Reflection of orthographocentrism in dictations as a form of input control

Breusova Elena Ivanovna ORCID: 0000-0001-8828-0753 PhD in Philology Docent, the department of Philological Education and Journalism, Surgut State Pedagogical University 628417, Russia, Surgut, ul. 50 years old VLKSM, 10/2, office 408 elenabreusova@yandex.ru

Rudneva Ol'ga Viktorovna ORCID: 0000-0001-9113-7659 PhD in Philology Docent, the department of Philological Education and Journalism, Surgut State Pedagogical University 628417, Russia, Surgut, ul. 50 years old VLKSM, 10/2, office 408 soulina@inbox.ru

The problem of spelling literacy remains one of the most difficult, unsolvable for several decades, often attracting the close attention of teachers, methodologists, scientists (K. D. Ushinsky, D. N. Bogoyavlensky, N. S. Rozhdestvensky, A.V. Tekuchev, M. M. Razumovskaya, M. T. Baranov, V. Ya. Bulokhov, N. N.. Algazina). Linguists also study spelling from different sides as an independent branch of linguistics, doing research on its theoretical foundations, issues of improvement, classification of orthograms and sub., as well as studying it in other aspects, including solving problems of the communicative plan of spelling (N. N. Durnovo, A. N. Gvozdev, L. V. Shcherba, G. O. Vinokur, V. F. Ivanova, B. Z. Bukchina, S. M. Kuzmina, B. I. Osipov, T. M. Grigorieva, N. D. Golev and others).

Despite the active scientific research of scientists, unfortunately, spelling is still a stumbling block for university applicants. Spelling assignments are also included in the final unified state exam in the Russian language, which both students and teachers are aimed at preparing for. Spelling assignments do not test spelling skills in relation to the written form of speech, but the skills and abilities to see / find the right spelling in a separate word / phrase / sentence. As practice shows, the Unified State Exam as a form of final certification at school, due to objective and subjective reasons, cannot be an indicator of the level of proficiency in spelling skills of graduates. In this regard, a number of universities are conducting entrance control in the Russian language for applicants. Russian Russian dictation is one of the forms of entrance control, which is aimed at checking the educational results of graduates in the Russian language, in particular, the results of mastering Russian spelling. Thus, in Surgut State Pedagogical University, 1st year students of all areas of training in the first academic weeks are tested in the Russian language and write dictation as an entrance control.

Dictation, as a form of testing the knowledge of spelling rules and the ability to apply them in practice by students, fully reflects the orthographocentrism inherent in Russian school education.

It should be noted that the term "orthographocentrism" was introduced by the famous scientist N. D. Golev. The concept described by him boils down to the fact that the language is identified with spelling, through the study and in connection with the study of which the entire school course of the Russian language is built. A young man who is finishing school, as practice shows, is convinced that the Russian language course is designed to teach writing correctly, without mistakes. The dominant positions of spelling overshadow the other sections of the Russian language in general and, in particular, subordinate them to the study of spelling. And the spelling norm, thus, acts as the most significant communicative quality of speech.

Choosing dictation as an entrance control to test the knowledge of former applicants in the Russian language, teachers are guided precisely by the motives to check the literacy of applicants, a priori considering the chosen type of control appropriate, justified. Thus, it is proved once again that in the metalanguage consciousness of a native speaker, from an ordinary to a scientist, a literate person is identified with a person who writes without spelling (and punctuation) errors. However, we must not forget that any writer is embedded in the structure of communication, therefore it cannot be considered as an independent, separate, link. Any written text is a product of communicative interaction, it is transmitted information that implies the presence of not only a writer, but also a reader. Adequate transmission of information is important for the communication process, which can be disrupted by the appearance of various communication barriers, including not only spelling errors (but logical, semantic, age characteristics, cultural differences, etc.).

For the study, we analyzed 60 works of first-year students of non-philological specialties of Surgut State Pedagogical University by random sampling, since for this category of students, the Russian language is important, first of all, as a means of communication and mastering the basic educational program in the field of study. The purpose of the study was to analyze the mistakes made in the dictation, as well as the results of the work. We found that 32 students were rated "unsatisfactory", 24 former students were rated "satisfactory", three works were awarded the "good" rating, only one student coped with "excellent". A similar pattern is observed from year to year. The results of dictation based on strict norms of spelling assessment form the opinion of teachers about the next set of students as poorly prepared for university studies, poorly proficient in Russian. It should be noted that for many years now, every autumn, on the Internet, you can often find such an opinion from other university teachers, scolding school teachers for the low level of training of students in the Russian language, low spelling and punctuation literacy of applicants, their low educational abilities, etc. Of course, this is not unreasonable. But these conclusions are based primarily on the analysis (sometimes hasty) of the spelling personality of the graduate.

Thus, spelling norms are being raised into a cult, which, of course, is fundamentally wrong, since, in addition to spelling, there are other language norms that should also be observed.

Orthographocentrism also limits the idea of the qualities of good speech. Thus, the signs of good speech highlighted by M. R. Lvov and reflecting the hierarchy of language proficiency deserve the close attention of methodologists and scientists: 1) the content of speech; 2) conformity to the truth; 3) consistency; 4) correct pace; 5) linguistic correctness; 6) clarity of speech ^[11]. As you can see, correctness, including spelling, is among the properties of good speech, besides not the first. In this regard, spelling correctness is not paramount for effective communication, which is confirmed by Internet communication.

Dictation as a type of entrance control that checks the literacy of former applicants, and now freshmen, in our opinion, does not fulfill this task, but simply makes it possible to record the number of mistakes made by applicants, or their absence. Language correctness as a sign of good speech in this kind of verification work is reduced only to checking spelling (and punctuation) literacy. However, as B. I. rightly pointed out. Osipov, "spelling exists so that we think not about how it is written, but about what is written. Spelling exists in order not to be noticed" ^{[12, p. 220]}. Thus, the scientist emphasized the communicative and pragmatic aspect of spelling.

The communicative approach in the study of Russian spelling proves the independence of spelling as a fundamental science, and not only as a set of rules that solves applied problems. In connection with the above, the position of N. D. Golev and O. A. Kiseleva is true that "spelling can be approached not only as a system of spelling rules, but also as a specific component of communicative activity (in its written form), which has its own goals, objectives and results. The purpose of any symbolic system designed for communication, and in particular writing, is to ensure adequate transmission of meanings. The tasks that are set and solved in each specific case should serve this purpose and be aimed at the result — the achievement of mutual understanding. However, the result can be either positive (communicative success) or negative (communicative failure). It is fundamentally important to consider spelling in the parameter "communicative success/communicative failure", and to investigate spelling error among other types of hindrances to the writing activity of an ordinary reader" ^[5]. This conclusion is supported by the presence of incorrect spellings that were found in the dictation we analyzed and do not fit into the existing classifications of errors, for example: moving (picture), moving (picture), missing words, etc.

Other kinds of hindrances in written works (essays, expositions and other works with a creative component), in addition to spelling errors, may be speech, stylistic, factual and similar, as well as communicative hindrances that reduce the level of understanding of the text, for example: carelessness in calligraphy, bad handwriting, typos, etc. In terms of communication, they sometimes have more interference-forming power than spelling mistakes. So, typos, for example, can negatively affect the understanding of the text (at different times B. V. Tomashevsky ^[14], S. M. Bondi ^[1], O. V. Riess ^[13], N. D. Golev ^{[5, 7]}, E. I. Breusova ^{[2, 3]} and others wrote about them pointing out their perniciousness in texts of various genres of different styles, as well as their interference-forming nature for the perception of what is written).

As experience shows, only such errors as spelling, punctuation, speech, grammar, stylistic, factual, logical are embedded in the classifications developed by methodologists used to evaluate students' written works. A different kind of modified spelling or omission of words/ combinations of words in general is either difficult to qualify from the point of view of the existing methodology for checking written works, or it is impossible at all (a teacher, especially a beginner, cannot always identify such spelling or read it as an error). However, we find this kind of writing in the classification developed by Yu. V. Krasikov. In it, the author puts spelling errors in a row with other communicative hindrances, thereby emphasizing the communicative nature of spelling, and considering written texts in the structure of communication: 1) replacement of letters or syllables with other letters or syllables; 2) omission of letters or syllables; 3) an extra letter in the word; 4) omission of words; 5) anticipation (change of sounds in pairs vowel — consonant or consonant — consonant); 6) errors in translation; 7) dismemberment of the word into significant parts and the combined spelling of two independent words; 8) skipping a line; 9) rearrangement of adjacent words (author's inversion) ^[9].

Based on the above, we can conclude that the entrance control in the form of dictation is not an effective type of control that gives an idea of the graduate's readiness to study at a university, demonstrating the communicative skills of a first-year student.

This type of control reflects the orthographocentric consciousness of native speakers of the Russian language, including teachers, methodologists and even linguists.

Knowledge of spelling rules is often identified with knowledge of the language, which does not allow students to form a scientific idea of the Russian language.

The spelling norm has been elevated to the rank of sacred in spite of all ideas about the communicative qualities of speech, which pushes the fact of the appearance of the oral form of speech much earlier than the written one to the periphery of the metalanguage consciousness of the native speaker.

Spelling correctness should be considered in the communicative aspect, and spelling errors should be considered among the communicative hindrances. In this regard, the classifications of errors currently in force in school practice can be rethought, and at the same time, the criteria and norms for evaluating students' written works can be changed.