Studying texts in school
The Committee for Linguistics in Education is a bridge between university-level linguistics
(as represented by its sponsoring organisations the Linguistics Association of Great Britain
and the British Association for Applied Linguistics) and language education at school. As
such, it is well placed to comment on the question of what kinds of language schools should
study. The following discussion reviews the academic evidence and pedagogical arguments
about schools' choice of texts, using the word text in a very general sense in which it
embraces any examples of language in use, whether spoken or written, and whether literary
or not. Thus Macbeth is a text, as is any part of it; but so is today's weather forecast or the
instructions on a tin of paint.
How can texts be studied?
Modern linguistics offers a rich variety of analytical frameworks for studying texts, and a
great deal of academic research is based on the analysis of texts. A distinction can be drawn
between the 'level' of analysis and its purpose. The following are the main levels:








phonetics: the sounds used in a spoken text
phonology: how the sounds are organised into an abstract structure
graphology: how written characters are organised
morphology: how bases and affixes combine within a word
syntax: how words combine with one another into phrases and sentences
discourse analysis: how sentences or utterances combine together to form stretches of
speech and writing
semantics: the meanings conveyed directly by the words and syntactic patterns
pragmatics: the extra meanings conveyed indirectly.
The analysis may serve a wide variety of purposes, of which the following are just a
selection. Texts are always studied as part of an investigation which necessarily involves the
analysis of something else to which the text may be related, such as





the underlying system of the language (i.e. its grammar and vocabulary)
the speaker's (or writer's) age or ability (language development)
social structures (sociolinguistics)
psychological abilities such as memory or ability to understand (psycholinguistics)
literary structures (literary linguistics).
Linguistics also embraces the study of a wide range of languages and language varieties:


English and other developed written languages with a long literary history
Any of the thousands of other languages which are never written down, or have only
recently started to be written, including languages with low social status such as some
pidgin and creole languages


Ancient and modern varieties of languages
Non-standard and low-status varieties of languages, including those of English.
A typical department of linguistics, applied linguistics or English Studies might include staff
members whose research focuses on:







the use of a particular grammatical pattern in Modern written English
pronunciation differences between members of different social groups in a UK town
the grammatical structures of some unwritten and low-status foreign language
a cross-language comparison of typical word-order patterns
the pragmatics of a particular kind of conversation such as joking
developmental patterns in children's phonology
the relationship between language and patterns of inequality such as gender
differences
All of these research activities would require some kind of analysis of some kinds of texts.
What texts can be studied?
Within linguistics, any text is a legitimate object of serious study. The value of the research
depends on the questions asked and the conclusions drawn, rather than on the intrinsic value
of the texts studied. This research is pursued in linguistics departments in most of our
universities, is recognised and supported by bodies such as the British Academy (which has a
linguistics section) and the major research-funding councils, and underpins undergraduate
degree programmes in Linguistics, English Language and English Studies.
The main limitations on a linguist's choice of texts are practical or ethical:


practical: if the texts are not already in the public domain, they need to be collected,
processed (e.g. transcribed), stored, disseminated, and so on; and then, of course, they
need to be analysed.
ethical: the researcher faces questions of copyright and privacy.
The most important question is whether the text concerned is relevant to the research project how will it throw light on some larger issue?
What are the educational benefits of studying texts?
Studying texts has been at the heart of education since the beginnings in Ancient Greece, so
the principle of studying texts is well established and uncontested. However, two different
models should be separated clearly:
1. text as good practice: the text is a model to be emulated by the learner
2. text as data: the text is an example to be understood by the learner.
Each of these rationales has a place in modern education, but their places are different.
Seen as good practice, a text gives the learner an example of how to achieve a particular aim.
Historically there were 'good writers' who were held up as models of 'good writing', but more
recently the educational world has accepted that education needs to prepare children for a
complex world in which there are multiple aims, so different models will be relevant to
different aims. A comedian telling a joke may provide a good model for telling jokes, but not
for writing essays; and conversely, an accessible scientific article may help as a model for
explaining a scientific principle or discovery, but not for telling a joke. In this rationale,
therefore, the value of a text depends on its relevance to a particular aim. Provided the aim is
clear and legitimate, any relevant text is legitimate too.
In contrast, the text-as-data model does not aim directly at improving the learner's skill with
language, but rather at a deeper understanding of how language works. Indeed, it could
involve some kind of language which the learner is never likely to produce (such as the
language of the law, or, indeed, a remote foreign language which the learner is not learning).
The main question for this rationale is whether the text is relevant to the general issue about
language which is currently under discussion.
Both models contrast with the simpler model of half a century ago, where education
recognised a limited range of good writers as examples of good practice and a limited range
of communicative aims, and made very little attempt to explain how language works.
Both of the new models, in their modern guise, have deeply affected our educational system.
For example, the new (2013) National Curriculum for English requires KS4 pupils to be
taught to consolidate and build on their knowledge of grammar and vocabulary through:
1. studying their effectiveness and impact in the texts they read
2. drawing on new vocabulary and grammatical constructions from their reading and
listening, and using these consciously in their writing and speech to achieve particular
effects
3. analysing some of the differences between spoken and written language, including
differences associated with formal and informal registers, and between Standard
English and other varieties of English
4. using linguistic and literary terminology accurately and confidently in discussing
reading, writing and spoken language.
Notice how bullets 1 and 2 follow the model of text as good practice, while 3 and 4 treat texts
simply as data for study.
Even more impressively, A-level English Language has followed academic linguistics in
treating any kind of text (not just literary texts) as grist for its mill. Indeed, one of the main
attractions of this subject for both pupils and teachers is the opportunity to juxtapose and
compare dramatically different types of text - a seventeenth-century recipe with one from the
twentieth century, a child's account of an incident with a newspaper account. This approach is
fully in line with what pupils will encounter in a university department of Linguistics or
English Language, and guarantees at least a conscious awareness of the richness of language
variation and the ability to talk about it.
As a nation we should be proud of the profound shift in language education during the last
half century, but this shift cannot be taken for granted. Powerful forces supported the
monolithic model which dominated for centuries, and those forces are still active in the
electorate. Perhaps the strongest force is the preference for simplicity over complexity - the
desire for a simple model of 'good language' for use in all circumstances. The best hope for
defeating this completely unrealistic expectation is to pursue the more complex agenda in our
schools so that the next generation of journalists and policy-makers, guided by the new
National Curriculum and possibly even A-level English Language, feel more comfortable
with variation.