Converted?

Okay, it's worked. All of the things I've been reading for this dang thesis have caused me to change my mind.

Prior to reading the likes of Nation, Hill and Day & Bamford, I was in the "Simplified Texts? No thank you!" camp, instinctively believing that any adaptation of a book to make it "simpler" was a) insulting to both the original author and the reader, b) cheating (if you want to read Jane Eyre, read Jane Eyre, not some cut-down lazy-person's version), and c) poor form.

This was probably because I noticed the difference between "abridged" and "non-abridged" versions of books when I was about eight, and decided that reading "non-abridged" versions was the only option available to people with any pride in their reading ability. The true "soul" of the book could only be found in the author's version. Needless to say, I regard Readers Digest Condensed editions with great disdain.

And Simple Originals? Well I also instinctively believed something that was intentionally limited in range of vocabulary and complexity of syntax was inferior to things that were written by and for "real people".

My hazy impression of Simple Originals - formed, I must say, from a limited and reluctant exposure to Graded Readers intended for first language remedial readers - was that they were largely boring and lacking anything resembling a "spark". Soulless, I guess you could say. I spent a few months working as a "roving tutor" at a school back when I was studying for my education degree, and the job involved pulling the "slow readers" out of class and working with them, one on one, as they reluctantly read their way through some lackluster Graded Reader - and it was terrible. It felt like I was reading something that was intentionally written as a tool to teach someone who wasn't very bright. I was bored, they were bored, and I couldn't really see any way around that.

I realise now that I should have been using Intensive Reading activities to try to increase the students' (and my) engagement in the book. Please excuse me while I go back in time about ten years and give myself a note.

Okay, back now. I left the note somewhere useful for myself, and I'm sure I'll find it before it accidentally gets thrown in the bin.

Where was I? Oh, yes, changing my mind.

You see these people I've been reading for my thesis, they all support the use of Graded Readers for learning a second language, but they also agree with me - simplifications of existing books can be utterly horrible and original works can be really bad. BUT when the books are good (and apparently they can be good), they are the most useful thing a person learning a language can get his/her hands on.

They've basically been saying: "Look, over the last thirty years there have been some rubbishy graded readers, but also some good ones - you can't dismiss the whole genre, especially when it can do so much good when writers and editors wield their powers for good instead of evil". Which is pretty hard to argue against, in good conscience.

It all comes back to the concept of Extensive Reading - the more you read, the better your reading skills become. You pick up more vocabulary, start to understand the grammar better and become more fluent. In short, you become a better at reading texts in a given language by reading texts in that language. However, as Krashen points out (and everyone points out the fact that Krashen points this out): the input has to be understandable. It has to be largely meaningful. You don't learn anything from noise.

They keep bandying about two numbers: 95% and 98%. The idea is, if you want to gain vocabulary from what you're reading, you have to already know at least 95% of the words in the book. If you want to really pick up your ability to read well, then you should know at least 98%.

Since people learning a language don't understand that much of it, then it makes sense to create texts that have controlled vocabulary and grammar. Okay, deep breath. Yes, I just agreed that writing books with limited language is a perfectly sound and acceptable idea.

Day & Bamford and Hill in particular have been waving this flag that says "Language Learner Literature" (LLL) - the idea being that language learners are an audience like any other, and people should be writing books for them. They make a good case. Heck, I've been reading their description of what a good LLL book should be, and I actually want to write one. A year ago the poet in me would have screamed: "but you can't intentionally 'dumb-down' writing and expect it to be good!", but now the same compulsion in me that occasionally feels the need to write a sonnet wants to try this.

Sonnets are all about control, you see. You have an exact number of syllables, stresses and lines to play with, and you have to fit something interesting, unique and worth reading into those restrictions. I'm seeing parallels with LLL. The restrictions, rather than the lines and syllables, are the vocabulary and structure. Can you write something interesting, unique and worth reading when you have to take from a pool of 5000 words and must avoid dozens of grammatical features known to be confusing? Can you use redundancy effectively, so that it reinforces the vocabulary and the grammar without appearing forced and boring?

Could you create a story that is so interesting it does not depend on the language used to convey it, and could you create a text in which the language is so clear and concise that it conveys the story effortlessly?

As someone who loves playing with the possibilities written English provides, I find the entire concept of these restrictions challenging. I'm not sure I could do it. I want to try...

Also, I want to find Graded Readers within the languages I'm currently studying. I've found some in German, and just need to find out what my options are for buying them. Estonian might be more of a challenge, though. Heck, when it comes to Estonian, I'd love to get my hands on anything I could actually read. The children's books I have at the moment are too challenging for me. Even adaptations of existing novels would be nice.

Yeah, about those. I still don't like the idea of sixteen people thinking they can re-write Brontë and think it's okay. On the other hand, Hill makes a very good point about adapting books for movies. LLL is a different medium with a different audience, and a re-telling catering to that medium shouldn't be dismissed as a butchered version of the original any more than a movie would be. Mind you, I often think movies are butchered versions of the original. You get that.