The Joys of English: Lexemes, P12, Innumeracy, and Other Profundities or Absurdities

Paul, P. V. (2015). The joys of English: Lexemes, P12, innumeracy, and other profundities or absurdities. American Annals of the Deaf, 160 (1), 3–6.

At first blush, the title of this editorial might seem reflective of a deranged mental constitution or, perhaps, the continued inebriation of a writer who has not recovered from celebrating the Gregorian New Year. Regardless, the last 12 months have been a year for celebrations, starting with the 150th anniversary of the founding of Gallaudet University and proceeding to the initial issue of the 160th volume of the American Annals of the Deaf. To top it off, we (i.e., those of us who sign/speak/read/write and enjoy English) should acknowledge the humble beginnings and evolution of the English language. Purportedly, the beginnings can be traced to the fifth century; however, considering the writings of Chaucer and the sardonic wit of George Bernard Shaw, I prefer the modern era of English language and literacy usage (Bragg, 2003; Crystal, 2003). In essence, this editorial should be a mixture of playfulness, profundity, and absurdity.

What’s a Word? Or, What’s a Lexeme? Does Anybody Care?

In a previous editorial (Paul, 2012) and a previous essay (Williams, 2012), the value of vocabulary, or, rather, word consciousness, has been extolled. The role of vocabulary or word knowledge in the development of English language and literacy skills has been discussed in numerous publications, most notably in the report of the National Reading Panel (2000) and by scholars in the larger field of reading (e.g., Carlisle & Rice, 2002; Hiebert & Kamil, 2005; Hiebert & Lubliner, 2008; Kamhi & Catts, 2012; Scott & Nagy, 2004; Stahl & Nagy, 2006). Ironically, to increase one’s knowledge of words and word usages (and facility in the use of the English language), one needs to be a voracious reader (and, possibly, writer)—and it helps to reflect deeply (and playfully) on the usage of words. To be an effective teacher of word-learning strategies, one needs to be . . . ah, you might want to complete this sentence—and yes, this assumes that the meanings of words need to be and can be taught, especially to struggling readers and writers of English. To understand what a lexeme is requires a deeper understanding of the structure of English. Growth in word knowledge is connected to growth in English reading ability as well as growth in understanding English language components, for example, syntax and morphology (see, e.g., Kamhi & Catts, 2012; Stahl & Nagy, 2006). Ah, the never-ending joys of lex.

So let’s reiterate (or paraphrase) a dictum from the National Research Council, especially as it applies to mathematics, science, and, for our purposes here, English language (including vocabulary) and literacy (e.g., Donovan & Bransford, 2005; see also the discussion in Paul & Wang, 2012, ch. 4). A case can be made that to be effective (and, perhaps, competent!), teachers should not only possess extensive knowledge and information about the psychology of learning (i.e., awareness of the particular learning styles, etc., of students), but also a deep understanding of the academic areas for which they are responsible in the classrooms. This level of understanding enables teachers to ascertain the specific areas in which students are experiencing problems. Subsequently, these professionals can develop an array of ideas (i.e., potpourri of tricks) to assist students in overcoming barriers. I like to use a creative potpourri of tricks for facilitating the development of word consciousness.

Let’s suppose our focus is on the English language—a huge domain. Teachers with a deep knowledge of language components, for example, can be extremely creative with their suggestions and strategies for helping students to increase their understanding of form (phonology, morphology, syntax), content (semantics), and use (pragmatics). But wait—this sounds like living in a multiverse. How about just the focus on vocabulary (which is a universe)? Now, imagine this for a teacher in our field who is purportedly licensed to work with d/Dhh children and adolescents in a P12 (i.e., prekindergarten/preschool to 12th grade) school setting. Is this really realistic? It...