Summary: A Little Book of Language, by David Crystal

Crystal, D. (2010). A little book of language. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

I discuss A Little Book of Language, written by linguistics expert David Crystal, known for The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language and The Stories of English.  However, this "Little Book" is written for adolescents, not adults, even though many adults have read it, including teachers, armchair linguists, and some professors. I found much to interest me.

Crystal writes with clarity and authority, but the tone is conversational. Some call it chatty, even breezy. He explains any new vocabulary terms and avoids an abundance of jargon. To make a point, he cites J.K. Rowling, Roald Dahl, and Terry Pratchett, as well as Shakespeare and Dickens. In my view, this book is accessible to the average adolescent reader.

Adolescents aside, this book might make a nice addition to teacher development coursework, despite the conversational tone. It lacks the depth typically expected in tertiary education, but compensates for that lack with breadth. I certainly did not begin teaching first grade with a good understanding of some topics discussed in this book.

Layout

This book follows the same format as A Little History of the World -- another favorite of mine, also published by Yale. A Little Book of Language contains 40 chapters, each about 6 pages long, supported by black and white woodcut prints, and by maps. Some chapters offer a brief extension or application activity. Where applicable, the author provides references for further reading, including a variety of interesting websites. For example, on page 162 he shows a "Wordle" (discussed in a prior post) and provides the website so students might create their own word clouds.

Topics 
Adolescents will explore how language develops from babbling baby talk to speech. They will explore various aspects of language, including sounds, grammar, spelling, dialects, slang, sign language, accents, dictionaries, etymology, etc. There is a chapter on learning to read and write, and the challenges and benefits afforded the bilingual learner. Crystal discusses the origins of speech and writing and the various types of world languages, as well as language decay, the fact that many languages are dying out rapidly.

Crystal also discusses social media, text messaging, email, etc. Unlike some naysayers, he takes a positive view of the rise of the internet and the digital revolution. From a language perspective, he views this as more beneficial than not. However, he encourages more insightful use of digital methods of communication. For example, on page 188, readers consider the effects of "shouting" via email:

                
          What would you do if you got an email message like this?

             WILL YOU BRING MY DVD ROUND PLEASE. TED

         It might give you a bit of a fright, because it's all in capital letters.
         It's as if Ted is shouting at you. Is he upset? Is he cross?

  (etc.)

Conclusion

Crystal concludes by restating six causes that are important to him, hoping to persuade adolescents to share his perspective. (He discussed each cause at various points in prior chapters.) Each summary paragraph begins with an "I hope you'll care" statement:

Cause I    "I hope you'll care about the fact that so many languages in the world are dying." Crystal shares his concern for "endangered languages" and makes adolescents aware of the importance of language diversity. In an earlier chapter, he explained that about half of the world's languages are expected to die within 100 years -- that's about 3,000 disappearing languages (p. 126). Crystal also described promising examples of "language revitalization," citing Hebrew, Maori, and Welsh.

Cause II   "I hope you'll care about minority languages, even if they're not seriously endangered." Minority languages are those spoken only by small groups of people. Crystal encourages adolescents to take an interest in every tongue, and to make sure schools, libraries, community centers, etc. provide services and spotlights for the varied languages of the people they serve.

Cause III   "I hope you'll care enough about languages to want to learn as many of them as possible." Crystal explains that it's important to develop a multilingual personality -- to be willing to try a language, even just a few words, and to always carry a pocket dictionary when visiting a foreign country.

Cause IV   "I hope you'll care about the variety that exists within your own language."  Crystal refers to language variation within one's native tongue, including differences in dialect and accent. The message is to embrace the various ways we express ourselves, not to judge one another based on differences.

Cause V   "I hope you'll care about the range of styles that exist within your own language." Crystal encourages readers to consider which style of communication is best for any given situation. According to Crystal, sometimes tweeting is fine, other times an email is better, or perhaps a formal letter on crisp paper. He discusses register, from formal to informal and all stops between. Each style of communication serves a different purpose.

Cause VI   "I hope you'll care about people who are having difficulties learning or using their mother tongue." Here, the author encourages compassion and assistance for those who struggle with any kind of speech impediment or language impairment. Crystal states: 

"People seem very ready to poke fun at those who have a lisp, or a stammer, or some other speech difficulty. If you're a real linguist, you won't stand for that sort of thing. And don't be afraid to help people who are having difficulty expressing themselves" (p. 252)

I recommend this book for anyone who loves language. The topics in this book align with some of the key goals of education. I receive no reward for promoting this book and was not requested to do so.

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My thanks to the variety of authors and interested readers who support this blog. Vocabulogic has recently been listed as one of the Top Speech Pathology sites for 2012.  

Videos of Structured Word Inquiry (Bowers)

Peter Bowers contributed the following post. Pete is a doctoral candidate at Queen's University, Canada, with expertise in orthography and morphology, as well as critical thinking. He has investigated how morphological awareness contributes to various aspects of literacy, especially spelling and vocabulary knowledge. As a regular contributor to Vocabulogic, Pete has authored several posts, including Structured Word Inquiry and Meta-Analysis of Morphological Intervention Studies.  Visit Pete's website: WordWorks Literacy Centre.

Current research has converged on the finding that literacy instruction should address morphology from the beginning of instruction and that this is especially important for less able students (Bowers, Kirby & Deacon, 2010; Carlisle, 2010; Goodwin & Ahn, 2010; Reed, 2008). 

Given this evidence, the question facing educators and researches is not whether we should teach morphology, but how to teach it. 

Structured word inquiry (Bowers & Kirby, 2010) is an instructional approach that targets exactly this goal. I regularly receive anecdotal reports from teachers and tutors reporting examples of this effect, such as this account of a student-led investigation of the word condensation. As well, our controlled intervention study using this approach (Bowers & Kirby, 2010) showed that morphological instruction using the structured word inquiry approach brought significant vocabulary gains for words that were not explicitly taught, but which shared a base with explicitly taught words.

It is a challenge to explain what structured word inquiry is clearly and to convey how it operates in classrooms in writing. For that  reason, I am delighted that Susan has invited me to share a few videos that provide a big picture of this instruction and which illustrate this instruction in action in real classrooms. 

• This public lecture on structured word inquiry provides a useful "big picture" of this instruction. The video is from a talk I gave for the J.P.Das Centre on Developmental and Learning Disabilities at the University of Alberta.

• This video shows an investigation of the spelling of the word does in an elementary classroom.

• This video shows a lesson introducing the central linguistic tools of structured word inquiry, the morphological word sum and matrix to a kindergarten class.

To explore other videos illustrating this instruction in action in classrooms around the world, visit this YouTube channel. 

My hope is that these videos will motivate Vocabulogic readers to have a go at morphological analysis using matrices and word sums. There are many free resources available at www.wordwordskingston.com to help you get started.  

At this link, you will learn about a new piece of software called The Word Microscope (that is currently free to download) that you can use to start these types of investigations on your own and with your students. 

You may also be interested in the Teacher Resource Book based on the Bowers and Kirby (2010) intervention and the Word Works Summer Courses. Also consider joining my live on-line broadcast on “Structured Word Inquiry and the Scientific Study of Words” on Lexercise on June 14th. 


Finally, if I were to recommend one article that lays out the underlying principles of how English spelling works that are revealed through structured word inquiry with the matrix and the word sum, it would be Carol Chomsky's seminal 1970 paper, "Reading, writing, and phonology" in Harvard Educational Review.

References 

Berninger, V.W., Abbott, R.D., Nagy, W., & Carlisle, J. (2010).Growth in phonological, orthographic, and morphological awareness in grades 1 to 6. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39, 141–163.

Bowers, P. N., & Kirby, J. R. (2010). Effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary acquisition. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 515–537.

Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & Deacon, S. H. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80, 144–179.

Carlisle, F. (2010). Effects of instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement: An integrative review. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 464–487.

Chomsky, C. (1970). Reading, writing, and phonology. Harvard Educational Review, 4(2), 287–309.

Goodwin, A.P., & Ahn, S., (2010). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions: effects on literacy achievement of children with literacy difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 60, 183-208.

Reed, D.K. (2008). A synthesis of morphology interventions and effects on reading outcomes for students in grades K–12. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(1), 36–49.

Puzzling Plurals and the *Potatoe Incident

Thanks for participating in the Puzzling Plurals survey. In this post, after focusing on potato and other singular nouns that end with the open /o/ sound, I discuss the survey questions. To finish, I provide links to references, articles, and games.

It is evident from the survey results that "we" are perplexed. The English language is  puzzling, and plurals trouble all of us at times. As we know, they can certainly stress former US Vice Presidents--at least, that's the argument I make below.

"Now add one little bit on the end."

Some tricky singular-plural pairs are remnants of Old English, and flow from the Germanic layer of the language. Some are artifacts of Greek and Latin influence. Still others flow from Japanese, Arabic, Spanish, etc.

For example, take potato, a word that apparently traveled from native Haitian, was given a  Spanish spelling, and was adopted into English, from Sp. patata, from Carib (Haiti) batata "sweet potato." (etymology here). Basic English 101 says to make a plural, we add either the inflectional suffix -s or -es to the singular noun, right? But we typically add -es to words that end with hissing sibilant sounds like /s/, /z/, /sh/, /zh/ and /ch/ -- including wish-wishes, fox-foxes, and bus-buses. Now, potato does not end with a hissing sound, so why would the plural of potato be potato + es? We do not add an -es to pinto or pueblo, yet like potato, they came into English via Spanish. And if the plural is potatoes (and it is), then we should be able to figure out how to spell the singular simply by removing the final -s. Thus, we might deduce that the singular of potatoes is *potatoe. After all, someone (a teacher, or so the story goes) spelled it that way on the cue card for the ill-famed spelling bee. (See the *potatoe incident on YouTube.)

One can kinda-sorta see why Quayle's handler approved the cue card, and why the VP himself went along with it, telling the 12-year-old--who knew the correct spelling--to "add one little bit to the end" of his perfectly spelled potato. After all, there are just too many strange spellings to remember, and we never add -es to a noun that ends in a vowel.

Visual Thesaurus map for genie

But we do! Potato+es, echo+es, torpedo+es, tomato+es, and hero+es testify to it, while piano+s, inferno+s, video+s, rodeo+s and bistro+s refute it. Meanwhile, playing it safe, several sit the fence: ghettos or ghettoes, cargoes or cargos, flamingos or flamingoes, halos or haloes, tornadoes or tornados, etc. English is pickled with puzzles, and just when we find a pattern, the language genie attacks--sometimes we tangle with two genies at once--or genii?

I spell potato, you spell *potatoe? Pity the former Vice President, but pity even more the millions of English learners around the world. In fact, be gentle with all. From the survey results, even well-educated adults who use English with confidence all day fall prey to the unpredictable plural.

Below, I briefly discuss the survey questions. I note the percentage of 271 respondents who voted in favor of each phrase, deciding it was correct. Kudos (but not *kudoes) for resisting the dictionary while responding. Refer to the prior post to see the closed survey with graphed results and related comments.

• (82%) lots of data is correct. The singular is datum. 
• (55%) seven thesauri is correct. Thesauruses is listed in some dictionaries, but it only appears once every 1,356,110 pages, on average, according to Vocabulary.com. The singular is thesaurus. 
• (63%) a single bacterium is correct (like datum). The plural is bacteria. 
• (12%) six skinny mooses is not correct. The plural of moose is moose.
• (38%) one essential criteria is not correct. The singular is criterion; the plural is criteria.
• (26%) five octopuses is correct. Read about octopuses, not *octopi, below.
  
• (85%) four strong oxen is correct (like children, brethren, and extinct shoon, like shoe + -en; see shoe etymology). The singular is ox. 
• (63%) two loaded dice is correct. The singular is die (but dice is becoming more accepted as a singular form). Note the plural mice and lice are not expressed in singular as *mie and *lie.
• (89%) four flying fish is correct, but fishes would also be correct. 
• (71%) a strange phenomenon is correct (like criterion). The plural is phenomena. 
• (77%) some differing hypotheses is correct, ending with es. The singular is hypothesis (like crisis, analysis, thesis, parenthesis). 
• (13%) hundreds of hopping head lie is not correct. The plural is lice and the singular louse (like mouse, but not house and *hice)

English words reflect the spelling patterns of the parent language, but not with consistency. This is when we teach dictionary skills, an important aspect of vocabulary instruction. However, it is worthwhile to memorize the spellings of words we use frequently. Many of these words actually do conform to a plural-forming pattern. In Words and Rules, Stephen Pinker (1999, p. 26) theorized:

"The mind analyzes every stretch of language as some mixture of memorized chunks and rule-governed assemblies."

Rule-governed assemblies include spelling patterns. What are the spelling patterns for tricky plurals? Several experts have attempted to explain them, or list them. So, for your browsing pleasure, explore the following links -- there's even a game.

The Old English Plural by The Oxford Times

Tricky Plurals in English: Bacterias, Bacteriae, Bacteriums? Plurals of Loanwords in English, by Oxford Dictionaries-Oxford University Press (not sure if this will open without a membership). Here is an excerpt, explaining why *octopi is not the plural of octopus:

Tangled up in the coils of the language octopus
 X Sea lions are carnivores and eat fish, squid, octopi, crabs, clams, and lobsters. 
As the above example (taken from a US scientific publication) shows, a little knowledge of Latin and Greek can be a dangerous thing and sometimes leads people into error. The writer clearly knows that some Latin plurals are formed by changing the ‘–us’ ending of a singular noun into ‘-i’ for the plural, as in alumnus -> alumni. However, octopus is ultimately borrowed from a Greek word and not a Latin one, so it’s incorrect to form the plural according to the Latin rules. If you wanted to be ultra-correct and conform to ancient Greek, you’d talk about octopodes, but this is very rare: the Anglicized plural, octopuses, is absolutely fine. 

A Reference to Strange Plurals in English, at pipTALK Forums

Irregular Plurals and Nouns, at the University of Victoria Study Zone

One Fish-Two Fish, a game-like quiz at Sporcle (Try it!)

Minimum, Minima, and Other Irregular Plurals  by Bill Wilson, engineering

Strange Plurals at English Forums.com

Strange Plurals, an open list at Worknik

What is the Plural of Mouse? Quick and Dirty Tips by Grammar Girl


References:

Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Cheers,
Susan

Two Brief Podcasts on Vocabulary Instruction

Something new this time! This is a special treat, just in time for the holidays!

It is my pleasure to share a few thoughtful yet brief podcasts on vocabulary, from The Voice of Literacy (dot) org. I have listened to each podcast below and have read manuscripts written by each expert. Drs. Neuman and McCutchen discuss their specific line of research, with practical applications for pedagogy.

Each interview at The Voice of Literacy (and there are many more) runs for about 10 -15 minutes. 

Turn up the volume and enjoy!
 

Door # 1) Dr. Betsy Baker interviews Dr. Susan Neuman, on the topic of helping young children learn words and organize newly learned words into conceptual categories. This should help children learn, remember, and retrieve the words. Some elements of the podcast relate to developing word consciousness, prioritizing vocabulary instruction as a vital literacy element, and elevating the daily vocabulary used by teachers in the classroom. Go directly to the Voice of Literacy website for the podcast; just click the link below.

Using categories to teach vocabulary to preschoolers, an interview with Dr. Susan Neuman

Door #2)  Dr. Betsy Baker interviews Dr. Deb McCutchen on the topic of developing morphological awareness, both in the home and at school. Dr. McCutchen suggests several ways that parents and teachers might promote morphological awareness. For example, help learners notice similarity in form and meaning across morphologically related words, as in joy, joyous, joyously, enjoy, enjoyable, and, for a little fun with cognates, Joyeux Noël. The long-term goal is that students will independently infer the meaning of unknown words. Go directly to the Voice of Literacy website for the podcast; just click the link below.

Using morphological analysis to infer word meanings, an interview with Dr. Deborah McCutchen

PS.  Since you asked  ;- )

Here's a sneak peek at my new children's book, coming soon from Rowe Publishing and Design. Jamie's Journey has been six years in the making--the idea came to me before I started graduate school. What fun to watch illustrator Cory Godbey bring the book to life. Woot!

References:

Baker, E. A. & McCutchen, D. (2011, October 3). Using morphological analysis to infer word meanings. Voice of Literacy. Podcast retrieved from http://voiceofliteracy.org. 


Baker, E. A. & Neuman, S. (2011, September 5). Using categories to teach vocabulary to preschoolers. Voice of Literacy. Podcast retrieved from http://voiceofliteracy.org.

A Model for Morphological Reasoning via Collegial Conversations (Bowers, Mohler, & Reichstein)

Pete Bowers here--one third of the authors of this collegial conversation. This week’s post is a unique one. The text of this post was not written with the intention of becoming a public post, but it was inspired by a previous Vocabulogic post by Dr. Geri Mohler, an education consultant. Sharon Reichstein is a teacher of Grade 5/6 students with learning and/or reading difficulties in Ottawa who attended my very first summer course years ago and just keeps on moving forward! You can see a video clip of Sharon walking me around her amazing classroom a few years ago.

This correspondence was sparked when Sharon read Geri’s post and investigated the materials Geri so generously made available to everyone. Sharon noted an error in the materials and decided to write Geri directly to see what she thought. Sharon copied me and then, as you will see, Geri copied me in her response. I could not resist responding and sharing my opinion. It was Geri who first suggested we consider editing our emails for clarity and then posting our conversation on Vocabulogic.

I want to highlight the open, evidence-based discussion, modeling intellectual curiosity and reflective thought. Our hope is that by sharing this correspondence other Vocabulogic readers will be inspired to treat the identification of errors in their own thinking as opportunities to learn, and that sharing that learning is just an opportunity to push the community of learners knowledge forward. This might serve as a model for classroom discussions as well as collegial conversations.

Geri, Sharon, and I hope you find this discussion productive. Thanks to Susan for providing the venue!

Sincerely,
Pete Bowers
www.wordworkskingston.com
******************************************

Hi Geri,

I was reading Susan's Vocabulogic blog today and I was linked to your wonderful hands on activities. It is wonderful that you are sharing usable resources like this with teachers. I see three errors that I wanted to discuss with you. I have studied Real Spelling with Peter Bowers in Kingston, you may know him. 

1) On page 34, you have an activity that incorrectly highlights the suffix <-tion>, but this is incorrect, because <-tion> is NOT a suffix. More correctly, <-ion> is the suffix and the <-t-> is always part of the base. For example <dict> is a bound base meaning 'to say or speak' and <diction> is the base <dict + ion> and <prediction> is pre + dict + ion. An easier example to look at is the word action. Clearly if you look at the word morphologically you can see it is the free base <act> with an <-ion> suffix. 

2) On page 15, where you give reasons for single silent <e>, there is another reason that is not included. No word likes to look like a plural if it's not, so words that end in <s> usually have a single silent <e> to show it's not plural. “house” for example, the role of the single silent <e> is to make it clear that the word is not more than one “hou.” hou + s which clearly makes no sense. I'm not positive but I believe the reason for the <e> in the word <are> is to make the word longer but Pete would probably be able to explain it better. (I've cc'd him on this email). There is a reason for the <e> in “come” and “some” but again Pete will be able to explain it better. 

3) On page 18, the last reason you show for not changing <y> to <i> is that there is a rule that says two <i's> cannot go side by side in English because in cursive writing they look like a <u>, therefore if it's a suffix beginning with <i> you keep the <y>. 

Hope this helps and makes sense.

~Sharon
******************************************

Sharon,

Thanks for your thorough proofing of my vocabulary activities. I have provided similar kinds of activities to classrooms to try and I have given the kids $1 for every mistake they find. One time, it was enough for pizza for the entire class! I will admit, that time I purposely left in errors to see if they could find them. Of the three things you mentioned, I have a couple of comments:

1) First, I realize that -ion is considered the suffix but, in the dictionary, -tion is defined as a suffix. It is probably better that -ion be labeled as the suffix because it then takes into account session, crucifixion, etc.

2) The silent e rules I took from the Spalding method of reading instruction. I can see your point about the reasons why we add an "e" to house, etc., but in the Spalding method it only works with the 5 rules I listed. Besides, it doesn't make sense to protect the reader from thinking "hous" might be thought of as more than one "hou" when there is no "hou." I would think that, for kids learning to read, that is more information than they need, although it's probably great fun to relate the story. As for "are," "come," and silent e words like that, I'm sure there are numerous stories for their spellings as well. I still have a lot to learn, but I'm not sure how much kids need or want to know about some of the things that you and I (and Peter?) find fascinating. I try to keep it simple for kids when it's possible.

3) I guess the same goes for the 3rd reason for not changing the y to i. What you say makes sense and provides a reason for not spelling with two i's together.

All that said, you may note that the packet comes in Word as well as pdf, which means that you may change/repair anything you want if you choose to. As for me, I will probably leave it as it is because I no longer teach kids or teachers. But, if I ever decide to do more with these activities, I will change the -tion and replacing the 3rd reason for not changing y to i to your explanation. IF you decide to use the Word version and correct these things, I would love to have that version!

Thanks again for your scrutiny. I'm sure there are other issues as well. For instance, I provide keys to all of the activities, are they correct? I doubt they are 100% accurate. If, by chance, you find other errors, I would really appreciate your letting me know.

If you're interested, I have also created a fun game format to learn/work with the 1000 most frequent words (Fry's). I would be happy to share.

~Geri

(gerimohler@gmail.com)

******************************************

Hello Geri and Sharon,
I've very much enjoyed being included in this discussion.
Geri, I am delighted to see a maker of teacher resources who seeks out being corrected by students and asks for further advice from people they don't know that show an interest.

I understand that some of the conventions that Sharon described are not typically addressed in schools and may seem too complicated. I also understand that often teachers who are interested in those linguistic details are trepidatious about imposing their own interest on students.

But it has been my experience over and over that not only do children find these kind of conventions fascinating to discover, doing so helps them make ever better sense of how their writing system works, and deeper motivation to investigate those kinds of questions.

1) Geri, you write:
“First, I realize that -ion is considered the suffix but, in the dictionary, -tion is defined as a suffix. It is probably better that -ion be labeled as the suffix because it then takes into account session, crucifixion, etc.”

This statement of yours is excellent in that you show that you realize that it is quite possible that there is a flaw in the dictionary, and then you give evidence supporting why the <-ion> suggestion by Sharon makes more sense because it explains more words. Here you are applying the scientific principle of seeking the deepest structure that accounts for the greatest number of cases. When you look at any examples that dictionaries give for words with a <*-tion> suffix, they never work.

Here's what my Oxford says:  -tion: suffix forming nouns of action, condition, etc., such as completion, relation.  ORIGIN from Latin participial stems ending in -t + -ion .

I love encouraging students to make word sums with these two examples:
complete/ + ion --> completion
relate/ + ion --> relation

That is all that is needed to show that the dictionary must be wrong in this case as there is no such thing as <*comple> or <*rela>.

The interesting thing about this is that students love it, but teachers are often a bit nervous about it. Students, in my experience are much more keen to find examples of authoritative sources being shown to be wrong than are teachers.

To refine our understanding of the world, I like to base my conclusions on a scientific principle than on what one authority or another suggest. And that, I would say is what I would like to help children do. And I must say your eagerness to receive feedback from strangers suggesting errors in your work suggests that you are of a similar opinion.

I will provide just a couple of examples of what can happen when we invite children to join us as scientists investigating the structure and meaning of words with the aid of learning subtle conventions that most people don't know.

2) If you go to this link, you can download a pdf showing a story of a Grade 4/5 class at a school in a very poor neighborhood of my home town. Their teacher in this case has taught the students about the "single, silent <e> as a plural cancelling marker" first with the word <please> vs. <plea>, but he may well have shown that this convention also leads to the <e> at the end of <house> even though we don't know of a word spelled <hou>.

That is in the background knowledge of this group when they do an engaging activity in science on <condensation>. When the student brings up the question about how to make a word sum for this word, the students independently make use of that "silent <e> marker" convention to help them discover the connection between <condensation> and <condense> and thus discover the connection in meaning between two words that were new to them by using a spelling hypothesis based on that information to look in the dictionary.

I know it sounds a bit complicated. The point is, it wasn't complicated for the kids because they had been working on this content for some time with their teacher.

The other example I will share is this video of a Grade 7 student at this link,  explaining his wonderful learning about current events in Social Studies via morphological analysis of the word <dissident>. I think you will find it a fascinating use of linguistic knowledge to deepen and explain understanding of a rich subject area.

I can assure you there are errors in my publications too. Just this week a friend pointed to an error in my book, one I had never seen before. I must correct it before my next print run!

Cheers,
~Pete
*********************************************

Hi Pete and Sharon, 

I enjoyed this conversation immensely. You know what--we should post this entire dialogue in Vocabulogic. Should we send it to Susan?

~Geri
************************************************

Developing Language, Knowledge, and Vocabulary via Dialogic Reading Methods (Urbani)

Jacquelyn M. Urbani, Ph.D., contributed this post. Dr. Urbani specializes in reading research and in educating students who are deaf and hard of hearing, where learning to read and developing a broad vocabulary is particularly challenging. Her groundbreaking doctoral research involved helping teachers use dialogic reading procedures during storytime in deaf education classrooms. Before gaining her doctorate at UC Berkeley, Jaci was a teacher for 12 years.

Recent posts have described ways to optimize student vocabulary growth through storybook reading (see prior posts one and two). Reading to children is considered one of the best activities for developing the language, knowledge, and vocabulary essential for future success in reading (1). In particular, reading to children is considered valuable because of the simultaneous presentation of oral and written language as well as its interactive nature (2). This post will describe a specific kind of reading to children, dialogic reading, developed for the express purpose of facilitating students’ expressive language.

What is Dialogic Reading?

Dialogic reading aims to make students more active participants in the reading process by having adult readers engage students in discussion and retellings of the stories (3). Parents and teachers are encouraged to use specific kinds of interactions with children, based on the acronyms PEER and CROWD. PEER stands for Prompting of the child, Evaluating and Expanding upon their responses, and asking children to Repeat correct responses. Prompts are further described using the acronym CROWD: Completion questions (asking students to complete a phrase); Recall (asking children to remember details); Open-ended questions (encouraging student discussion of story ideas and the use of new vocabulary); Wh-word questions (who, what, where, when); and Distancing (making connections between the book and the students’ lives). Examples of dialogic reading prompts are provided below (4), referring to the children’s classic storybook Corduroy, by Don Freeman.

CROWD 
A mnemonic for types of questions and interactions: Completion, Recall, Open-Ended, Wh-word (who, why, where, what, when), Distancing

• Completion       "Corduroy lost a _____________." 


• Recall               "Do you remember what happened with the security guard?" 


• Open-Ended     "What happens when Corduroy looks for his button?" 


• Wh-word          "Who found Corduroy in the bed?" 


• Distancing        "What are your favorite toys?" 

PEER 
A mnemonic for Prompt, Evaluate, Expand, Repeat

• Prompt        (prompting the child -- a question or comment) 


• Evaluate      Provide gentle correction to student misinformation: "This is not an elevator. It's      called an escalator." 


• Expand        Provide further information: "Escalators are like stairs that move for you, so you don't have to use your energy." 


• Repeat         Ask students to repeat a correct response: "Tell me again why Lisa's mom does not let her buy Corduroy." (First, discuss the reasons.)

In my research, I found that teachers often responded to a description of dialogic reading by saying, “I’m already doing that. I ask lots of questions.” However, I found that teachers initially were using simple question types, such as yes/no questions or comprehension checks that required only a one-word response from students. As teachers became aware of the kinds of questions they were asking (this can occur through team teaching, mentoring, and/or critical friends), they were able to modify their language to incorporate more recommended features. Similar to previous posts, the recommendation with dialogic reading is for multiple readings. The first reading serves to engage students in the story and plotline. Subsequent re-readings provide opportunities for students to discuss topics and concepts presented by the book. However, typical teacher-student ratios of early childhood classes often limit such opportunities—which can be particularly problematic for students with language delays and/or English Language Learners. Therefore, teachers are encouraged to work with small groups of three to five students.

Potential Challenges When Implementing Dialogic Reading
Dialogic reading does require effort: quite honestly, it is easier to conduct a storybook reading if the teacher is the only one talking. Using dialogic reading emphasizes the multi-tasking nature of teaching. The teacher is reading and managing behavior as well as engaging students by using specific prompts, encouraging comments, facilitating conversational turn-taking, and keeping track of who has yet to enter the discussion.

Facilitating this student conversation is often uncomfortable for teachers, as they leave their comfort zone and give up some control. In my research on implementing dialogic reading practices, one teacher remarked that she was not sure how far to allow the conversation to go. My response was that if students are asking questions and making comments, these may indicate areas of interest and areas where they do not have the necessary background knowledge; she could then offer explanations to further both their conceptual knowledge and the conversation. However, it is also important to recognize when the conversation has strayed and it is necessary for the teacher to refocus the group on the storybook reading.

Dialogic reading may be difficult to implement, especially initially. An important feature for success is pre-reading the book. While teachers expressed frustration that they did not have time to pre-read the book, when they did make the time, they found it allowed them to consider appropriate prompts and questions, which were more easily integrated into the reading activity. (Because of the multiple readings of the book, this means teachers only need to read one book per week, which should be much easier than reading a new book per day.)

Because of the re-readings of the same book, I suggest reading to the same small group of students during the week. If it is necessary to stop the reading, teachers can resume at the appropriate place the next day. Also, teachers can continue previous conversation by saying, “Remember yesterday Talia asked about . . . and Billy commented on . . .” This also brings focus and support to the social aspect of learning. Students can rotate to new small groups weekly so they learn from each other and are not in static peer groups.

There are days when teachers will say, “Today, I’m just going to read, and we’re not going to make comments, and you all can relax and calm down.” This is necessary—for general sanity—every once in a while. But it shouldn’t be the nature of reading everyday, especially when dialogic reading offers clear benefits for language development, including vocabulary growth.

Dialogic reading is a recommended practice of the What Works Clearinghouse. Further description and research can be found there.

____________________________________
1.  Adams, 1990; Dickinson, McCabe, & Anastasopoulos, 2003; National Academy of Education, 1985.
2.  Ezell & Justice, 2005; National Academy of Education, 1985; and Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2005).
3.  Whitehurst, et al., 1988; Whitehurst, Arnold, et al., 1994; Whitehurst, et al., 1999).
4.  Adapted from Pearson Early Learning, 2006.

References: 

• Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT   Press.
• Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., & Anastasopoulos, L. (2003). A framework forexamining book reading in early childhood classrooms. In A. van Kleeck, E. B. Bauer, & S. Stahl (Eds.), On reading books to children: Parents and teachers (pp. 95–113). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Ezell, H. K. & Justice, L. M. (2005). Shared storybook reading. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
• National Academy of Education (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission on Reading. Washington, DC: Author.
• Pearson Early Learning. (2006). Read together, talk together: A dialogic reading program for young children. Available from Pearson Early Learning at www.PearsonEarlyLearning.com.
• Snow, C. E., Griffin, M., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.) (2005). Knowledge to support the teaching of reading: Preparing teachers for a changing world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D.S., Epstein, J.N., Angell, A.L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J.E. (1994). A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from low-income families. Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 679-689.
• Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., et al. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 552-559.
• Whitehurst, G.J., Zevenbergen, A.A., Crone, D.A., Schultz, M.D., Velting, O.N., & Fischel, J.E. (1999). Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention from Head Start through second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 261-272.

Ask: Past, Present, and Future Perspective

Some time ago, a correspondent asked about the varied pronunciations for the word ask. "Why do people say axe instead of ask?" I was not sure how to respond; this query goes beyond my field of expertise. Finally I did some exploring, accessing a new book on language variation and several excellent websites (see links and references). What I found was interesting and surprising. Below, I discuss only the theory that appears to be the least speculative, but keep in mind that scholars are still investigating this topic.

(Note: Letters inside slash marks indicate the pronunciation of a word. In student-friendly terms, the pronunciation for cup would be shown as /kup/, for example.)

This question is relevant to Vocabulogic because the underlying query is whether or not ask pronounced /aks/ is even a word. The question seems to be a popular one, too: When I entered the search term "pronounce ask" I got 4, 790,000 results from Google.  On the first page of results were the following headlines, among others:

• "I axe you, why can't Blacks pronounce the word ask?"
• "Why can't some people pronounce ask properly?" 

Some headlines and/or related comments were not kind. Language indexes all kinds of histories, practices, and stereotypes; this can evoke strong feelings, often nourished by misinformation. 

The pronunciation /aks/ might be discussed as a nonstandardized alternative for /ask/. It is not slang. We can examine this phenomenon through three lenses: the past, the present, and the future.

The word ask flows from old Germanic roots. Various  forerunners of ask were used by Anglo-Saxon writers (a form of Germanic) during the period known as Old English. Anglo-Saxon writers preferred to begin their word for ask with sounds similar to /aks/. Two different forms of the word appeared in Beowulf, ācsian and āxian, each one representing the pronunciation more similar to the modern-day /aks/. This epic poem dates to about the eighth century, but the only known print was made between 1000-1100 (dates are debated).

About 700 years ago, during Middle English, Chaucer included three different spellings for the word in Canterbury Tales. Here is one example, with the axe-variant:

Axe not why : for tho' thou axe me
I wol not tellen goddes privetee.
(Chaucer, Miller's Tale, v3557)

In American history, /aks/ was fairly common in New England and in the South, across cultures. Both pronunciations were used, but at some point /ask/ was standardized.

Today, if we say /aks/ for the word spelled ask we are reversing two adjacent sounds. This is called metathesis, an alteration in the normal sequence of elements, especially sounds (Crystal, 1995, p. 455).  This phenomenon occurs more frequently in words with unusual sound structure. We frequently hear neighboring sounds reversed in nuclear, jewelry, and realtor. Reversal of sounds in ask might be intuitive: There is some thought that it is mechanically easier to articulate /aks/ compared to /ask/.

At present, the pronunciation /aks/ for ask is heard across numerous dialects. Professors Anne Charity Hudley and Christine Mallinson (2011) explain it thus:

While the pronunciation of ask as axe is considered to be a nonstandardized pronunciation today, it is nevertheless very common. Many African Americans pronounce ask as axe, as do many speakers in the South, in Appalachia, in other pockets of the United States, in the Caribbean, and in parts of the United Kingdom. Part of the reason that this pronunciation is almost instantly noticed when it is used by African Americans is because it has come to be viewed as a stereotyped feature of African American English. (p. 80)

Peering into the future involves theory-driven conjecture. In The Story of Human Language, linguist John McWhorter (2004) hypothesized that within about 200 years the majority of Americans will say /aks/ for ask. Why? He suggested that saying /ks/ is easier, mechanically. Consider how easily we say words like fox, box, six, mix, wax, tax. One must work harder to articulate the final sounds /sk/ as in ask, desk, and mask. It may be easier to say /aks/ because after the vowel, we start at the back of the mouth for the /k/ sound and move to the front for /s/, whereas we must move backward in the mouth, from /s/ to /k/ when we say /ask/. Notice, too, there are not many words that end with the sound /sk/; I can think of ask, mask, task, brisk, desk, tusk, musk. It becomes even harder to say these words in plural form: Try articulating desks three times. It is true that if we make plural the words that end with /k/ we find many more words ending with /ks/, as in tracks, blocks, tricks, decks, ducks, likes, bakes, etc. But is that comparable? After all, there is a morpheme barrier between the base word and the final plural marker, -s. This morpheme barrier provides a cognitive clue that aides with speech, yes? 

Educational implications: Through discussion, educators can illuminate language as a living, morphing entity and a part of our identity. Hopefully, these insights will help older students and beginning teachers appreciate and understand the rich history and the broad diversity of language. Anne Charity Hudley and Christine Mallinson (2011) provide several more essential implications for teachers:

When working with African American English-speaking students who may not be confident in their use of standardized English and who may be engaging in verbal behaviors that vary from the language patterns that are expected to be used in school settings, it is important not to assume that variation in student's communication patterns signals low intelligence, uncooperativeness, or hostility. Rather, students may be using features of African American English to assert their identity. Students gain confidence and are able to enjoy academic and social success when they know and recognize academic English forms and when they recognize and value the language patterns they bring with them to school. (p. 100)

References:

Web-based sources:

Read Axing for trouble: Beowulf and metathesis at Stæfcræft & Vyākaraṇ, where linguist Benjamin Slade provides excerpts from the original texts of Beowulf and Canterbury Tales. 

Read The Atlantic, where Ta-Nehisi, senior editor for the journal, discusses conversate and /aks/ with Jesse Sheidlower, editor for Oxford Dictionaries.

Read Karen Nakumura's brief post at Photoethnography.

Listen to a podcast at With Good Reason, where several experts discuss "Spoken Soul: Black English in the Classroom" (the pronunciation of ask is addressed about 10 minutes into the podcast by linguist Anne Charity Hudley).

For a student-friendly story of ask, read Words at Random: The Maven’s Word of the Day.   

For more on language variation in general, see the prior post: Dialect, Slang, Jargon, and Register. 

Books:

Charity Hudley, A. H. & Mallinson, C. (2011). Understanding English Language Variation in US Schools. Teachers College Press: New York.

Crystal, D. (1995). The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language. Cambridge University Press.

McWhorter, J. (2004). The great courses: Social sciences: The story of human language (audio lectures). The Teaching Company.

Dialect, Slang, Jargon, Register: Implications for Instruction

Developing word consciousness in intermediate and secondary grades includes learning about dialect, slang, jargon, and register. Students need to become increasingly metacognitive with respect to these concepts. In this post, I juxtapose the four terms, speaking broadly. For more depth, follow the links.

Dialect:  The Oxford Concise Dictionary defines dialect as, “a form of a language which is peculiar to a specific region or social group." Dialects are noted by variations in phonology, phonetics, morphology, syntax and vocabulary. Linguists Odell, Vacca, and Hobbs (2007, p. 939) make a vital point:

"Everyone uses a dialect, and no dialect
is better or worse than another."

In the US, many dialects or varieties of English are heard: Southern English, Appalachian English, African American English, New York City English, Chicano English, California Surfer Dude and Valley Girl English, Boston English, etc. Overseas, more varieties of English are spoken, including Australian English, Cockney English, Jamaican English, and so forth. To hear varieties of English from all over the world visit The International Dialects of English Archives. Click the links in the sidebar and listen to the audio clips. Let your students listen, too. It is fascinating -- and free. Also, scholars at the University of Wisconsin created the Dictionary of American Regional English (DARE). This outstanding resource defines regional words and displays maps showing where specific words are spoken in America. Visit the DARE website. View the educational resources. Take the synonym quiz. (I DAREsay, "It ain't gonna be easy!")

African American English (AAE) is a dialect. However, AAE is an ethnic dialect rather than a regional dialect. "An ethnic dialect is a speech pattern of a special community that has preserved some of its heritage from the past" (Odell et al., 2007, p. 939). According to Denham and Lobeck (2009), ethnic dialects often cross regions and are/were influenced by isolation and/or segregation. For further reading, see African American English is not Slang, published by WORD., The Online Journal of African American English. Also see The diversity of English in America, published by Popular Linguistics.

To learn about Southern English and African American English, read the book pictured above: Understanding English Language Variation in U.S. Schools. Anne Charity Hudley and Christine Mallinson are experts in their field, providing teaching strategies as well as suggestions for assessment and application. In their book, they speak not of standard English but of standardized English:

The term standardized English makes the parallel that just as specific types of knowledge are valued on standardized tests, so, too are specific types of language valued within the educational system (p. 12)

Slang: Carl Sandburg poetically but not comprehensively wrote, "Slang is language which takes off its coat, spits on its hands and goes to work" (1959). Slang words and phrases are highly colloquial and informal in type, occurring more often in speech than in print. Slang consists either of newly crafted words or of existing words employed in a special sense. Slang often manages to make the abstract concrete and memorable, by employing imagery. For example, the phrase chill out brings to mind a hothead on ice--far more picturesque than compose yourself.  For more slang, visit Alphadictionary: Historic Dictionary of American Slang. Also visit SlangSite.com. (Beware! Some words are not suitable for school. There is also the Urban Dictionary, even more liberally stocked with unmentionables.)

Often, slang words have a short shelf life, fading away after a generation. Some slang words have endured and entered the general lexicon, including bogus, geek, mob, hubbub, and rowdy. Some slang words are used across dialects. Consider the word cool. Is it heard in every dialect of English?

Eric Partridge, a British lexicographer and researcher, described 15 reasons people speak in slang (Slang: Today and Yesterday, 1933, ch. 2, available for download). His research is dated, but these reasons might still hold true today. Below, I list the first three reasons and the last reason. Notice how nicely the first three ideas lend themselves to prompting creativity, identity, word consciousness, and love for language.

1) "In sheer high spirits, by the young in heart as well as by the young in years; 'just for the fun of the thing'; in playfulness or waggishness."

2) As an exercise either in wit and ingenuity or in humour. (The motive behind this is usually self-display or snobbishness, emulation or responsiveness, delight in virtuosity.)

3) 'To be different'; to be novel. 

15) To be secret--not understood by those around one. (Children, students, lovers, members of political secret societies, criminals in or out of prison...)

Students might enjoy rhyming slang. According to David Crystal (1995), rhyming slang probably originated with the criminal underworld of London Cockneys in the mid-19th-Century. A few examples are provided below.

Rhyming Slang	Meaning
apples and pears	stairs
artful dodger	lodger
Cain and Abel	table
north and south	mouth
read and write	fight
trouble and strife	wife

Jargon: Jargon is the specific terminology used to support our interests and occupations. For the Vocabulogic readership, associated jargon includes semantics, pragmatics, morpheme, phoneme, analogy, conceptual, contextual, etc. The American Heritage Dictionary defines jargon as, "the language, especially the vocabulary, peculiar to a particular trade, profession, or group: medical jargon" and also "language that is characterized by uncommon or pretentious vocabulary and convoluted syntax and is often vague in meaning."

Unlike most slang, academic jargon is typically not imaginative or picturesque. Too much of it might leave one feeling stifled, even oppressed. This might be why the suffix -ese elicits angst in words like legalese, acadamese, officialese, bureaucratese, etc.  Like some slang, jargon might keep outsiders out, serving to exclude.  Nonetheless, jargon has its place, enabling members of a group to communicate about their interests. (For more on abuse of jargon, read about word clutter at SimpleWorld.CA.)

Does enjoyable jargon exist? Some non-academic jargon is delightfully creative, as with the metaphoric trucker jargon: bear in the air, rubber duck, roller skate, alligator, etc. Also, because rhyming slang formed the vocabulary of a particular profession, might we also call it a form of jargon (perhaps "robber jargon")? I am not always certain where slang ends and jargon begins, but clearly, not all jargon consists of stuffy academic words.

Register: According to the American Heritage Dictionary, register is "a variety of language typically used in a specific type of communicative setting: an informal register; the register of scientific discourse." An informal register is typically used at home and at play. A more formal register is used in nonfiction texts, lecture halls, etc. There are also registers that fall somewhere between formal and informal. Formal language is broadly called academic English. (See Academic Words Every Day.)

Applications: With older students, discuss language at the metacognitive level. Explore the linguistic, political, social and cultural aspects of language. Esteem every language variety. Language is personal--a part of our identity. Create an environment that treasures language and resounds with speech. (See Treated to Language.)

Instead of teaching that communication is either formal or informal, convey the notion of incremental shifts in formality. Use a horizontal scale, as inserted below, to show gradations of register, from quite informal to highly formalized and standardized. Let students converse in small groups to classify any given sample of speech or print. Discuss the rationale: What makes the communication more or less formal?

________________________________________________________________

less formal                                REGISTER                                  more formal  

Teach adolescents across dialects to select a suitable register for speaking and writing, depending on the audience and the goal. If the selected register is more formal, teach students to use academic vocabulary and syntax and to limit slang. This is a matter of pragmatics, of understanding the social application and function of language.

Teach students to recognize jargon. Adolescents might sort word cards, jargon versus slang versus general words. Also, teach students to recognize when someone is deliberately (or perhaps unintentionally) creating a lexical barrier with a plethora of professional jargon or an overabundance of academic English.

References: 

Crystal, D. (1995). The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language. Cambridge University Press.

Denham, K., & Lobeck, A. (2009). Linguistics for everyone: An introduction. Boston: Cengage Learning.

Odell, L., Vacca, R., & Hobbs, R. (2007). Elements of language: Fifth course (teacher's edition). Austin, TX: Holt Rinehart and Winston.

Partridge, E. (1933). Slang: Today and Yesterday.  Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Sandburg, C. (1959, February 13). The New York Times.

Building Prior Knowledge of Concepts (Lord)

(Please respond to the survey in the sidebar to the left.)

Kathleen Lord is an assistant professor of Literacy Education at the State University of New York - New Paltz. Her research interests include comprehension, particularly pertaining to conceptual development and knowledge acquisition. Dr. Lord can be reached at lordk@newpaltz.edu. 

Individually, I interviewed 102 fourth graders, asking them about social studies concepts. Responses varied widely, depending on the concept itself. Three examples are shown below (interviewer’s prompts are in parentheses):

1: "What does paying taxes mean?”

Results: Only 22% provided an example of paying taxes or defined the word. Some students explained that money is collected at the store and that you pay more money than the price of the item; however, students had no idea what the money is used for.
Responses included: When you buy something and it is one dollar and you pay seven cents. (What do they do with it?) They put it in the drawer. (Then what do they do with it?) They collect it and give it back as change.”

Question 2: "What does inventing something mean?”

Results: This time, 52% provided a definition or an example of “inventing something,” referring to Thomas Edison and different inventions. Among those not receiving credit for their answers, students explained inventing something as “making something” like arts and crafts or bacon and eggs, whereas four students said, “when you lie” or “making a story up.”

Question 3: "What does making a trade mean?”
Results: A whopping 80% of the students provided correct explanations for “making a trade.” Responses included trading Yu-Gi-Oh or Pokemon cards, and trading school items such as pencils and stickers (Lord, 2007).

Students answered questions pertaining to trade, but had difficulty answering questions about taxation and invention. Why? The difference appears to be experience. Some concepts are known to young students, whereas other concepts are either emerging or are not yet known. If students have never invented something, discovered the unknown, or been involved in a rebellion, it is unlikely that they would recognize these situations when encountered in text. Often, young readers are being introduced to concepts that they have had little or no previous exposure to, and these unknown or emerging concepts may interfere with their comprehension.

Conceptual knowledge is not only important for reading in the content areas but is crucial for reading and learning, period. It is nearly impossible to reason, interpret, analyze, infer, or answer questions that require higher-order thinking if the reader does not understand the big ideas presented in the text. Inevitably, these gaps in understanding impede learning and comprehension.

Prior knowledge: It is often thought that students gain knowledge from text. Students actually modify knowledge that they already have (Catts, 2009; Kintsch, 1998). When new information connects to an existing knowledge structure, this prior knowledge (or schema) serves as a foundation for new ideas encountered in text and leads to the construction of a situation model (van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). This is critical to comprehension and results in a deeper understanding of the information in the text. Research has repeatedly shown that children and adults with prior knowledge about a topic have better comprehension of the text than those with no prior knowledge (Chiesi, Spilich, & Voss, 1979; Pearson, Hansen, & Gordon, 1979; Spilich, Vesonder, Chiesi, & Voss, 1979; Taylor, 1979). In fact, less skilled readers can actually outperform skilled readers when they have more prior knowledge (Kintsch, 1998; Recht & Leslie, 1988; Schneider, Korkel, & Weinert, 1989; Taylor, 1979).

But where does this prior knowledge come from? One avenue is via life experiences. When a student visits various zoos on many occasions, he/she constructs a “zoo” schema. When reading about the zoo, the zoo schema (existing knowledge structure) is activated and this schema serves as an anchor for new information about the zoo. The concept of “zoo” is fairly concrete, tangible. The Bronx Zoo and the San Diego Zoo are specific examples of the concept of zoo. We generalize the concept of zoo from specific examples.

Not all concepts are concrete. Concepts can also include ways of thinking, feeling, or behaving, e.g., democracy, conflict, exploration, justice, migration, or adaptation (Walker, 2009). Specific examples of the concept of exploration include Sally Ride and space exploration, Columbus and his discoveries, Robert Ballard and his exploration of the Titanic, and famous archeologists and their specific investigations. Again, students need specific examples in order to generalize the abstract concept of exploration.

Consider the historical period prior to the American Revolution, information introduced in fourth and fifth grades. In Table 1 below, some specific topics and events are given in the left column and the recurring concepts are listed in the right column. The abstract concepts in the right column are generic ideas generalized from the specific examples in the left column.

Table 1: Topics and events with associated concepts

Specific Topics and/or Events	Concepts
French and Indian War	Conflict; treaties; compromise
Stamp Act, Sugar Act, tea tax	Taxation
Yelling "No Taxation without representation!"	Protest
Sons of Liberty; burning down tax collectors' homes; tossing tea into harbor	Rebellion
Refusing to purchase things from Britain	Boycott
Throughout the period	Independence; democracy; freedom; liberty; colonization; representative government

These concepts recur, but not only during history instruction, throughout life. If learned deeply, students will be able to access these concepts to use as prior knowledge when learning new content. Notably, if students remain either unaware of the concept/s or have had no experience with the concept/s, their comprehension of the text will be hindered.

An instructional model: We have a dilemma. How do we teach content that will eventually become the prior knowledge needed for new learning? Below, I provide a model to guide the planning process.

1. Identify concept/s: Identify concepts within the topics or events. Determine students’ understanding, as well as their misconceptions, of the key concepts that will be encountered during instruction.

2. Plan for depth and breadth: Depth is needed for schema development. Breadth is needed for transfer. Depth involves teaching so that students understand the concept well and can utilize it in new contexts. Breadth involves providing varied experiences within the concept in order to promote transfer to new contexts.

For instance, when teaching exploration, provide in-depth instruction and experiences with exploring, and then orchestrate instruction that exposes students to varied instances of explorers and exploration. Begin instruction with a known or familiar event (Columbus). Then extend to other types of exploration, providing specific instruction concerning similarities and differences among different explorers. By linking historical explorers to present-day explorers, students’ knowledge of exploration will extend beyond their limited understanding that explorers were people from centuries ago.

3. Locate material to teach the concept: Once the concept is identified, locate material to teach the concept. Select books and other resources that expose students to various situations of the same concept in order to teach for transfer. Learning can be enriched and deepened when taught with children’s literature and biographies. Additionally, literature serves as a common classroom experience to refer to throughout the unit. For instance, reading aloud a trade book about a child immigrating or sharing a book about a child escaping slavery through the Underground Railroad provide foundations to build upon.

4. Determine essential question/s: Let the students help you form these questions. Essential questions keep the unit focused. These questions are pertinent to the “big ideas” that will be encountered throughout a unit of study. Encourage students’ questions about the concept and use these to generate essential questions concerning the big ideas. During instruction, return to the questions so that students recognize how each lesson pertains to the big ideas.

For an immigration unit, consider questions such as, “Why do people move?” “How do they get there?” “How do they assimilate?” “Where do they come from and where do they go?” provide an anchor for each lesson.

5. Vocabulary: Teach vocabulary associated with the concept and revisit this vocabulary often and throughout the unit. Beyond the obvious words taught throughout an exploration unit (e.g., explore, discover, journey, investigate), include other words pertaining to character feelings and traits (e.g., tenacious, risk-taking, adventurous, courageous, intrepid, resolute) and modes of transportation (e.g., submarine, rocket, ship, Conestoga wagon).

6. Plan authentic activities and establish a purpose: Build background knowledge by allowing students opportunities to experience the concepts, while making direct connections to the to-be-learned content. One thing we can count on is that students’ authentic experiences can serve as conceptual prior knowledge. These experiences involve exploration, invention, compromise, conflict, community building, representative government, democratic leadership, and economic decisions. They include observing cycles and adaptation, creating habitats, and experiencing motion and velocity.

In the classroom, utilize familiar experiences or create common experiences to anchor subsequent learning (e.g., designing an exploration scenario; posing a dilemma in need of an inventive solution; introducing classroom elections and government; taxing students). Additionally, establish a genuine purpose for the unit such as preparing students to interview a present-day inventor, explorer, elected official, or tax collector.

These activities, in addition to reading children’s literature, provide common classroom experiences for instruction, as well as the prior knowledge needed for new learning to take hold.

Basal reading programs: If utilizing a basal reading program, the thematic unit can be enriched in similar manner. Each unit is based on a conceptual theme. Identify or modify questions provided by the publisher, and/or develop essential questions based on students’ questions. Introduce key concept vocabulary beyond the story vocabulary. Locate relevant children’s books including chapter books beyond the weekly story selections, and begin, intentionally, to teach concepts for transfer.

(Click "Read more" for the references)

Word Games to Target the Five Language Components (Cavanaugh)

This post was contributed by Christie L. Cavanaugh, Ph.D. Christie has also written two prior posts describing thematic language centers for preschool, and language facilitation strategies. See  Part 1 here and Part 2 here, along with Christie's bio.

To help my early childhood students deepen their ability to make connections between language and literacy, I gathered a variety of familiar games that reinforce these links. Each game illustrates at least one of the five components of language: phonology, morphology, semantics, syntax, and pragmatics in oral and/or written form. Furthermore, I added the role of background knowledge. We need background knowledge to successfully play many word games and, at the same time, playing these games contributes to the development of background knowledge.

The research base to support the use of games to build the links between language and literacy draw from a large knowledge base about the interaction between language and literacy development, but also from what we know about the features of effective instruction, particularly multiple opportunities to practice and time on task, and building motivation through increased social interaction among students related to reading for students who struggle academically (Guthrie & Davis, 2003; Guthrie & Humenick, 2004). There have been some studies that have used games as a strategy for building vocabulary for English Language Learners (Townsend, 2009), but little exists that explore the value of using games to address all language components and the connection to literacy.

The five language components:

• Phonology relates to the sounds of a language and how they are combined to form words and phrases. Phonology impacts meaning in the sense that two words may vary only by one phoneme (individual speech sound) but have very different meaning (for example, consider church and chirp). 
• Morphology relates to word structure through units of meaning (morphemes). Free morphemes are freestanding units of meaning--words like pillow and learn. Bound morphemes are units of meaning that are attached to free morphemes, like the suffix -s in pillows and the prefix re- in relearn.  Morphology influences phonics, semantics/vocabulary and syntax. 
• Semantics is knowledge of word meanings for specific words, categories, and context to determine meaning or to select the appropriate word to convey a thought or idea. In addition to morphology, vocabulary knowledge relies on the components of phonology and semantics. 
• Syntax relates to the rules that govern word order in phrases and sentences and this area influences comprehension of oral and written language. 
• Pragmatics deals with use of language and the knowledge of the functions of various forms of language—knowing when to use a word or expression for a particular purpose and in a particular social setting (Owens, 2008).

There is much interaction between the five language components. When students experience strength in one or more area their strengths influence other components. The converse is also true: If students experience difficulty with one language component, they are likely to also experience difficulty with at least one other component. In order to identify needs and plan lessons accordingly, teachers must understand the connections between language and literacy development.

Teachers also need to recognize how particular games can address students’ needs and how to adapt games to meet specific goals. Modifications require careful planning. An easy and perhaps necessary modification for classroom use would be to transform game responses, from oral to written. Because many games have a timing component, automaticity of recall is also emphasized. Click here to download a chart listing 13 word games with language components identified.  One of the games listed on the chart, Mad Gab, is especially useful for developing phonological awareness, but it also reinforces background knowledge and vocabulary. To learn more, Play MadGab Online. Below, I elaborate on five of the games listed on the chart.

Balderdash (Gameworks Creations, 1984) is a game that targets vocabulary and the skill to define words. Players generate definitions of words, mostly unknown and obscure words, and vote on the one that represents the correct definition (players’ versions are presented along with the real definition). All language components are addressed through playing Balderdash, particularly semantics, syntax, and morphology. Knowledge in these areas allows players to create believable definitions through recognition of morphemes, possible part of speech, and of course, meaning. Pragmatics is addressed because players can also identify how a word might be used as part of the definition, and for bluffing.

Buzzword (Patch Products, 2003) is a game about phrases, terms, or places that are grouped according to a common word. Players use clues to encourage team members to identify the phrase that reflects the meaning of the provided clue, but also contains the “buzz word” or common word contained in all phrases. Teams have 45 seconds to guess all 10 phrases. For example, the buzzword apple appears in phrases for clues such as “the object of my affection, the all-American dessert, lump in a man’s throat, etc.” This game addresses semantics and pragmatics (particularly for understanding when phrases or terms are used) and builds background knowledge.

Funglish (Hasbro, 2009) is a game that targets vocabulary and involves providing clues and guessing. Players use attributes or adjectives to display and indicate whether the item to guess (person, place, or thing) is “definitely,” “kind of,” or “not” like the adjectives displayed. (The use of these clue categories is reminiscent of the use of certain vocabulary graphic organizers such as a 4-square word map). For example, the target word may be carrot, so players might display these words for “definitely:” orange, crunchy, edible, solid; “kind of:” good, sweet, straight; and “not:” stripy, liquid, or fragile. Players can place as many clues on the board as it takes for others to guess the target. Guessers can prompt the clue-giver to place additional adjectives by asking, “What color is it?” This game addresses semantics and syntax, but also taps into morphology and phonology, both of which are particularly important as English language learners build vocabulary.

Hink Pink (Discovery Bay Games, 2008) is a game of riddles and rhymes, so of course, addresses phonology, semantics, morphology, and syntax. Players read descriptions or definitions for word pairs that rhyme. A one-syllable word pair is labeled as a “Hink Pink,” 2-syllable pair, “Hinky Pinky,” and 3-syllable pair, “Hinkity Pinkity.” One example of a clue for a hinkity pinkity is “lying in court about a medical operation” with the correct response surgery perjury. Background knowledge is also activated.

Orijinz (Entspire, 2007) is game of word and phrase origins. Players read origins and definition clues on cards for players to guess the word or phrase, many of which are idiomatic expressions. This game addresses semantics, syntax, and pragmatics (to understand when to use the expressions) while also targeting morphology (etymology in particular with references to base words in other languages) building background knowledge with historical information about the origins of expressions—some more common than others. This game applies to pre-service teachers, but also to elementary through high school students.

Do you have a favorite game that reinforces language and literacy? Let us know. Meanwhile, enjoy!

Christie

References

• Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school through an engagement model of classroom practice. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(1), 59-85. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
• Guthrie, J. T., & Humenick, N. M. (2004). Motivating students to read: Evidence for classroom practices that increase reading motivation and achievement. In P. McCardle&V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 329–354). Baltimore: Brookes.
• Owens, R. E. (2008). Language development: An introduction (7th Ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Townsend, D. (2009). Building academic vocabulary in after-school settings: Games for growth with middle school English-language learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(3), 242-251.