are not prepared in college to employ these principles in their classrooms. That's why so many districts are now embracing professional learning solutions like LETRS and literacy programs like Core5, PowerUp and LANGUAGE! Live. After all, if we don't teach teachers research-based principles of Structured Literacy and then give the right corresponding tools, how can we expect to improve student reading proficiency?

The fact that some well-known advocates of balanced literacy may or may not be walking back years of pronouncements that phonics-based reading instruction should not be emphasized when teaching reading, is extremely positive. The real proof that they are embracing the Science of Reading will come through a new curriculum that uses a scientific approach, rather than de-emphasizing phonics and teaching children to make guesses, a damaging habit that can lead to lifelong difficulty for young readers. By implementing the components, principles, and instructional practice that align to both the Science of Reading and Structured Literacy now, administrators, teachers, and parents are assured that all students will receive the multifaceted literacy instruction they need for reading and academic success not just today, but throughout their lives.

Volume 8, Issue 2
June 2019

By Nancy Hennessy, M.Ed.

Literacy is a secondary system, dependent on language as the primary system, so effective teachers know a good deal about language (Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2006, p. 17).

I sometimes wonder whether the critical contribution of language to literacy receives the attention it deserves. I am concerned that it does not. Discussions with educators, related to this topic, often yield comments that indicate interest or surprise—but lack relevant connections.

As teachers, our knowledge affects teaching and student outcomes. What we know determines what we do and why we do it.

So why does it matter? As teachers, our knowledge affects teaching and student outcomes. What we know determines what we do and why we do it. Louisa Moats has consistently reminded us that to teach children to read, it is important that we are knowledgeable about the relationship between written and spoken English. In her words: “Expert teaching of reading and writing is only possible when the teacher knows not just the meanings conveyed by language, but how language itself works” (Moats, 2010, p. 2). The authors of Knowledge to Support the Teaching of Reading: Preparing Teachers for a Changing World (Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2006) also provide guidance regarding what needs to be included in professional development models for teachers of reading:

Contributions and instructional implications of language systems
Connections to component skills/abilities
Examination of the complexity of skilled reading.

More recently, the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) Knowledge and Practice Standards (2018, p. 9) reiterated that all teachers of reading should “understand the (5) language processing requirements of proficient reading and writing: phonological, orthographic, semantic, syntactic, discourse.” A basic understanding of these systems is considered foundational. How familiar are you with these brief definitions?

Phonology: the sound system of a language including the rules that govern how speech sounds are combined.
Morphology: the system of meaningful units and word formation patterns within words.
Semantics: the knowledge of word meanings, phrases, sentences and their relationships.
Syntax: the order and organization of words in phrases, clauses, and different types of sentences.
Pragmatics: the rules that govern use of language for communication and conversation in varied social contexts.
Discourse: the units of language larger than a single sentence.
Orthography: the print or written language system; spelling patterns and conventions.

The Contributions of Language to Literacy

Literacy is an achievement that rests on language competence at all levels, from the elemental sounds to the most overarching structures of text (Moats, 2010, p. 2).

The evidence for critical connections and contributions abounds. Skilled reading is a language-based ability. Its development depends on linguistic knowledge and processes that initially develop for speaking and listening. This relationship between language and literacy is reciprocal in nature and changes over time.

“Young children need writing to help them learn about reading, they need reading to help them learn about writing, and they need oral language to help them learn about both” (Roskos, Christie, & Richgels, 2003, p. 3).

The ability to produce and comprehend spoken language is one of the earliest predictors of literacy achievement (National Early Literacy Panel, 2008). Not surprisingly, those with a history of oral language difficulties are at risk of experiencing reading difficulties. It has been estimated that approximately half of all students with reading disabilities have concomitant oral language disorders (Lerner, 1975; Lyon, 1995).

Are word identification difficulties language based? Is dyslexia a language-based learning disability? Consider this response found on the FAQ section of the IDA website: “Dyslexia refers to a cluster of symptoms that results in people having difficulties with specific language skills, particularly reading” (IDA, n.d.-b). IDA’s definition of dyslexia (2002, n.d.-a) further clarifies that difficulties with word identification, spelling, and decoding “typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction.” A similar question could be posed about reading comprehension problems. The literature indicates that extracting meaning from text involves multiple levels of language and cognitive processes (Oakhill, Cain, & Elbro, 2014). The research also tells us that measures of language ability in kindergarten are predictive of subsequent difficulties in reading comprehension (Catts, Nielsen, Bridges, & Liu, 2016). Finally, in a study focused on the basis for reading comprehension problems, Spencer, Quinn, and Wagner (2014, p. 3) concluded, “Individuals with problems in reading comprehension that are not attributable to poor word recognition have comprehension problems that are general to language comprehension rather than specific to reading.” Obviously, language systems play a role in the development of the two major factors of skilled reading: word identification and language comprehension (Gough & Tunmer, 1986).

…language systems play a role in the development of the two major factors of skilled reading: word identification and language comprehension (Gough & Tunmer, 1986).

The Language Systems and Skilled Reading

How do these language systems interact with and contribute to what are generally recognized as subskills and instructional components of skilled reading? The following chart is a starting point for understanding that spoken language systems and written language systems are intertwined but not interchangeable. The chart identifies instructional implications, primary components, and competencies for word identification and comprehension, and examples of related tasks. Of note, while represented individually, reading competencies develop in concert and work with each other.

Scroll down to view all three pages.

3.updated chart-tableHennessy Language-Lit Chart 11_19 (2)

Caution: The relationship between spoken and written language is complex. While this discussion addresses foundational information regarding this relationship, we have a responsibility to continue to read, discuss, and deepen our knowledge of this topic.

Finally, it is essential to remember that while oral language develops naturally, written language is a cultural invention. Print is “bolted onto speech” in a structured, logical manner. A knowledge of written language structure and principles of effective instruction (explicit, systematic, cumulative, diagnostic) is also necessary to develop reading proficiency.

References

Carlisle J. F. (2003). Morphology matters in learning to read: A commentary. Reading Psychology, 24(3-4), 291–322.

Catts, H. W., Nielsen, D., Bridges, M., & Liu, Y. (2016). Early identification of reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(5), 451–465.

Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10.

International Dyslexia Association. (n.d.-a). Definition of dyslexia. Retrieved June 5, 2019, from https://dyslexiaida.org/definition-of-dyslexia/

International Dyslexia Association. (n.d.-b). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved June 5, 2019, from https://dyslexiaida.org/frequently-asked-questions-2/

International Dyslexia Association. (2018). Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Author.

Kilpatrick, D. A. (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

Lerner, J. W. (1975). Remedial reading and learning disabilities: Are they the same or different? Journal of Special Education, 9(2), 119–131.

Lyon, G. R. (1995). Toward a definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 45(1), 1–27.

Moats, L. C. (2010). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.

Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & Elbro, C. (2014). Understanding and teaching reading comprehension: A handbook. New York, NY: Routledge.

Roskos, K. A., Christie, J. F., & Richgels, D. J. (2003). The essentials of early literacy instruction. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Shanahan, T. (2013, December 10). Grammar and comprehension: Scaffolding student interpretation of complex sentences [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://shanahanonliteracy.com/blog/grammar-and-comprehension-scaffolding-student-interpretation-of-complex-sentences

Snow, C., Griffin, P., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.). (2006). Knowledge to support the teaching of reading: Preparing teachers for a changing world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Soifer, L. (2018). Oral language development and its relationship to literacy. In J.R. Birsh & S. Carreker (Eds.), Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (4th ed., pp. 82-128). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

Spencer, M., Quinn, J. M., & Wagner, R. K. (2014). Specific reading comprehension disability: Major problem, myth, or misnomer? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(1), 3–9.

Nancy Hennessy, M.Ed., LDT-C, educational consultant and Past President of the International Dyslexia Association, is an experienced teacher and administrator. She has designed and delivered keynote addresses, virtual and live workshops and training courses for educators. Nancy co-authored Module 6 of LETRS, Digging for Meaning: Teaching Text Comprehension (2nd edition) and authored the chapter, “Working With Word Meaning: Vocabulary Instruction,” in Multisensory Teaching of Basic Skills(4th edition). She was the recipient of IDA’s Margaret Byrd Rawson Lifetime Achievement Award in 2011.

We encourage sharing of Examiner articles. If portions are cited, please make appropriate reference. Articles may not be reprinted for the purpose of resale. Permission to republish this article is available from .