As I mentioned in my previous post, the alphabetic system
has been accused of being flimsy by some, while at the same time being praised
as logical and natural by others. I find
it hard to side with either argument because I can see where they are each
coming from. However, I feel more
inclined to side with Ms. Wolf.
English is a hard language to learn. I see that in my TEFL
students now. Reading is difficult because of the silent letters and homonyms
and all other sorts of strange pronunciations. Wolf’s article explains that
these anomalies in pronunciation hold intrinsic value to understanding where
words come from and what they mean.
I just had a conversation with a friend about the alphabetic
system, Chinese characters, Korean characters, and the phonetic alphabet. It
was quite interesting. We talked about how learning to read Chinese is
extremely difficult because of the sheer number of characters, and how they
give no hint as to pronunciation, but rather meaning. Korean has been identified
by many linguists as the most perfect written system there is. The characters
are easily readable (once you know the system) and give hints as to how the
mouth should look when each syllable is being read, which helps with
pronunciation. One of the tools we have in English (and other Roman
alphabet-based languages) is the phonetic alphabet. My friend argued that the
alphabet we have now could easily be replaced by the phonetic alphabet to help
students begin to read. The pronunciation is standardized and there will be no
homonyms or silent letters to trip kids up.
My issue with this is what Wolf mentions earlier in the
article, that the way words are spelled gives clues to understanding their
roots and morphology. If all words had standardized spelling using the phonetic
alphabet, there would be no clues as to what the word actually means. Sure,
they would be easier to read, but more difficult to understand, especially for
adolescent readers that should be starting to understand prefixes, suffixes,
and roots of words from Latin, French, etc.
As I teach students here in Beijing, I realize that doing so
would be so much easier if we used the phonetic alphabet. Indeed, I like to
teach it to my older students and use it often to correct pronunciation. But
this wouldn’t help in the real world, and in my opinion, would be shortchanging
the kids’ learning experience. I’m an
aesthetic reader, I suppose, so I love reading for more than just information.
I love the nuance of language, including the way words are written. Some words
just look better than others. Teaching
students to read and appreciate the alphabet does more for their knowledge than
a simply oral-based approach, or one that uses the phonetic alphabet
exclusively.
One thing to remember is that this kind of reading (and
appreciating) must be taught. In my next post, I will continue with Wolf’s
address of Strauss’ theories focusing on whether or not reading (along with
speaking) is a natural process.
Wow, you brought up really interesting points in your blog. I have many native Spanish speakers in my classes, and we talk about how Spanish is much more phonetic in the way words are spelled vs. English. As for your point about the Korean alphabet, I addressed that in my research paper for LLSS 537 when we had to research an aspect of culture. I found the history of that language, and the fact that their letters mimic the how the mouth looks extremely interesting.
ReplyDeleteVery perceptive thoughts on roots, suffixes, and prefixes, Talia. These will serve you well in a TEFL setting.
ReplyDeleteThough it doesn't possess the same baggage as English, Korean is not always the phonetically perfect language people make it out to be. Many times the "s" sound, an upside down v, the same character as people in Chinese, is pronounced as a "t" sound. There other shifts, too.