KALBA IR VISUOMENĖ

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

THE PROBLEM OF LITERACY THROUGH THE EYES OF THE INTERNET COMMUNITY AND TEACHERS

KEYWORDS: spelling, language attitudes, language teaching, codification.

1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

In recent years, public discussion has increasingly focused on society’s literacy—both in the narrow sense of the ability to write without errors (and to read written text) and in the broader sense of cultural literacy (erudition), which also encompasses the ability to create a text, recognize it, understand it, and interpret it¹.

The focus is first on secondary school: this is where the foundations of literacy are acquired, so everyone who has completed secondary education ought to be literate. However, obvious signs, along with the still rather limited research into the current state of Lithuanian spelling—which, because of the scarcity of such studies, means that discussions of this topic more often have to rely on opinions and commentaries published in the media—show that it is not only students’ literacy that is declining: the phenomenon is spreading to other social groups as well. For example, in one interview, Vytautas Ališauskas, a philosopher and lecturer at Vilnius University, states that although education has become widespread, its overall quality is falling, and that illiterate students are one indication of this (Jackevičius 2013):

¹There is also an even broader conception of literacy: the ability to understand and use various applied sign systems other than language, for example: computer literacy (the ability to use a computer and application software), economic literacy, mathematical literacy, and so on.

192

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

Many students today write very poorly—not only do they make numerous grammatical errors, but they also find it very difficult to express their thoughts in writing. And this is natural: after all, most people cannot claim the status of an intellectual elite, whether in the natural sciences or the humanities.

It is worth clarifying that aspiring to the status of a literate person does not require aspiring to join the intellectual elite. And the changes toward greater illiteracy in society are particularly pronounced. For example, the following results are reported for dictations written each year by first-year students at the Telšiai Faculty of Žemaitija College (Rimkutė 2012: 13–14):

A comparison of dictations written by people who finished secondary school this year or last year with those written by people who finished secondary school more than 12 years ago reveals a huge difference: when writing a dictation, the former made an average of 22 errors, while the latter made 9. Thus, literacy has deteriorated almost 2.5-fold!

A situation is developing in which even those who once acquired spelling skills at school sometimes admit that they are beginning to lose them. A separate problem is the growing distance between Lithuanian children raised abroad and the environment in which Lithuanian is used in both written and spoken form.

There is reason for concern, because illiteracy is regarded as a threat to society’s development: illiterate people cannot be free and creative—they are a mass of cheap labor that is easy to manipulate².

The problem of literacy is sometimes portrayed as an almost insurmountable difficulty. For instance, Eglė Kanapinskienė, a senior Lithuanian language teacher at Žiežmariai Gymnasium, says in an interview (Jablonskaitė 2013):

Language use consists of four parts: reading, writing, listening, and speaking. In the age of computer games and internet noise, it is becoming difficult to listen attentively because we cannot concentrate. Speaking is difficult because our vocabulary is very limited. Writing is complicated because we do not know the rules and do not apply them in practice. Reading is boring because interactive entertainment overshadows books. A vicious circle.

Thus, having lingered for some time in the shadow of other educational problems, this issue has now attracted the attention not only of specialists but also of society as a whole. Literacy has become a concern at the level of the Ministry of Education and Science: after examining the results of the 2009–2012 state examination in Lithuanian as a native language

² Similar processes are taking place in other modern societies as well (for example, in Great Britain there is concern that soldiers serving in the British Army are becoming increasingly poor at writing and arithmetic), but a detailed discussion of these processes would exceed the scope of this article.

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Raštingumo problema interneto bendruomenės ir mokytojų akimis

193

and international literacy and reading skills research data, the Plan for Improving the Teaching of Lithuanian Language and Cultural Literacy for 2013–2016 was prepared and approved.

To be sure, other opinions are also voiced—that there is no such problem, that it is artificially exaggerated, and that those most to blame are the people who set literacy criteria and language norms in general (Vaicekauskienė 2013):

[...] why is it concluded that every third of our schoolchildren is illiterate? Because literacy is assessed according to current standard Lithuanian norms, while the norms are understood quite narrowly and inflexibly. [...] If our schoolchildren were assessed according to other standards, we would probably say that literacy is improving.

However, as comments on similar articles show, society itself is not inclined to agree with this view; it is convenient, perhaps, only for those trying to find an excuse for their own illiteracy.

What brings about the literacy problem, and what causes and factors are encouraging an ever-growing society that communicates by electronic means—and thus might be expected to be twice as literate—to be unable (or unwilling) to follow the Lithuanian spelling rules that have until now existed unquestioningly? Drawing on the narrower, most widespread conception of literacy, sometimes also called functional literacy, this article examines how the internet community views the literacy problem: it summarizes the linguistic attitudes that emerged in an online discussion held in 2013. It also presents the results of a 2012 survey of Lithuanian-language teachers concerning literacy in schools. Research into these linguistic attitudes is important in seeking practical ways to reduce illiteracy by bringing together the efforts of teachers, parents, and the whole of active society.

2. THE INTERNET COMMUNITY ON LITERACY

On 7 May 2012, journalist Mindaugas Jackevičius published an article on the online news portal delfi.lt entitled “A Generation of Illiterates: Errors Now Even Lead to Dissertations Being Rejected” (Jackevičius 2012). The views expressed in it by teachers, university lecturers, and linguists are similar: pupils’ and students’ literacy is declining, and “at Vilnius University (VU), ranked among the best by various ratings, dissertations are rejected because of a host of errors.” One reason given for this situation is a decision adopted in 2002–2003 that harmed the teaching of Lithuanian in secondary schools by directing that the mother tongue be taught

194

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

using foreign-language teaching methods, with emphasis placed on the communicative function of language. Dainora Eigminienė, an expert Lithuanian-language teacher at Vilnius St. Christopher Gymnasium, states:

[...] the mother tongue is far more than any foreign language one has learned, and it is intended not merely for communication. It is through one’s mother tongue that one most naturally thinks about the world. It is the foundation of a person’s existence and an important part of their identity. Its role therefore needs to be continually reflected upon. Ten years have passed, and we are already seeing the consequences of this “modern” teaching. Therefore, in primary school we need to return to systematic language teaching, rather than the current approach—teaching in bits and segments, dismantling the system and disregarding continuity.³

This article received more than 600 comments. Drawing on their own experience, the portal’s visitors assessed the current state of literacy and speculated about the reasons behind it. In the comments,⁴ Aistis Ignacio Savukynas, who signed his full name, described the situation as follows:

By the way, let us dare to say publicly that it is not only schoolchildren and students who are illiterate nowadays. Good heavens, there is a proliferation of PhDs who produce such illiterate articles and even books! It is strange, but these days it is easier to bag several diplomas from universities around the world... than to learn one’s mother tongue. So, taking the easiest route, we simplify punctuation because it is “too hard” for illiterates to learn! Alas, what else could we have expected when even writers on social networks no longer bother to use capital or Lithuanian letters...

Doing everything as simply and quickly as possible is a hallmark of today’s society. Some commenters describe this “not bothering” with spelling as a general lack of care among people:

I would add: this is a country of people too lazy to write using Lithuanian characters. It is sad to see—they have a Lithuanian keyboard at home and do not want to, or are afraid to, use it. They all, those who do not want to, are lying. They are afraid to reveal their illiteracy. They say, “I don’t have a Lithuanian keyboard.” [...] I think there is another problem here too—a lack of attentiveness and responsibility for what you do.

³ By the way, at the end of the 20th century, when people began discussing new teaching methods, including the integration of school subjects and the importance of text analysis in Lithuanian lessons, a warning was voiced but went unheeded: “It is important that such a fragmentary linking of separate language topics should not destroy the overall picture of the language system, and that these fragmentary connections themselves should form a methodologically sound system. Where there is no system, there is always a risk of chaos. [...] Alongside all its advantages, text analysis also conceals the danger of fostering a chaotic view of language, and perhaps a certain superficiality, especially if the analysis is primitive and poorly thought out.” (see Akelaitis, Labutis 1995: 19, 21).

⁴ The language of the comments (spelling, punctuation, grammar) has been lightly edited while preserving the authors’ style.

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Raštingumo problema interneto bendruomenės ir mokytojų akimis 195

In recent years, a nihilistic attitude toward the various political, economic, and social processes taking place in society has been gaining ground in public discourse, and matters of language are no exception. Thus, as one of the important causes of illiteracy, internet commenters point to negative societal attitudes toward language, which are related to the general attitude toward the state, its heritage, present, and future:

The present generation no longer cares about Lithuania, its language, or its history, and feels no [...] pride in being Lithuanian. It does not feel that we are Baltic tribes who have lived for millennia and united into a state called LITHUANIA.

Some commenters say they see no point in learning Lithuanian because it is not a value (“language is merely a means of communication”), and that as the nation disappears, the language will disappear with it (“the Lithuanian language is an Aboriginal language; soon it will be gone”; “why is the language of a dying nation needed?”). Young people do not associate their future with Lithuania, and abroad they will not need it either:

And what is Lithuanian for? There is no place for Lithuanians in Lithuania, while in London spoken foreign languages are enough. The Lithuanian language faces the fate of the languages of North American Indians, because other people will live in this territory. They will show their dark-eyed little children wooden wayside shrines and tell them about the primitive culture of the Aboriginal people.

As a counterpoint to such views, other commenters point out that Lithuanian is one of the official languages of the European Union and is therefore no worse than the others; it is a language to be proud of, “all the more so because the fewer of us Lithuanians remain in the world, the greater the prestige and exotic appeal of knowing it.”

General negative attitudes must be changed, and the school must be the first to do so. Teachers should gather positive examples from their surroundings that demonstrate the importance of literacy (and there certainly are such examples) and, in discussions with pupils—not through boring sermons—present appropriate arguments to motivate them to learn Lithuanian, including its spelling.

Commenters also emphasize the unfavorable general linguistic environment, in which learning to use language correctly and retaining that skill are becoming increasingly difficult:

The conditions for learning Lithuanian are much more difficult even for a Lithuanian living in Lithuania than they were 20 years ago: computers and phones simply force people to distort Lithuanian spelling, [...] schools can no longer cope with innovative methodologies amid all the changes. Parents should devote more attention to their children’s mother tongue. But many of them have limited means...

196

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

According to commenters, illiteracy is encouraged by the poor, error-ridden language used in the public sphere (“now even article headlines with errors have become commonplace—not just some hard-to-grasp punctuation or stylistic mistakes, but fundamental ones: inflection and the spelling of nasal vowels”):

The press is full of errors, TV presenters speak in some slang—God knows what kind—and books are also riddled with grammatical and stylistic mistakes, while politicians’ speeches are beyond criticism. The older generation translates everything from Russian, while the younger one constructs sentences using English methods [...].

[...] as long as we hear not the official language but some kind of jargon on the radio and television, and Algis Greitai’s speech is considered the standard, we may as well forget about the nation’s literacy...

In the comments examined, reading is considered one of the most important conditions for developing a literate person⁵, while the present social and cultural environment does not encourage reading, so a low level of reading can be considered another important cause of illiteracy:

Why read a book when you can watch a film? And yet reading books develops visual memory, so even without knowing the spelling rules, one can write words without mistakes. Why use Lithuanian characters when writing online or in text messages, when writing without them looks much “cooler”...

The problem is that young people do not read books at all, and therefore have no opportunity to enrich their language or imprint examples of correct writing in their memory.

Read, read, read, and read again—that is what we were taught. That way, we will express our thoughts more easily and write without mistakes. Where have dictation and handwriting lessons disappeared from schools?

Some commenters—teachers and parents of pupils—write from their own experience about inappropriate education policy (“the education reform has done its work; grammar is now allocated few lessons in secondary schools”; supposedly, the most important thing is to be able to understand texts, while little coherent writing is produced):

How can they not be illiterate if every lesson at school is tests, tests, tests, where you have to answer yes or no, or circle a bubble, mark plus or minus—horrible,

⁵ The international Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), conducted every three years by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to assess the abilities of fifteen-year-old students (Programme for International Student Assessment; in 2012, it was implemented in Lithuania by the Ministry of Education and Science and administered by the National Examination Centre), revealed that Lithuania ranked statistically below the average in reading proficiency among the 65 countries studied. It was also found that fifteen-year-olds whose parents had read books to them in childhood, and especially during primary school, were much more receptive to learning, regardless of their social background (see Dukynaitė, Stundža 2013; Audenienė 2013).

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Raštingumo problema interneto bendruomenės ir mokytojų akimis 197

and place multimedia first, where children see pictures, ready-made tables and notes, and write and create little.

There is also mention of teachers’ occasional incompetence; inappropriate Lithuanian-language teaching methods, curricula and textbooks are criticized, and exercise books are called “mind killers”⁶.

In my opinion, first of all, we need to throw [...] out all the exercise books that cost a lot and bring no benefit. We need to go back to notebooks, as we did 20 or more years ago: we wrote everything out by hand and didn’t die; in fact, even now we write without mistakes, or at least make fewer mistakes than those who have just finished their studies. Now they just turn pages and fill in one letter at a time—what can they learn that way? The education system has declined so much that it can go no further down.

When a person writes an essay, they think; when they answer test questions, however, success depends on guessing the right answer, not on knowledge. Since essays do not need to be analyzed, writing even a simple letter without mistakes is a major problem after graduating from higher education. When prizes in various radio or television games are awarded not for correct answers but for guesses, there is no need to study either.

Since I keep track of what my son is learning, I am not at all surprised by the results: the current Lithuanian-language curriculum, and the textbooks and exercise books prepared for it in the early grades, are designed for drawing, cutting, gluing, and so on—but not for writing (well, there are one or three lines left on a page to fill in, but that is all). From what I have heard, in lessons they “carry out various projects” intended to improve communication skills and so on, but they do not write at all. I shared these comments with the teacher, and she replied that children nowadays write on computers, where mistakes are checked for them, so why should they learn to write...

One student complains that the school-leaving examination tests neither the knowledge nor the skills needed in life:

Just look at our Lithuanian-language exams in grades 10 and 12. If grade 10 still has at least a few grammar exercises, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of the sort in the school-leaving examination.

⁶Exercise books for other subjects are similarly judged methodologically inappropriate. For example, Leonas Narkevičius, an expert mathematics teacher at Kaunas University of Technology Gymnasium, has this to say: “Comparing the knowledge of previous and current ninth-graders, the teacher noticed that it had declined, and exercise books, the disappearance of copying exercises, and the fact that children no longer read the text but automatically fill in letters and numbers can partly be blamed for this. “Exercise books are probably the biggest problem: fill in the missing letter, the numbers. A colleague with a son in first grade told me that in the exercise book the problem is already written out, even the addition or subtraction operations; all that is needed is to choose the numbers. There is no problem-based learning.” (Audenienė 2013).

198

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

Of course, others will say that you can get 10 points for good grammar in an essay. But that is ridiculous—out of the 100 points you can score on the exam, you will get 10 points at most for grammar!!! And that is only in the essay, where you can construct sentences yourself and, if you don’t know a word, simply replace it with an easier one. I took the exam(s) last year and know that the most important part of the exam is understanding the text. Understanding what sometimes even the author does not understand.

Another reason for illiteracy cited by many is related to the use of information technology:

The QWERTY keyboard—or whatever it may be called—pushes Lithuanian letters (those with ogoneks and long vowels) out of the main alphabet, as though these letters were not equal to the others but merely an optional extra that can be dispensed with...

We must openly admit: our failure to understand or foresee the damage that email programs and computer and mobile-phone keyboards not adapted for Lithuanian would cause has inflicted, over some 15 years, harm that is difficult to repair on an entire generation of young people:

COMPUTERS are chiefly to blame for the decline in Lithuanian proficiency. I vividly remember how difficult it was to learn to type WITHOUT Lithuanian letters on the first computers and with the advent of the internet. Now we have to get used to doing the opposite, but look how inconvenient it is when you constantly have to switch to a Lithuanian keyboard while the English one comes up automatically. So why can’t our highly skilled IT specialists fix this? In France, for example, it’s the other way around—the French keyboard is enabled automatically...

[...] the more children write on computers, the less they think, because the computer corrects their mistakes or points them out, so their brains no longer work toward correct spelling and atrophy. The less computer-based writing there is in schools, the better the situation will be. Have children copy text from books, five pages a week, in addition to their other assignments, and the situation will improve.

Sometimes, drawing on studies of electronic communication among English-speaking young people, people adopt an overly optimistic view that “texting even has a positive effect on reading skills and phonological awareness” and that the key is simply to distinguish between speech codes. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that Lithuanian has specific written features (see Nevinskaitė 2010: 282–283):

On the one hand, texting could also have a positive effect on users of Lithuanian by encouraging young people’s linguistic creativity and giving them more opportunities to write. However, the greatest influence on Lithuanian would come from other (not characteristic of English-

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Raštingumo problema interneto bendruomenės ir mokytojų akimis

199

(Virtual) spelling features—writing letters without diacritical marks—can make it harder to distinguish short and long vowels, and spelling rules may be forgotten.

Other languages that use special written characters face the same spelling problems arising from the influence of information technology (see Wells 2000: 249–272). For example, some of our closest neighbors, the Poles, are actively responding to this at the level of state institutions⁷:

Polish language experts have launched a campaign urging people to preserve the complex spelling system with all its diacritical marks, saying that because of pressure from IT [...] many are abandoning ogoneks, dots, and carons.

The initiative, launched on Thursday by the state Polish Language Council, is part of the events marking UNESCO’s International Mother Language Day. The campaign’s name, “Język polski jest ą-ę” (The Polish language is “an” and “en”), which is difficult to convey using an ordinary computer keyboard without Polish characters, is a sarcastic reminder that every mark in spelling matters, as it helps readers understand a text correctly. Without them, a text loses part of its meaning and would be read incorrectly. According to linguist Jerzy Bralczyk, diacritical marks are a visual cue that helps identify Polish texts. He added that these marks have meaning of their own and enrich the language.

We exchange information not only orally and in writing—a large volume of it flows through digital channels, and communication in the electronic environment takes many more varied forms, which can be studied using various methods, including “visual design grammar” (see Liubininė 2012: 74 and the literature cited there):

[...] in the language of new media, communication through written text is only one of many ways to express a thought. Users increasingly share nonverbal information conveyed through hypertext links and communicate with one another by exchanging video and music recordings, replacing written comments with graphic signs.

Thus, a person must also be computer-literate—know how to use digital tools and receive and convey information not only in words but also by other means: static and moving images, and sound signals. Nevertheless, verbal communication undoubtedly remains important, because a much larger proportion of communication in virtual space takes place in writing than it did before the internet era.

⁷

See: Polish linguists call for the preservation of the complex spelling system – www.alfa.lt, 2013 02 21. Available online at <http://www.alfa.lt/straipsnis/15081716/Lenkijos.kalbininkai.pasisako.uz.sudetingos.rasybos.sistemos.issaugojima=2013-02-21_15-52>.

200

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

What solution do Lithuanian internet commenters see for improving literacy?

A thought often expressed by commenters is that Lithuanian spelling is too difficult, it is hard to learn, and therefore supposedly needs to be simplified:

What is language? It is a means of conveying information orally or in writing. And, first and foremost, it has to be CONVENIENT, easy, and understandable. If a language is cumbersome, wrapped in [...] incomprehensible, most difficult rules—then to hell with such a language! It needs to be improved, changed, made easier, rather than demanding that everyone have it memorized from A to Z! Language serves people, not people language!

It is symptomatic that those who have such a primitive understanding of the purpose of language first take issue with writing nasal vowels and diacritical marks—these skills in electronic communication have already weakened or been lost:

To start with, nasal-vowel letters and letters with little hooks above them should be abolished (let’s be poor but honest—they are completely unnecessary).

And what are those nasal vowels needed for? To this day I still don’t understand—I never really knew Lithuanian, and that didn’t stop me from doing business in life.

Other commenters object to such simplification of the language:

And how would you make mathematics, physics, or chemistry easier? You can’t simplify formulas and laws; you have to learn them. It’s the same with language.

You buy a new car packed with electronics, and its user manual is written in such “simplified” language—would we be very pleased? And how long would you be happy with a doctor’s prescription written in “simplified” language?

There is a responsible and serious attitude toward literacy in society, but only a handful of positive examples are brought into the public eye:

At our company, when a new job candidate comes in, they first get a dictation based on the seventh-grade curriculum. If they pass it, they have a chance to proceed to an interview. We have never been wrong. Perhaps some illiterate genius has slipped through the cracks, but statistically speaking, those who are literate are also conscientious in other areas, including strictly professional ones. There are probably other indicators too, but language culture is the simplest and most reliable. I can hardly imagine that a normal, sane person would have trouble learning a language, especially their native one.

The comments on the articles discussed show that society cares about literacy, and that commenters assess the situation as it has developed from various perspectives,

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Raštingumo problema interneto bendruomenės ir mokytojų akimis 201

identifies numerous causes of declining literacy; thus, the comments as a whole reveal quite well the internet community’s general attitudes toward literacy.

3. RESULTS OF A SURVEY OF LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE TEACHERS ON LITERACY PROBLEMS AT SCHOOL

Lithuanian language teachers are best placed to assess the state of literacy in schools, and those with longer teaching experience can also compare the abilities of former and current pupils. With this in mind, before beginning work on a new part of the educational computer game “Kieti riešutėliai”⁸, designed to reinforce spelling skills, the Institute of the Lithuanian Language conducted a survey of Lithuanian language teachers. In response to the eight questionnaire⁹ questions, 120 responses were received from 95 Lithuanian schools of various types (the list is published on the website page referred to), whose teachers educate pupils of different ages and nationalities. It should be emphasized that the context of the questionnaire made it clear to teachers answering its questions that they were being asked about pupils’ written assignments at school and at home while studying, not about their written communication in their free time. Thus, the indicated signs of pupils’ illiteracy reflect the official state of spelling at school. Although this survey cannot be considered highly representative, the answers to the qualitative questions were detailed (respondents were asked to illustrate their statements with specific examples) and revealed various aspects of the literacy problem.

The answers to three questionnaire questions have already been reviewed and statistically summarized in Saulius Vasiliauskas’s article (Vasiliauskas 2013: 27–31)¹⁰, while here,

⁸ Created in 2007, the game in this series, “Tadas Blinda. Kirčiavimas,” was released on a CD. For more details, see <http://www.kalbosnamai.lt/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=36>.

⁹ The questionnaire was posted on the Lithuanian Language Institute’s “Kalbos namai” website, alongside the Institute’s website, at: <http://www.kalbosnamai.lt/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=143&Itemid=69>.

¹⁰ The responses to the following questionnaire questions are discussed: 1) Could you give an overall assessment of your pupils’ spelling skills? 2) Do spelling errors differ according to pupils’ age? How? 3) Do you use any educational information technology tools (interactive tests, computer games, etc.) to teach spelling? If so, which ones?

202

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

when examining the causes of illiteracy, teachers’ opinions, provided in response to the following questionnaire questions¹¹, are important:

What are the most characteristic spelling errors your pupils make?

Which spelling rules are hardest for pupils to learn? Why?

Would you change any spelling rules? If so, indicate which rules, why, and how you would change them.

Having analyzed the teachers’ responses, the causes of pupils’ illiteracy can be summarized as follows:

1) spelling rules are complicated or there are too many of them: pupils are unable to master them all;

2) pupils have nowhere to hear a pronunciation model and lack accurate internal pronunciation, resulting in a marked discrepancy between their pronunciation and spelling norms;

3) pupils do not understand language as a system:

a) they do not recognize word parts or parts of speech (this is particularly necessary for identifying the derivational base of word forms, on which spelling rules are based; cf.: šąla – šąlant, šąlanti; šalti – sušalsiąs);

b) are unable to find related words to support spelling rules (e.g., ręsti and rąstas; tęsti, tąsa, and tęsti);

4) students have too small a vocabulary:

a) do not sense differences in word meanings (e.g., gurkti and gurgti, lįsti and lysti);

b) confuse similar-looking words that are spelled differently (e.g., mąslus and masalas).

Based on the answers to the questions mentioned above, a list was compiled of the spelling topics that students find most difficult. It proved useful in selecting tasks and specific examples for the spelling game being developed.

Asked whether they would change the spelling rules, somewhat fewer than a third (29 percent)—that is, 35 teachers who took part in the survey—said they would be inclined to change some spelling rules to a greater or lesser extent. Thus, it is possible

¹¹ Teachers’ answers to the question Do you notice whether habits and trends arising from information technologies (mobile phones, computers) affect students’ spelling? If so, what is this effect? deserve separate attention (and an article). They reveal teachers’ views on the impact of IT on students’ literacy—specifically, how this impact manifests itself. In brief, many teachers (87.5 percent) associate illiteracy precisely with the widespread use of phonetic, nonstandard spelling and slang in written communication in electronic media. Statistics for individual student age groups would presumably differ somewhat.

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Raštingumo problema interneto bendruomenės ir mokytojų akimis

203

to conclude that inappropriate spelling rules are one of the indirectly identified causes of illiteracy. Which rules and spelling cases are these? Since teachers described spelling difficulties and rules in free-form responses, the answers in the table have been consolidated and systematized, and the examples selected from the questionnaire responses are the most representative and frequently recurring.

TABLE. Spelling rules that teachers believe should be changed and their arguments for change

Spelling case¹²

Arguments for change¹³

1.

Spelling of nasal vowels (in general)

1) [...] I would reduce the number of rules so that students could work out a system and learn three rules. For example, one rule for when a nasal vowel is written in the root; another for when it is written in the ending; and a third for words whose spelling must be memorized (ąsa, Kęstutis, žąsis, etc.). 2) I would do away with writing nasal vowels in the root. If the sound is pronounced exactly the same in the words kasa and kasnis, what is the point of representing it with different letters? 3) [They would suggest changing] the norms for rare archaic words whose roots are written with nasal vowels because of historical spelling. 4) Eliminate exceptions and spelling rules that apply to only a few words.

2.

Spelling of nasal vowels in the roots of present-tense verbs and forms derived from them

1) Only the stronger students apply this spelling rule correctly; all the others either omit every nasal vowel or write ą in any tense whenever they hear a long vowel (šąla, bąla, bet nubalęs). 2) It is difficult to explain to students why a nasal vowel is needed only in the present tense. When writing, they pay no attention to tense forms. 3) We memorize verbs that have nasal vowels only in the present tense. This takes a great deal of time and effort; I would suggest simplifying the spelling by writing without nasal vowels. In other cases, e.g., kęsti, siųsti, lįsti, grįžti, I would suggest retaining the traditional spelling.

¹² The cases are listed in descending order of frequency in teachers’ responses; the second case and, in part, the fourth fall within the first category, but teachers mentioned them separately, indicating that spelling nasal vowels—especially in verb roots—causes students the greatest difficulty.

¹³ The arguments are presented as they were formulated in the teachers’ responses (not all responses included arguments).

204

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

Spelling issue

Arguments for changing it

4) Nothing alternates here, and it is difficult for students to explain it with sound reasoning; the same issue comes up again in the spelling of participles and half-participles: šąla – šaląs, šalanti, šąlant and šalo – šalęs, šalusi, šalus. What is the difference? This is not gražinti (to make beautiful) and grąžinti (to return a debt). At least here it is possible to convincingly explain why the nasal vowel is needed.

3.

Writing particles together and separately

1) Simpler rules, so there would not be so many cases. 2) I would write Kurgi as kas gi, since kur can be understood as the locative case of the inflected word kas. 3) Even after leaving school, many students have not learned the spelling cases for the particles ne, gi. 4) Children have to “cram.”

4.

The root vowel of verbs and forms derived from them, when a or e alternates with e

I would change the spelling of graso, gresia; drasko, dreskia. Indeed, very many students make mistakes when writing these or related words (atgrasus, grasinimas), even when the root vowel is short.

5.

The root vowel of the third-person future tense of verbs

I tried to simplify [...] the shortening of vowels in the root of the third-person future tense. The spelling is complicated, but it does not greatly affect the meaning of words.

6.

Alternation of vowels in verb roots

I would standardize it, because students really have no choice but to learn it by heart (įgristi, įgrysta, įgriso).

7.

Spelling of the consonant j

1) I see many problems in the spelling of words with j: in Lithuanian words, j must be written, whereas in international words it is pronounced but not written. Clever students “cram” it and know it by heart, but those who find it difficult... In other words, I would standardize the rule. 2) Make the spelling of j simpler. Milijonas has j, stadionas does not have j? Why? How can this be explained? Textbooks say that milijonas is an old word, while stadionas is not? The word herojiškas needs j, whereas heroizmas does not, because of the origin of the suffixes; many people cannot tell which suffix is Lithuanian! All that remains is to “cram” it and then forget it.

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Raštingumo problema interneto bendruomenės ir mokytojų akimis

205

Spelling case

Arguments for change

8.

Spelling of vowels a, e after j

I would standardize the spelling of javai, jazminai, ajerai, jerubė, deja, beje after j.

9.

Nasal letters in the endings of pronominal forms

I would simplify or abolish […] the rules for spelling endings of pronominal forms (where nasal letters are doubled).

10.

Uppercase and lowercase letters

I would probably simplify the rules for using uppercase letters. There are certainly too many of them, and they are too complicated to apply (especially for pupils in the lower grades).

11.

Spelling of foreign names

I would change only the spelling of names and surnames from other nations. I think we should write them as we pronounce them, as we used to, because when we find them written in the original language, we do not know how to read them.

12.

Individual cases

Baikštus and baugštus. Sujudo – sąjūdis; patvino – potvynis, but why is the u in nusmuko – nuosmukis short?

Of all 35 teachers who would be inclined to change the spelling rules to some extent, two thirds point to the spelling of nasal letters—as a general problem and in several of its most difficult cases (especially in the present-tense stems of verbs). Thus, 15.8 percent of the teachers surveyed would like to change the spelling of nasal letters at least partly.

A few teachers think that the rules need no changes, except perhaps for a couple of minor cases:

I think the rules are based on a carefully considered language system. Knowing them means having a good memory and being educated. I do not propose changing them, except perhaps reviewing the spelling of particles, both together and separately.

[…] I would not change the nasal letters in historical spelling; I would not “lie” about our old language: if ąžuolas loses its nasal letter, those named after it will turn into alders.

Two teachers suggested not changing the rules but, in some cases, liberalizing the assessment standards—that is, not treating everything as a spelling error:

I would change the dictation assessment standards in students’ favor. I really don’t see it as a serious fault when a child gets confused about tense forms and writes susąlęs. I don’t penalize them.

It would be difficult for me to change them, unless they were liberalized, without regard to where the particle gi was written, and so on.

206

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

Perhaps the most common request from teachers is to standardize and simplify the spelling of certain cases and reduce the number of exceptions. Nevertheless, the arguments teachers put forward show that they themselves have not always fully grasped the spelling system; sometimes they see only isolated forms and fail to understand how they relate to one another. It should be distinguished where spelling is a matter of convention (for example, uppercase and lowercase letters, and whether words are written together or separately—there are certainly things to be put in order here) and where spelling standards are determined by the language system.

It is easier to change conventional standards if the procedure for changing them is carefully considered. However, if, for example, the nasal letters in the stems of present-tense verbs were abolished, the pronunciation of these forms would first be disrupted, since the absence of a nasal letter indicates that a, e in an unstressed syllable must be pronounced short. It should not be overlooked that the present-tense vowels of this verb group are inherently long (that is, they remain long even in unstressed syllables), and the nasal letters reflect the development of the sound system of the Lithuanian language. Although in present-day Lithuanian usage there is generally a marked tendency to shorten long vowels in unstressed syllables, at least to half-long (this is not codified as a standard pronunciation norm of the standard language), without broader research it is difficult to say how widespread the shortening of a formerly nasal vowel in an unstressed syllable is, e.g., [šalù]. At least some people still pronounce such vowels as long or at least half-long. If the nasal letters were abolished, the stress patterns of these forms, especially prefixed ones, would also be disrupted; compare: šąla, šàlù – nešąla, nešàlù, *šàla, šàlù – *nèšala, nèšalu (like kãla, kalù – nèkala, nèkalu); bãla – išbãla, *bãla – *išbala (like mãla – išmala). These verbs themselves would then have to move into another conjugation type, which would mean changes to grammatical structure: šąla – šalo → šala – šalė (like kala – kalė) → nešala – nešalė. The spelling of forms in this verb group should not be made into a major problem, since there are few such verbs in active use, and present-tense forms are even rarer in usage. For school purposes, their number could be limited to 10–11 or even fewer (40 years ago, roughly the following set was taught: šąla, bąla, sala; gęsta, glęžta, mažta; šąšta, tęžta, tręšta; klęra, gvėra), without burdening students with exercises involving specially constructed, artificial examples of their spelling¹⁴.

¹⁴ For more counterarguments to changing the spelling of nasal vowels, see the information from the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language on the findings of the working group established to review spelling rules: “The spelling of šala, bala, gesta, mažta... was considered,” 2008 05 27. Available online: <http://www.vlkk.lt/lit/naujienos/naujiena.1068.htm>.

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Raštingumo problema interneto bendruomenės ir mokytojų akimis

207

On one point, teachers are entirely right when they say that the people who prepare school assignments sometimes have too much fun presenting archaic, obsolete, irrelevant words or forms with rare spellings: krešta, tevas, blęsti, and so on. Such words and their spelling should be reserved for Olympiads or quizzes, rather than presented as material to be learned for everyday language practice.

CONCLUSIONS

1. A study of the linguistic attitudes of the online community and teachers’ views on literacy problems reveals the main causes of illiteracy, both external ones developing in society and internal ones arising within the education system:

a) negative linguistic attitudes in society,

b) an unfavorable linguistic environment,

c) the negative impact of information technologies,

d) ill-considered education policy and flawed methods of teaching the Lithuanian language.

None of these causes should be treated as absolute, but they point to the areas that require the greatest attention at the level of the state and its education policy.

2. Teachers’ answers to the questionnaire items discussed in the article show that the causes of illiteracy can by no means be attributed solely to the negative impact of information technologies, which is most often cited. Although there is a direct connection between the use of electronic communication devices (mobile phones and computer and tablet keyboards) and certain spelling difficulties (for example, omitting nasal letters and other diacritical marks), many spelling problems for students are caused by the abundance of rules and exceptions and, most importantly, by an inability to grasp the language system.

3. Teachers’ views on changing or clarifying certain spelling rules should be critically assessed and taken into account when considering spelling standards and their codification, as well as when preparing teaching materials and improving methods of teaching spelling.

4. It is essential to ensure that the audio teaching materials used in schools (recordings of literary works, educational films, learning games, etc.) conform to the standard pronunciation of Lithuanian; research in this area is therefore needed to establish the current situation.

208

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

5. Lithuanian-language teachers need expert support from spelling specialists and mutual cooperation based on thorough research into students’ literacy levels and changes in them.

LITERATŪRA

Akelaitis G., Labutis V. 1995: Apie integraciją, teksto analizę ir lietuvių kalbą mokykloje. – Gimtoji kalba 8–9, 18–21.

Audenienė R. 2013: Prasti penkiolikamečių moksleivių pasiekimai ar nepatikimi juos atskleidžiantys tyrimai? – www.alfa.lt, gruodžio 14 d. Prieiga per internetą: <http://www.alfa.lt/straipsnis/15168588/Prasti.penkili-kameciu.moksleiviu.pasiekimai.ar.nepatikimi.juos.atskleidziantys.tyrimai.=2013-12-14_13-49>.

Dukynaitė R., Stundža M. 2013: OECD PISA rezultatų pristatymas. Prieiga per internetą: <http://www.smm.lt/uploads/lawacts/docs/598_cda4378e649b22e73413af209144d0d1.pdf>. (Žiūrėta 2013 12 20.)

Jablonskaitė D. 2013: Lietuvoje neliko vidutiniškai rašančių vaikų – arba puikiai, arba gausybė klaidų. – www.15 min.lt, balandžio 1 d. Prieiga per internetą: <http://www.15min.lt/naujiena/ziniosgyvai/interviu/lietuvoje-neliko-vidutiniskai-rasanciu-vaiku-arba-puikiai-arba-gausybe-klaidu-599-321144>.

Jackevičius M. 2012: Beraščių karta: dėl klaidų jau tenka atmesti ir disertacijas. – www.delfi.lt, gegužės 7 d. Prieiga per internetą: <http://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/education/berasiu-karta-del-klaidu-jau-tenka-atmesti-ir-disertacijas.d?id=58666579&com=1&s=1>.

Jackevičius M. 2013: Pasiklydę „Google“: kuri karta buvo protingiausia. – www.delfi.lt, gruodžio 29 d. Prieiga per internetą: <http://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/education/pasiklyde-google-kuri-karta-buvo-protingiausia.d?id=63432888#ixzz2pudgf5pu>.

Liubinienė V. 2012: Naujųjų medijų kalbos komponentai, kontekstai ir vartotojai. – Kalbų studijos 21, 74–83. Prieiga per internetą: <http://www.kalbos.lt/zurnalai/21_numeris/10.pdf>.

Nevinskaitė L. 2010: Trumpųjų žinučių rašybos bruožai. – Kalbos kultūra 83, 275–296.

Rimkutė A. 2012: Kolegijos pirmakursių raštingumas: gal lietuvių kalbai nereikalingos nosinės raidės? – Gimtoji kalba 12, 13–17.

Vaicekauskienė L. 2013: Jaunimo raštingumas mažėja? Nedarykime stabo iš lietuvių kalbos. – www.delfi.lt, balandžio 17 d. Prieiga per internetą: <http://www.delfi.lt/news/ringas/lit/lvaicekauskiene-jaunimo-rastingumas-mazeja-nedarykime-stabo-is-lietuviu-kalbos.d?id=61155115>.

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Raštingumo problema interneto bendruomenės ir mokytojų akimis

209

V a s i l i a u s k a s S. 2013: Ar mokytojai patenkinti savo mokinių raštingumu? – Gimtasis žodis 1, 27–31.

W e l l s J. C. 2000: Orthographic diacritics and multilingual computing. – Language Problems and Language Planning, Vol. 24, No. 3, 249–272. Prieiga per internetą: <http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/dia/diacritics-revised.htm>. (Žiūrėta 2013 12 09.)

Gauta 2013 12 09 Priimta 2013 12 20

PROBLEM OF LITERACY IN THE EYES OF THE INTERNET COMMUNITY AND TEACHERS

S u m m a r y

The article addresses the approach of the society towards the problem of literacy, which has lately been actively discussed by spelling specialists and in the public domain. Such problems are especially common in those languages which have a greater or lesser number of characters of different type in comparison to the English language dominating online.

The survey of language attitudes of the Internet community and the approach of teachers towards the problems of literacy (based on the comments of online articles and the survey of Lithuanian language teachers) reveals the principal external reasons of illiteracy developing in society as well as internal reasons of illiteracy evolving in the system of education: 1) negative language attitudes in society, 2) unfavourable linguistic environment, 3) negative impact of information technologies, 4) inconsiderate education policy and faulty methodology of Lithuanian language teaching. None of the above reasons should be considered absolute; nevertheless, they indicate the areas requiring most attention at the level of the state and its education policy.

The answers of teachers to the questions of the questionnaire analysed in the article show that the reasons of illiteracy cannot be associated solely with the negative impact of information technologies, which get into the centre of attention these days. Even though there is a direct correlation between the use of electronic communications (mobile phones, computer and tablet keyboards) and certain spelling difficulties (for example, omission of nasal letters and other diacritical signs), a lot of difficulties of spelling faced by pupils derive from the abundance of rules and exceptions and, most importantly, the inability to comprehend the language system.

210

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

The considerations of teachers regarding the change or correction of certain spelling rules presented in the article should be evaluated critically and taken into account in the consideration of spelling norms and their codification as well as in the development of teaching aids and the improvement of the methodology for the teaching of spelling. The considerations of Lithuanian language teachers on illiteracy, its causes and specific manifestations in pupils’ written works show that teachers themselves are in need of professional assistance of spelling specialists and mutual cooperation based on in-depth studies of the situation of pupils’ literacy and its changes.

KEYWORDS: orthography, language attitudes, language acquisition, codification.

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius

[email protected]

R. MILIŪNAITĖ. Raštingumo problema interneto bendruomenės ir mokytojų akimis

211