Aer You Srue Yuo're Raeidng Tihs?

Language is one of the most necessary possessions of mankind. Where would we be if we could not communicate with each other? First thought that comes to mind is the biblical story of the Tower of Babel. Mankind was thriving and was drifting from virtue, so God created several languages, and no one could understand each other. Not only did they stop building their “stairway to heaven”, but they scattered all over the world, unable to continue to work together and driven crazy from frustration. Language is a powerful tool; without it, I wouldn’t be writing this blog post.

            In reading Practical Education, “Of Tasks”, I was very bothered by the author’s criticism of the way we learn language. I too find it fascinating that we are able to learn such a complex form of communication, especially when doing so relies on beginning at such an early age as a child. However, the miracle of it is diminished when you simply look around: we can all do it. Yes, there are rare cases of people who cannot learn to read, or people who simply are never exposed to reading. It is clearly not as innate as speech, but definitely is related. There are many words I know only because I was taught them at one point or another, but would never have learned had someone not taken the time to explain the meaning to me. People with a greater vocabulary generally tend to be bigger readers, in my experience.

            I should probably clarify and say that I find language absolutely fascinating. I am not opposed at all to learning more about the way we learn languages. In fact, I think it’s amazing to look deeper in to this topic, especially at brain functions involved in learning to read. However, would I go as far to say that the way we teach children language is “dreadful”, as is proclaimed by Edgeworth? Of course not. Now I suppose I can’t speak from experience; I have never helped a child learn to read. However, I do know that all of these additional symbols suggested by Edgeworth to help children learn to read have never been necessary in the past. In fact, multiple “masters of language” have become who they learning language with simply the letters in the alphabet and lots of experience. Edgeworth undoubtedly learned to read without such symbols. And what research does Edgeworth have to support this claim that additional symbols would serve as an effective teaching tool for reading? As far as I can tell, none (although I believe it would be a fascinating experiment to conduct). I believe it is safe to say that, whether you teach with these additional symbols, or the old-fashioned way, the pupil will have to maintain the same amount of knowledge in their long-term memory, whether it is multiple sounds for the same letter/symbol or multiple markings for the same letter/symbol. Personally, I prefer to marvel over the fact that children have, in general, been taught to read the same way for centuries, and somehow, despite all of the complexities that accompany language (like those pointed out by Edgeworth), we manage to become masters. Not only do we learn the words that we see and hear every day, but we have the capacity to understand words we have never seen before. We even learn to manipulate language using irony, humor, poetry, and many other tools that are truly extraordinary, considering what they are able to accomplish. From the impact of a state of the union speech, to winning the heart of a romantic interest, language has the ability to do phenomenal things. Those who master language above and beyond the level of those around them hold great power. And remembering that we all began with the letter a, is something of wonder.

            On the other hand, this insight by Edgeworth was quite prolific for a children’s novelist of the 1800s. She was able to recognize several aspects of reading 150 years ago that we are still milling over today in our understanding of how the brain works. In Reading in the Brain, “How we Read”, Dehaene discusses how there are two informational pathways for when we read. In one pathway, our eyes take in the words we see and process them, using both rules we know of writing and, more importantly, our experience with those words. Words that we are unfamiliar with are sent down the other pathway, where rules for the alphabet, pronunciation, and general meaning of groupings of letters are processed. This idea is also touched on by Edgeworth when she notes that “The sound of three or four letters together, will immediately become familiar to him; and when any of the less common sounds of the vowels, such as are contained in the second table, and the terminating sounds, tion, ly, &c. occur, they should be read to the child, and should be added to what he has got by rote from time to time” (p. 7). Edgeworth was unknowingly touching on a scientific claim that would still be supported over a century later by Dehaene. This further supports the idea that language is not only essential for survival, but one of the most timeless traits possessed by mankind. Is it innate? I am not equipped to say, although my guess is not even halfway.

            Take the case of Genie, a young girl who was locked in a room with a toilet and minimal human interaction by her parents until she was thirteen years old. She was never taught to speak, never taught to read, and by the time someone finally came to her rescue, it was too late. Genie was never able to come even close to fluently speaking. She learned to speak many words, but could not understand sentence structure, and while she seemed to be making progress for a while, she was never able to fully grasp the concept of language. Eventually she gave up on speaking entirely, and became mute. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4804490&page=1#.Tyo3ylw7WAg

            So what exactly does it take to master language? Clearly it cannot be self-taught. However, is there truly a better way to teach your kids to read? Edgeworth would argue so. Yet child development studies have also shown that devices such as “Baby Einstein” have no significant effect on when a child learns such things as language. So the next question seems to be, to what extent is a child’s ability to learn language innate? Hereditary? Nurtured? Edgeworth also hints at the idea that many children are “turned off” from the idea of reading based on the way it is presented to them. Is this true, or do some kids simply not like reading? I personally love to read, and always have. My parents never forced me to read; I did so because I wanted to. I began reading Lord of the Rings in 3^rd grade, and haven’t been able to put books down for as long as I can remember. My brother, on the other hand, has never been much of a reader. He went to all the same schools as me, and received the same parenting, yet hasn’t even read Harry Potter (I seriously don’t know what’s wrong with the kid…). My opinion is that a good chunk of reading ability comes simply from personality and general individuality. Some kids like it, and some don’t. Now there’s an interesting study for you: Do kids who claim to enjoy reading display more brain activation when reading than those who do not enjoy it as much? fMRI anyone?