Can’t Read? Can’t Write? No Problem - Neither Are Essential For Language

What if I told you that the kid in your first-grade class with a low reading level isn’t worse at the English language? Or, what if someone’s ability to read or write doesn’t matter at all? This is true in the context of language; reading and writing are not essential parts of language. Some may read this and agree, but most of us raised in the American school system will instinctively fight against the notion, myself included. Despite what we’ve been taught, the scientific study of linguistics allows us to completely distinguish reading and writing from language at a cognitive level.

Language is commonly thought of as what we learn in a language class: reading, writing, and maybe speaking. Language, in the study of linguistics, refers to the inherent act of communication that occurs between humans, primarily that which is spoken and/or signed. This intrinsic form of communication, which I’ll refer to as “speech”, is “presumably as old as we are, having emerged with us as perhaps the most important of our species-typical characteristics.” Writing, and therefore reading, however, “are developments of the last few thousand years.” (Liberman, 1992). 

We can better understand what inherent language is by understanding the ways in which learned script is different. Script is a human invention, an ingenious tool that allows us to create beyond the bounds of our natural linguistic capabilities. As Liberman puts it, “...speech is a product of biological evolution, while writing systems are artifacts.” (Liberman, 1992).

Somewhat contrary to the three-cueing method commonly taught in schools today, being able to understand script requires a combination of phonological decoding and comprehension of the whole idea (Gough, 1993). The assumption that reading is a natural process and that children can infer meaning from context is untrue and harmful: many students taught through this process learn to “pretend” to read, rather than actually synthesize what is in front of them (Gough, 1993). 

The reality is that reading and writing are artificial, learned extensions of natural language, accomplished through phonological correlation. There are brain mechanisms that evolved with language and are dedicated to its processes. Reading and writing have no such specialization (Liberman, 1992). In one study, children learned the words FISH, DUCK, LAMB, and PONY. The first and last half of the words were then covered separately, and the children were asked if they could still recognize the word. An overwhelming majority of children could recognize one half of each word, but not the other (Gough, 1993). This suggests that words are recognized by the parts that constitute them, rather than recognizing the entire word as its own entity or shape. Therefore, reading is not independent of speech. These findings demonstrate that the structures represented by script are the same exact structures pioneered by speech; script represents language, rather than being its own part of it, and could not exist independently.

A descriptivist approach to language accepts that script-centered societies and communities aren’t smarter or better at language than societies and communities that don’t utilize script. Still, a lack of reading and writing skills can put one at a serious disadvantage. Some may be surprised to learn how recent widespread literacy is in the United States. As recent as the late 19th century, 20% of the U.S. population was completely illiterate - unable to read or write in any language (Snyder, 1993). Widespread literacy in the United States is a fairly recent phenomenon, and we know that reading and writing are not essentially part of language. Still, “one in six chil­dren who are not read­ing pro­fi­cient­ly in third grade do not grad­u­ate from high school on time” (The Annie E. Casey Foun­da­tion, 2012). One can clearly infer how this might narrow opportunities for employment, hindering the survival and success of an individual in American society.  

Good things happen when reading and writing are recognized as extended skills built beyond the inherent human understanding of language. Teaching methods such as phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, guided oral reading, vocabulary words, and reading comprehension strategies have been found, through research, as effective in teaching children to read and write (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2019). Note that all of these strategies have something in common: they are all built from the idea that spoken language is translated into script and then synthesized for meaning. None of these strategies suggest that meaning is intrinsically inferred from a visual script cue. Upon researching this concept, I realized that the way reading and writing are taught in America is deeply flawed; many of the concepts employed in elementary education directly contradict a wealth of scientific knowledge and proven strategies. Considering natural processes, and also the way literacy is taught, one who successfully learns to read and write is lucky.

Reading and writing need to be taught, but understanding language does not. Only two things are required to learn the meaning of speech: you must be human, and you must be exposed to a mother tongue from infancy (Liberman, 1992). Script happens by imitating language. Reading and writing happen by understanding script. Reading and writing are completely reliant upon language, but they are not necessary for language themselves. In this way, learning to read and write is intentionally learning and skill and gaining a privilege.

Reading and writing are not necessary for or inherent to language. In order to advance our application of and access to knowledge, we must accept this. By accepting that language is inherent, but reading and writing are learned skills and privileges, we can move towards a more inclusive society that offers opportunities for all.