Volume 1 Number 2
January 1962

Grace A. Blossom

Teacher, Cortez High School, Glendale, Arizona

Mokusatsu—one Japanese word. Did it change the course of your life? Hear the story and decide for yourself. The word has two meanings:

In the summer of 1945 the Japanese Emperor was ready to end the war. The cabinet was getting ready to accede to the Potsdam demands but wanted a little more time to consider the terms—surrender or be crushed. A press release was made by the cabinet announcing a policy of mokusatsu with the 'no comment' implication. But through a mix-up in translation it reached the allies reading, "The cabinet ignores the demand to surrender." To recall the release would have resulted in an unthinkable loss of face. So in silence the cabinet did not back up the Emperor's decision to end the war. Had it done so, there might have been no bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no Manchurian 'incident' and no Korean War. Was all this the result of one word misinterpreted?

The linguists—those scientists of language—are telling us some very interesting things about our language. Not only very interesting, but very important. So important that our very survival may depend on listing and making a practical application of these ideas. Let's look at some of them.

First, they are telling us that language is the most important thing in our lives. Man was not man until he started to speak. These noises we make called speech are the only thing that distinguishes us from the animals. Teachers tend to think of language as written, but that aspect is comparatively recent. China has a written history from four to five thousand years old. But oral language goes so far back in time that no one knows just where or how it started. Perhaps we tend to think of written language as the more important of the two because it can be captured on paper, and we can return again and again to look at it. We must not lose sight of the fact, however, that 95% or more of all communication is oral and that without oral language there would be no written language. The latter is merely a reflection of the former.

Second, they are telling us that in learning to read a language, the greatest time-saving device is to learn to speak it first. Witness the difficulty deaf, or even partially deaf, students have in learning to read as compared with the average child. With the bilingual child the same principle applies. He will learn to read two or three times faster if he first learns to speak the new language. Reading without this spoken command of a language is merely a low grade of interpreting since a student must go from the printed word to his first language and back to the printed word again—a laborious process at best. It reminds one of the high school student studying his Spanish or French with one finger in the glossary at the back of the book. Therefore, if the Indian or other bilingual child is to get even an elementary education, he will do so more economically if he learns to speak English before he attempts to learn to read it.

Another very interesting concept that is being widely accepted by linguists was first formulated by Benjamin Lee Whorf. He says that all levels of higher thinking are dependent upon language. An interesting experiment is to try it for yourself. Attempt to think without words. Say to yourself, "Now I am going to decide what John Milton meant when he wrote, 'They also serve who only stand and wait.'" But do not allow a word to enter your mind. Do you end up with a blank mind and no answer, or do you find that you have a profound statement on the tip of your tongue?

This concept, that all higher levels of thought are dependent on language, is a complete reversal of one previously held. Therefore, if one accepts the idea that a thought must be "covered" by words before it can exist, it will follow that to think precisely and accurately one needs a well developed and meaningful vocabulary.

This leads us to a fourth application of linguistic thought. Stated in simplest terms people have two vocabularies, one composed of words used in speaking and a much larger hidden one called a recognition or comprehension vocabulary. English-speaking people tend to use as few words as possible in talking with others. To use "big words" makes one suspected by his friends of trying to impress them. No one wants to be accused of being "high-hat" Therefore, our talking vocabulary is quite small. Some linguists make an educated guess at three thousand words or less. Our comprehension or recognition vocabulary, which is composed of words we recognize when we see them in print but rarely use in talking, presents an entirely different problem. Because it is hidden and hard to measure, a teacher may be misled into thinking that a student who talks well may also have a well developed comprehension vocabulary. This applies especially to the bilingual, but it may also be true of the low vocabulary English speaking student. There is a direct application of this linguistic concept to school work as the texts of the first three grades are written in a carefully controlled talking vocabulary while upper grade texts shift to a comprehension vocabulary. Many educators are aware of the fact that retardation generally begins at the fourth grade level. There is probably a direct relationship between this shift and retardation. There may also be a direct relation between this shift and drop-outs.

To date no published research is available to indicate the validity of these statements. But it makes sense to assume there must be some underlying reason for the widespread belief that retardation starts at the fourth grade level. For bilingual children it may start earlier. Here again, we need research to determine if there is a connection between bilingual problems and vocabulary. In the past we have tended to put the blame on culture. The Indian child couldn't succeed in the white man's school because he was unfamiliar with his culture. He had never experienced it. The native Alaskan couldn't learn about the desert because he had never seen one. Could it be possible that the biggest difficulty is not culture but vocabulary? The teacher of English-speaking students takes them to all parts of the world through her classroom. She could do the same with bilingual students, provided they had similar English vocabularies. At least, this is what the linguists are telling us. Should we not, then, listen to them and try to determine through research whether they are right or wrong?