Kategoria: Yleinen

Selkokielistä tietoa on tarvittu viime aikoina kenties enemmän kuin koskaan aiemmin. Koronapandemian ja Ukrainan sodan kaltaisissa kriisitilanteissa on äärimmäisen tärkeää varmistaa, että jokainen meistä saa luotettavaa tietoa itselleen helpossa muodossa. Mutta onko selkokielinen uutisointi lukijalleen riittävän ymmärrettävää?

Selkokielisten uutisten ymmärrettävyyttä lähdin selvittämään pro gradu -tutkielmassani, jota varten haastattelin viittä selkokieltä tarvitsevaa ihmistä. Kahdella heistä selkokielen tarpeen taustalla on kehitysvamma (Matti ja Pekka) ja kolmella muulla se, ettei suomi ole heidän äidinkielensä (Zora, Vera ja Mila).

Selkouutinen kirjoitetaan lukija edellä

Selkokielisillä uutisilla tarkoitetaan uutisia, jotka on kohdennettu lukijoille, joilla on vaikeuksia lukea tai ymmärtää yleiskieltä. Selkouutisia tuotetaan kirjoittamalla suoraan selkokieltä tai mukauttamalla yleiskielinen uutinen selkokielelle. Mukautettaessa kirjoittaja käsittelee tekstiä merkityskokonaisuutena ja arvioi selkokielen periaatteisiin nojaten, miten tekstin ymmärrettävyyttä ja luettavuutta voidaan tukea. (Kulkki-Nieminen 2020: 388.) Kirjoittajan täytyy esimerkiksi pohtia, puuttuuko lukijalta sellaista yleistietoa, johon tämä voisi uutisen ankkuroida (Leskelä 2019: 125).

Suomessa selkouutisia julkaisevat Selkosanomat, Lätta bladet, Leija sekä Yle. Tutkielmassani haastateltavat tutustuivat kahteen ajankohtaislehti Selkosanomien uutiseen, joista toinen käsitteli kouluväkivaltaa (myöh. koulu-uutinen) ja toinen sote-uudistusta (myöh. sote-uutinen). Haastateltavien esiin nostamia havaintoja olen luokitellut soveltaen viestinnän professori Osmo A. Wiion (1997) teoriaa ymmärrettävyyden osatekijöistä.

Kiinnostavat aiheet ja tarttumapinta auttavat ymmärtämään

Samastuminen eli lukijan mahdollisuus samastaa itsensä ja ympäristönsä uutisen tapahtumiin (Wiio 1997) nousee aineistossa keskeisesti esiin. Koska ihmisellä on taipumus kiinnostua asioista, joissa he voivat itse kuvitella olevansa mukana (ns. human interest), on samastumisella merkittävä vaikutus kykyymme ymmärtää tekstiä. Myös aineistossani samastuminen kulkee käsi kädessä uutisen ymmärrettävyyden kanssa, ja haastateltavien oli helppo samastua konkreettiseen ja arkiseen koulu-uutiseen. He peilasivat kouluväkivaltaa omaan elämäänsä:

(1) no se [hyöty] et jos mä oisi kouluikäne ni emmä ainakaa tekis tommost (Pekka)

(2) mina ymmaran minun pitaa keskustella minun lapsenii [kanssa] ja olla varovastii ja kattoo [mitä] minun lapseni puhuu (Zora)

Abstraktimpaan sote-uutiseen samastuminen sen sijaan tuntui vaikeammalta, ja ainoastaan kaksi viidestä haastateltavasta koki samastuvansa uutiseen. Eräs haastateltavista lähestyi sote-uudistusta terveyspalvelujen saatavuuden näkökulmasta:

(3) no jos mä nyt itteeni ajattelen ni joo et jos ite tarvii terveyspalveluja ni vois ymmärtää että sinne pääsis aika helpostikki (Matti)

Samastumisen ohella myös motivaatiolla on ymmärrettävyyden kannalta suuri merkitys, sillä kiinnostavaksi koetut tekstit luetaan tyypillisesti useammin loppuun kuin vähemmän kiinnostavat ja niiden ymmärtämiseksi ollaan valmiita näkemään enemmän vaivaa (Wiio 1997). Aineistossani sekä koulu-uutinen että sote-uutinen koettiin kiinnostavaksi. Haastateltavien motivaatiota lisäsi erityisesti uutisen tarjoama tieto oman tai läheisen ihmisen terveyden tai turvallisuuden parantamiseksi (esimerkit 4–6) sekä oman tiedon kartuttaminen tiettyyn aiheeseen liittyen (esimerkki 7).

(4) kyl se kiinnostaa ainahan se kiinnostaa jos koulus sattuu jotai (Pekka)

(5) joo se on kinostava ja informativinen koska mina [olen] vanhemat ja mina kinostunut lapset (Zora)

(6) kylhän se aina oma terveys kiinnostaa (Pekka)

(7) joo se on hyva tietaa etta se oli suunniteltu pitkana aikana tottakai se tarvitsee paljon toita ja se sano etta miloin se voi mm tule meidan elamaan mm muttaa olisi ihana tietaa lisaa sote systeemista (Mila)

Kiinnostavaa on myös se, että jokainen kolmesta Suomeen muuttaneesta haastateltavasta mainitsi uutisten merkityksen Suomeen integroitumisessa, ja tiedon saamisen nähtiin helpottavan elämää uudessa kotimaassa (esimerkki 8).

(8) se on tarkeaa etta maahanmuutajat tai ulkomaalaiset voivat lukea mm kaikesta asioista mita tapahtuu kaupungissa tai maassa ja mm reagoivat hyvin ja tai osallistuvat mm elamassa tassa maassa (Mila)

Myös uutisten ulkoasun, kuten ilmavan taiton ja lihavoinnin suosimisen lyhyissä korostuksissa, nähtiin tukevan uutisten ymmärrettävyyttä. Ulkoasun merkitys nousi keskeiseksi erityisesti sote-uutisessa, jonka haastateltavat kokivat muuten melko vaikeaksi. Sote-uutisessa ymmärrettävyyden kannalta keskiöön nousi uutisen kuva, jossa on potilas lääkärin vastaanotolla. Kuva esimerkiksi korjasi tekstin perusteella syntyneitä väärinkäsityksiä siitä, että sote-palveluissa olisi kyse ainoastaan puhelimitse tapahtuvasta palvelusta (esimerkit 9 ja 10).

(9) no ainaki se [on hyvää] että tää kuva liittyy tähä et tää on mun mielestä hyvin otettu tää kuva et se liittyy tähä tekstiin ja ihminen näkee et mist on kyse ku se lukee tän et jos ei ois tätä kuvaa ni ei välttämättä ymmärtäis (Pekka)

(10) muttaa mina mm mina ymmarran etta se on soittaa palvelu ja nyt hehe nyt kuvassa mina naen etta se ei ole vain soittaa mina voin kaydaa (Vera)

Vieras sanasto ja abstrakti sisältö haastavat selkouutisten ymmärrettävyyttä

Vieras sanasto nousi keskeisimmäksi ymmärrettävyyttä vaikeuttavaksi tekijäksi erityisesti niiden haastateltavien kohdalla, joiden äidinkieli ei ollut suomi. Koulu-uutisesta he löysivät 12 itselleen vierasta tai vaikeaa sanaa, joista eniten haasteita aiheuttivat uutisen ymmärtämisen kannalta keskeiset sanat uhriaan, pahoinpitely, (menetti) tajuntansa ja potki. Yksi haastateltavista kuvasi haastavan sanaston vaikutusta lukemiseen näin:

(11) jos tama mm lehti on esimerkiksi mm maahanmuuttajille sitten ehkaa sanasto voi olla vahan helpompi koska sitten se tekee en tieda puoli tuntia lukea vain yksi artikkeli ja sitten ehka en halua lukea jotakin muuta hehe (Mila)

Sote-uutisen sanasto puolestaan aiheutti päänvaivaa jokaiselle haastateltavista. Kehitysvammaiset lukijat löysivät uutisesta yhdeksän vierasta sanaa ja maahanmuuttajalukijat 12. Sote-uutisen haastavimmiksi sanoiksi kerrottiin sanat sote, hyvinvointialueet tai hyvinvointialuetta, valtuustoihin, maakunniksi ja vauhdikkaasti, joista sote oli vieras peräti neljälle viidestä haastateltavasta.

Myös uutisten sisältö nousi ymmärrettävyyspuutteeksi silloin, kun se ei ollut riittävän konkreettista. Tämä oli tyypillistä erityisesti abstraktimman sote-uutisen kohdalla. Uutisen aihe oli kahdelle haastateltavista täysin vieras, ja kolme muutakin olivat kuulleet tai lukeneet sote-uudistuksesta vain ohi mennen. Uutisen sisällön keskeisimmäksi pulmaksi osoittautui tiedon puute, mikä aiheuttaa tekstiin niin sanottuja sisällöllisiä aukkoja, joita selkoteksteissä pitäisi pyrkiä välttämään. Esimerkiksi hyvinvointialueiden merkitys jäi haastateltaville uutisen perusteella epäselväksi:

(12) nii siis hyvinvointialueet ni se on ehkä sit semmone että siit ei oikein niinku tiiä et mitä ne on että niistä ei oo niinku tossa uutisessa kerrottu (Matti)

(13) mm onkse joo alue on mm onko helsinki tai uusimaa tai mita vaan joo mutta en tieda mm kuinka monta hyvinvointialuetta ovat suomessa ja onko se tulee koko suomeen tama systeemi vai vain uusimaa tampere turku tai oulu (Mila)

Wiion (1997) mukaan ulkoasulla voidaan sekä tukea että heikentää tekstin ymmärrettävyyttä, mikä kävi ilmi myös tekemissäni haastatteluissa. Haastateltavat kertoivat uutisen ulkoasun vaikeuttavan lukemista erityisesti silloin, kun uutisten eri osat eivät erottuneet toisistaan riittävän selkeästi ja silloin, kun fontti ja riviväli olivat liian pieniä. Kukaan haastateltavista ei kuitenkaan kokenut ulkoasun vaikuttaneen merkittävästi uutisen ymmärrettävyyteen, vaan he kertoivat lähinnä, miten ulkoasua voitaisiin vielä selkeyttää.

Jenni Stolt

Kirjoittaja työskentelee Selkokeskuksessa suunnittelijana. Hän valmistui kesällä 2021 filosofian maisteriksi Tampereen yliopistosta pääaineenaan suomen kieli.

Kirjoitus perustuu pro gradu -tutkielmaan:

Stolt, Jenni (2021): Selkolukijat selkouutisten testaajina. Laadullinen tutkimus Selkosanomien uutistekstien ymmärrettävyydestä. Tampereen yliopiston informaatioteknologian ja viestinnän tiedekunta. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:tuni-202104284090.

Lähteet

Kulkki-Nieminen, Auli 2020: Journalistisia tekstejä selkokielellä. Saavutettavan median tarjonnasta ja erityispiirteistä – Media & viestintä 43 (2020): 4 s. 385–402.

Leskelä, Leealaura 2019: Selkokieli. Saavutettavan kielen opas. Espoo: Kehitysvammaliitto ry / Oppimateriaalikeskus Opike.

Selkosanomat 2020: Koulujen turvallisuus huolettaa – Selkosanomat 15/2020 s. 3.

Selkosanomat 2020: Sote parantaa terveyspalveluja – Selkosanomat 16/2020 s. 3.

Wiio, Osmo A. 1997: Johdatus viestintään. Porvoo: Weilin+Göös.

The writer of the blog: Bettina M. Bock

Where and how are easy-to-read (ETR) texts used at the workplace? How can they foster participation in working life? What is meant to make texts comprehensible for people with low-level reading skills or intellectual disabilities? And how consistent is this with current easy-to-read practice in Germany? These were the main questions of the “LeiSA” (= Leichte Sprache im Arbeitsleben) interdisciplinary project at the University of Leipzig, Germany (2014–2018). This project was conducted through collaboration between linguists and social scientists and followed a participatory approach by including adults with intellectual disabilities in the research process.

The sociological sub-project explored how the ETR concept is used in sheltered workshops and integrated workplaces. The team then investigated whether using ETR material in working life has positive effects on the participation of handicapped employees. They found that ETR material alone does not improve occupational participation, but were able to show that it promotes empowerment. However, as the sheltered workshop system does not seem to support these empowerment processes, the use of ETR material at the workplace actually caused a reduction in the satisfaction and motivation of the workshop employees (cf. Goldbach/Bergelt 2019).

In this blog post, I would like to focus on the linguistic sub-project and its empirical investigations. One of the first questions we asked at the beginning of the project in 2014 was: Which linguistic practices do ETR texts employ? What does making texts comprehensible for target groups mean? We collected a corpus of 404 texts (approx. 640,000 tokens) which were either labeled ETR (Leichte Sprache, Leicht lesen) or showed obvious similarities with ETR. We also collected a corpus of 300 texts that were labeled “plain language” (Einfache Sprache) (approx. 780,000 tokens). We then wanted to compare the lexical, grammatical, and propositional characteristics of ETR German to those of plain German. We also wanted to see whether the texts adhered to some of the strict ETR rules (e.g., no negation or genitive case).

The situation in Germany is unique. As in other countries, rulebooks and guidelines suggest how language and texts should be simplified. But in contrast to other countries, these rules are generally not understood as recommendations but as strict norms that have to be followed – if they are not followed, the text cannot be defined as ETR. On the one hand, this widespread understanding leads to rather inflexible, “universal” ETR practices that do not pay much attention to context factors such as the specific target group, text type or situation. On the other hand, there is no real uniform practice. Even texts that commit to a specific rulebook do not necessarily fully follow its norms, as our corpus analyses showed. This specific German situation is undoubtedly an interesting potential field for further sociolinguistic investigations, especially with regard to linguistic ideologies and the status and handling of linguistic norms in society.

The main part of LeiSA’s linguistic sub-project was comprehension studies using two target groups: adults with intellectual disabilities and adults with (internally or externally ascribed) low-level reading skills. We focused on a variety of linguistic levels. In a psycholinguistic study in cooperation with Sandra Pappert (Pappert/Bock 2020), we tested a controversial ETR rule concerning word segmentation. A sample of individuals, some with intellectual disabilities and others with poor reading skills, performed a timed lexical decision task on unsegmented and segmented noun compounds. The compounds were semantically either transparent or opaque. The results of our study show that segmentation has an advantage independent of semantic transparency. At the same time, the main effect of semantic transparency indicates that the meaning of the compounds was accessed. Our results support the practice of segmenting compounds in ETR German.

However, this was not the case in all of our studies. For instance, the results of our examinations of the pragmatic aspects of text comprehension did not support current practices. ETR German has no context- or text type-sensitive rules. Roughly speaking, all texts “look pretty much the same”, both linguistically and visually. In one study we therefore wanted to explore whether people with intellectual disabilities have any concept of text types and whether they are able to capture the text’s pragmatic function when reading (Bock 2019). We reconstructed their situation models and context models from retrospective interviews and from their online commentaries while reading authentic ETR texts. In a second study, we investigated whether the participants with intellectual disabilities and low-level reading skills were able to recognize text types when they could only use visual and haptic text features (Bock 2020). In cooperation with designer Sabina Sieghart, we prepared sheets with typical macro-typographic features, but only dummy text and blurred pictures. Some of these sheets had visual and haptic features, which are typical of ETR German, others had the features of conventional text type designs. We compared the correctness of text type comprehension using a questionnaire and an oral interview. Both studies showed that the vast majority of our participants have a knowledge, either a more or less elaborated, of text type and function, which they were able to activate in our tests. Our comparison of ETR-typical and text type conventional macro-typography shows that conventional visual design is always well recognized, whereas general ETR designs often lead to false text type associations which in turn are likely to be an obstacle to text comprehension.

Currently we are working on an accessible website that introduces the main results of the two sub-projects of LeiSA in an easy-to-understand form. Again, this project is designed participatory and we are working closely together with people with intellectual disability.

References
Bock, Bettina M./Fix, Ulla/Lange, Daisy (Ed.) (2017): „Leichte Sprache“ im Spiegel theoretischer und angewandter Forschung. Berlin. [= „Easy-to-read“ in the mirror of theoretical and applied research.]
Bock, Bettina M. (2019): „Leichte Sprache“ – Kein Regelwerk. Sprachwissenschaftliche Ergebnisse und Praxisempfehlungen aus dem LeiSA-Projekt. Berlin. URL: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bsz:15-qucosa2-319592 [= „Easy-to-read“ – no Rulebook. Linguistic results and practical recommendations from the LeiSA-project]
Bock, Bettina M. (2020): Makrotypografie als Verständlichkeitsfaktor. Empirische Studie zum Erkennen von Textsorten am Beispiel der „Leichten Sprache“. In: Zeitschrift für angewandte Linguistik 73, 1-32. doi:10.1515/zfal-2020-2050 [= Macrotypography as a factor for comprehensibility. Empirical staudy on the recognition of text types using the example fo „Easy-to-read“]
Goldbach, Anne/Bergelt, Daniel (2019): Leichte Sprache am Arbeitsplatz. Sozialwissenschaftliche Ergebnisse und Praxisempfehlungen aus dem LeiSA-Projekt. Berlin. URL: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bsz:15-qucosa2-383782 [= Easy-to-read at the workplace. Sociological results and practical recommendations from the LeiSA-project]
Pappert, Sandra/Bock, Bettina M. (2020): Easy-to-read German put to test: Do adults with intellectual disability or functional illiteracy benefit from compound segmentation? In: Reading and Writing 33, 1105–1131. doi:10.1007/s11145-019-09995-y

The writer of the blog: Velga Polinska

Since the birth of my son with Down syndrome, I have been trying to get a glimpse of the veiled world of people with perceptual disorders. For me personally, it is important to give my son the most opportunities I can. During these years, I have noticed that here, in Latvia, the available health care services mostly aim at bringing people with various intellectual disabilities as close as possible to the rest of society, where they are often judged by the same criteria. However, it was interesting to find out whether the rest of society can adapt their behavioral patterns to communicate with people with intellectual disabilities on the level they are able to. And once I started working on my Master’s thesis, I chose to have a closer look at the real communicative situation in Latvia.

How it looks

It is not a secret that effective communication is the basis of inclusive society, which provides education, work, and social life opportunities to every person. To start, it was important to understand whether there are any opportunities for people with intellectual disabilities of establishing effective communication in public bodies. Therefore, I created a survey which was then sent to different state and municipal bodies. There were 90 respondents: 26 social service offices, 20 health care facilities, 19 museums, 16 courts and 11 other state and municipal bodies.

The survey highlighted several tendencies regarding the work-based training in communication with people with perceptional disorders, as well as applied communication strategies and awareness of Easy Language.

Appropriate training: or rather insufficiency of it.

Only 63% of all represented bodies ensure their employees with a training on communication with their clients, and only 74% of these cover communication with people with PD. 83% of those who have received such a training use their knowledge whenever they see that their client has a PD, but 12% use their knowledge with all clients. 47% of all the respondents recognize that adequate communication would make their clients feel safer. However, 4% claim that such a training is very demanding, while the likelihood of working with clients with PD is very low. 2% believe such knowledge is too narrow and specific, and 3 respondents indicate that people with PD do not attend their institution.

It is clear that the work-based training would make the employees and their clients with perceptual disorders (PD) feel safer, reduce misunderstandings and allow to establish effective communication. On the other hand, it is noticeable that there are still few respondents that do not understand the necessity of such communication: they claim that the training would require too many resources; besides, they do not work with clients with PD very often. However, clients may be choosing not to visit public bodies for the reason that they have not experienced effective bidirectional communication.

Communicative strategies can be correlated with the frequency of their use as follows:

When communicating with clients with perceptional disorders, majority of the employees (68%) choose to rephrase or clarify the information. Alarmingly that 39% of the respondents communicate with the accompanying person only. 50% speak slower, 21% speak louder and also 21% write the information on the paper or the screen. 20% of the respondents search for individual solutions, 10% think that moving their lips expressively is helpful, and 7% do not apply any specific strategy.

The given responses clearly show that only a few of the applied strategies are appropriate in communication with people with PD. Although, the most often used strategy — rephrasing or clarifying the given information — is also the most effective (especially in Easy Language), we cannot disregard that almost 40% of the respondents tend to ignore their clients, communicating with the accompanying person only. Likewise, often enough employees choose inappropriate strategies, such as writing the information on a piece of paper or moving the lips expressively.

Factors that according to the respondents hinder successful communication with people PD:

 

48% of the respondents confirm that their knowledge is insufficient to provide effective communication with their clients with PD. 42% claim that the visits are too short , and 10% believe that people with PD most probably will not understand what they are told.

In other words, employees often do not have time to establish effective communication, and they also do not know how. Besides quite a few also believe that people with PD are not able to understand any explanations or clarifications; therefore, they choose to communicate with the accompanying person.

Easy Language awareness: finally, I wanted to know whether the respondents have considered using Easy Language in order to communicate effectively with their clients.

36% of the respondents claim that they know the principles of Easy Language and can apply them, 23% know what Easy Language is, but do not know its principles and thus cannot use it. 33% do not know what Easy Language is at all.

Turns out that Easy Language still is underrated as a communication tool in Latvia – 33% of the respondents do not even know what it is.

Technically, these are just numbers; however, the results of the survey showcase inclusion and equality gaps. So, the question is –

What to do?

First of all, all response groups of the survey clearly showed that public bodies’ employees are in need of an appropriate training programme on how to communicate with their clients, including clients with PD.

Another very important step towards successful communication and hence an inclusive society is the promotion of Easy Language. Knowledge of the Easy Language principles and ability to apply them would significantly enhance effective communication, thus increasing independence of the people with PD and reducing the need for assistants, accompanying persons, or care providers in daily activities such as going to the museum.

Within the project “Promoting Easy-to-Read Language for Social Inclusion”, the guidelines for Easy Latvian have been developed, which will be freely available in the coming months. The authors of the guidelines hope that these will be a good tool to significantly increase the use of written Easy Language in different institutions in Latvia.

However, I believe that not only Easy-to-read but also spoken Easy Language is of paramount importance. Thus, any of the following solutions might increase public service availability: 1) websites including not only written information but also audio materials; 2) museums’ offer of audio-guides in Easy Language; 3) Easy Language interpreters; 4) easily available theoretical and practical training in Easy Language principles to ensure effective communication; 5) destigmatization of Easy Language.

Moreover, communication and service availability can be enhanced, for example, by planning a longer visit for clients with PD or checking whether the setting of the conversation is adapted to meet the needs of the client. Not always caring for the clients require enormous resources; sometimes, it is just a matter of an attitude. Every person regardless of their position can cultivate an inclusive environment. At the same time, it should be kept in mind that inclusion is bidirectional, and appropriate communication tools would allow people with PD communicating their outlook, hence enriching our society with new and original ideas.

About the writer: Velga Polinska (Mg. Art., Mg. Phil.) is a teacher, translator, and interpreter. She is a board member of the society “Down Syndrome Latvia” and a junior representative of the Latvian Alliance for Rare Diseases. Currently she takes part in the project “Promoting Easy‑to‑Read Language for Social Inclusion” (Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia).

The article is based on my Master’s thesis:
Velga Polinska (2021) “Interpreting for People with Perceptual Disorders” (“Tulkošana cilvēkiem ar uztveres traucējumiem”). Riga: University of Latvia.
Available: https://dspace.lu.lv/dspace/handle/7/56137

 

The writer of the blog: Rita Farkasné Gönczi

The use of easy-to-understand communication dates back decades in Hungary, one of the foundations of which is to ensure equal access to information. The history of easy to understand communication was very diverse in Hungary. The first event is that the ÉFOÉSZ adapted the easy to understand communication to Hungary, which it continuously uses in its publications and holds trainings on the subject (Horváth, Ladányi, 2021). For the first time in Hungary, easy-to-understand communication appeared online in 2011. I launched a blog called Easy-to-understand kitchen, where recipes with easy-to-understand communication were available. From 2017, the blog moved to the website http://konnyenertheto.gonczirita.hu/english , where professional knowledge and publication collections related to easy-to-understand communication appeared.

In the meantime, I worked with experts by experience to develop the concept of easy-to-understand communication in Hungary. “Easy-to-understand communication is the display of content units of information appearing in the common language or at a more complex language level, or the development of independently created information content in a simple, clear form for understanding information” (http://konnyenertheto.gonczirita.hu/english/definition-easy-to-understand/, 2017, lc. 2018, modified 2021).” Easy-to-understand communication is communication that uses linguistic and non-linguistic signs in many cases along specific rules. Easy-to-understand communication uses each language’s own linguistic and non-linguistic cues to develop and convey the message. Individual application means that the level of comprehension of the people involved in the communication determines the level of communication that is easy to understand and according to which the range of grammatical and other rules can be adjusted. Participants in easy-to-understand communication consciously or spontaneously apply the rules of message formation that appear in the communication situation” (Rita Farkasné Gönczi, 2021).

1. figure: system for the use of linguistic and non-linguistic signs in easy-to-understand communication (Farkasné Gönczi Rita, 2021).

The use of language symbols (strings and their written image) refers to the rules for that language. The use of non-linguistic signs in speech clarifies or modifies comprehension, possibly as a message in itself.

The formal rules that appear in the method of easy-to-understand communication are actually the use of non-linguistic signs themselves.

Researching 2 formal rules of easy-to-understand communication

The real effectiveness of formal rules have not been studied much in Hungary. I first conducted an examination of 2 formal rules among experts by experience in Hungary in 2018, and then in 2019. The non-representative study included 44 individuals with intellectual disabilities. Among the formal rules, I reviewed the rules on font size and shape background in international and domestic regulators, and then adjusted the examination tool for this. The basis for examining the two rules is my hypothesis that font size and shape-background rules can be modified by the proliferation of digital platforms and their frequent use.

My questions for reading comprehension:

• • Does the larger font size really support intelligent reading?
  • In terms of font size, which font size do test subjects prefer?
  • Does the shape-background rule in the light background, dark font version really support intelligent reading?
  • Which shape-background form do test subjects consider supportive?

In both cases, we asked the person to read the text. We measured the reading speed. Then weasked him to select an image that matched the sentences from the images in the queue. The correct selections were scored.  We asked people which text they considered easy to read and which they read faster.

Table 1: The font size rule for easy-to-understand communication research material, KÉK-BM (Farkasné Gönczi, Sugatagi & Szilágyi, 2019, 323).

 

Table 2: Research material on the shape-background rule of easy-to-understand communication, KÉK-BH (Farkasné Gönczi, Sugatagi & Szilágyi 2019, 323).

There is no significant difference between the font size and the background of the letters, neither in the reading speed (sign. 0.745) nor in the number of correctly understood texts (sign. 0,200) for each font size. In the reading speed it was found that at the letter-background (sign. 0.049), the comparison is just below the standard significance level of 5% in the statistical sense, so the unusual text with a dark background can be considered to be read significantly faster (Farkasné Gönczi, Sugatagi & Szilágyi 2019). Based on the results, the application of letter background rules is of little need among the subjects. This may be due to the intensifying digital look where we come across a wide variety of text and backgrounds. It would be worthwhile to resaurch the larger population.

Based on the results of the non-representative small-sample research presented above, it can be seen that the rules used in easy-to-understand communication derive from practice and little research has addressed their effectiveness. The present research examining the applicability of the two formal rules of easy-to-understand communication can only show a trend and serve as a basis for future interdisciplinary research.

The development of rules for easy-to-understand communication such as intralinguistic translation can be influenced by several disciplines. The rules for the use of linguistic signs refer, for example, to linguistics or translation science. The rules for the use of non-linguistic signs refer, for example, to the communication sciences. The effectiveness of the use of easy-to-understand communication among people with intellectual disabilities is the science of special education. This may be one way to make easy-to-understand communication an interdisciplinary science.

We were the first in Hungary to address these issues at an international conference on easy-to-understand communication organized by the community of my website and the ELTE Bárczi Gusztáv Faculty of Special Needs Education on 4 June 2021 (http://konnyenertheto.gonczirita.hu/konnyen-ertheto-konferencia/).

About the writer: Rita Farkasné dr. Gönczi is a PhD at the University of special education in Hungary, who was the first to describe the definition of easy-to-understand communication and conducted empirical research on the subject in Hungary. Edit her own professional website on the subject from 2011, where she works with Experts by experience: http://konnyenertheto.gonczirita.hu/english/

References:

Peter László Horvath, Lili Ladányi (2021). Easy Language in Hungary. In: Camilla Lindholm, Ulla Vanhatalo (eds.) Handbook of Easy Languages in Europe. Frank & Timme, Berlin.

Rita Farkasné Gönczi (2021). The concept of easy-to-understand communication, language levels, and applicability in the context of visual impairment. In Dimensional changes in the pedagogy and rehabilitation of the visually impaired. International conference organized by the Gusztáv Bárczi Faculty of Special Education at the Eötvös Loránd University on the occasion of the Hungarian Science Festival. (ed. Farkas Gönczi), ELTE BGGYK, Budapest.

Rita Farkasné Gönczi, Gábor Sugatagi, Lajosné Szilágyi (2019): A small sample test of the 2 formal rules of easy-to-understand communication. In: Farkasné Dr. Rita Gönczi, Dr. Ferencné Gereben, Dr. Zoltán Lénárt (ed.) Rehabilitation ages, institutions, needs and opportunities in the Hungarian system of services. Volume of a study on the 47th National Professional Conference. Association of Hungarian Special Education Teachers, Gárdony. URL: https://edit.elte.hu/xmlui/handle/10831/46035, download: 11/28/2021

Rita Farkasné Gönczi (2018). The concept and rules of easy-to-understand communication are based on international and domestic examples and the suggestions of Hungarian experts by experience. Special Educational Review, 46 (1), 64-76.

Rita Farkasné Gönczi, Éva Graf-Jaksa (2009). Easy to understand communication in Communication and Information Technology and Disability. Disability Science Knowledge Base, ELTEBGGYK.

 

 

The writer of the blog: Idastiina Valtasalmi

Research participants should be informed about the research in a way they can understand. In easy language research, this might involve writing research information leaflets and consent forms in easy language. What is the process of using easy language in research, and what are the benefits?

In spring 2018, I began writing my PhD thesis about the accessibility of easy language to people with intellectual disabilities. Since the designed research participants were easy language users, one of the first tasks was to write research information leaflets and consent forms in easy Finnish, or selkokieli. The task was not straightforward, because there were no guidelines for using easy language in research. Instead, I turned to ethical guidelines for research and guidelines for easy Finnish to find the best way to proceed.

The goal was to write research documents for two target audiences in two different language forms: one in easy Finnish for research participants, and another in standard Finnish for their legal representatives, if they had any. First, a standard Finnish information leaflet was written following the ethical principles of research. Then, a consent form was simply modeled after a form provided by the Ethics Committee of the Tampere Region. The Committee would later conduct the ethical review for the research.

Once the standard Finnish form and leaflet were finished, they were adapted into easy language following the linguistic and visual criteria for easy Finnish (see, for example, Selkokeskus 2018; Leskelä 2019). The purpose of each text was introduced carefully at the beginning since it was assumed that the readers might not be familiar with the genres.

The easy Finnish adaptation of the leaflet was an A5-sized document with 7 pages, and its standard language counterpart was an A4-sized document with one page. Despite having more pages, the easy language leaflet had less text and was shorter. To improve perceptibility, the easy language text was typed in a 14-point font and headlines in a 16-point font. The text was aligned to the left, and new sentences started on a new line. Each line had less than 60 characters following the Finnish guidelines for easy language. No pictures were used, so the focus was on clear textual hierarchy. Headlines were at the top of the page, and the text focused only on one topic on each page.

The easy language texts were sent to the ethics committee to be assessed with the ethical review application. After a positive review statement, they were sent to the Finnish Center for Easy Language with an application for a permission to use the SELKO symbol. The symbol is granted free of charge to texts that meet the criteria for easy Finnish (Selkokeskus 2021). Permission to use the symbol was granted after the language and layout were assessed and approved.

Research information leaflet was distributed to potential participants in group meetings. In other words, it was delivered to them personally, and they had an opportunity to hear more about the study. The contents of the leaflet were introduced orally using the guidelines for easy language in interaction (Leskelä & Lindholm 2012). Voluntary participation was emphasized several times during the meeting. Reception was very positive, and lively conversations ensued in an unhurried environment. Potential participants were able to take the information leaflet home and consider if they wanted to participate. They were also given an opportunity to attend one-on-one meetings if they wanted to ask more questions or enroll in the study.

The SELKO symbol turned out be an important asset in making information leaflets and consent forms more accessible and acceptable. The primary purpose of the symbol was to make sure that the texts were officially accepted as easy language. Then, many of the readers commented that they became more interested in the texts after seeing the symbol, so it made the texts more approachable and reading more acceptable (Maaß 2020: 44-47). All in all, it can be said that the SELKO symbol was useful and had a double role in improving acceptability.

To summarize, when conducting research with easy language users, written and spoken easy language should be used in various stages of the research process. Otherwise, inaccessible communication might turn away potential participants and cause misunderstandings that might endanger the ethical principles of informed consent and self-determination. For this reason, easy language should be embraced not only as a subject of research but also as a tool for research. Only then user-based easy language research can be made more accessible to its participants.

About the writer: Idastiina Valtasalmi is a doctoral researcher at Tampere University. The topic of her ongoing research is Accessible language: People with intellectual disabilities as users of Easy Finnish.

References:
Leskelä, Leealaura 2019: Selkokieli: Saavutettavan kielen opas. Helsinki: Kehitysvammaliitto ry.
Leskelä, Leealaura & Lindholm, Camilla 2012 (eds.): Haavoittuva keskustelu. Keskustelunanalyyttisia tutkimuksia kielellisesti epäsymmetrisestä vuorovaikutuksesta. Helsinki, Kehitysvammaliitto.
Maaß, Christiane 2020: Easy language – plain language – easy language plus. balancing comprehensibility and acceptability (vol. 3). Berlin: Frank & Timme.
Selkokeskus 2018: Selkomittari. https://selkokeskus.fi/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/SELKOMITTARI_2018_11.10.18.pdf (5.10.2021)
Selkokeskus (2021). Selko symbol. https://selkokeskus.fi/in-english/services/selko-symbol/ (5.10.2021)

Blogin kirjoittajat: Camilla Lindholm, Ulla Vanhatalo

Heinäkuussa se sitten tapahtui: saksalainen painokone napsutteli kasapäin lähes kilon painoisia neljä senttiä paksuja mustakantisia kirjoja. Kirjoja, joiden kannessa komeili suomalaisen Heidi Ahlströmin suunnittelema kansainvälisen selkokielen päivän logo. Postin tuoma kirja poltteli meidän toimittajien sormissa niin, että sitä oli vaikea edes aukaista.

Kokonaisuudessaan vain alle puolitoista vuotta kestänyt kirjaprojekti oli toimituksen näkökulmasta hektinen. Hanke oli jo logistisesti omaa luokkaansa, kun mukana oli 21 maata, yhteensä 57 kirjoittajaa, kirjalla on mittaa noin 650 sivua ja mukaan päätyi yli 1340 lähdeviitettä. Kun jokainen teksti kävi eri tahoilla useamman kommentti- ja korjauskierroksen, kärsivällisyyttä kysyttiin niin toimitukselta kuin kirjoittajiltakin. Verta ei vuodatettu, mutta hikeä kyllä, ja ehkä vähän kyyneleitäkin. Työssä oli kuitenkin vahvasti inspiroiva fiilis. Kirjoittajat olivat sitoutuneita ja yhteistyöhaluisia. Toimittajina olemme ikuisessa kiitollisuudenvelassa korvaamattomalle tutkimusavustajallemme Iina Kärkkäiselle – ja Koneen Säätiön apurahalle.

Käsikirja Euroopan selkokielistä on kunnianosoitus kymmenille selkotoimijoille ympäri Euroopan. Kirjan pääsisältönä on 21 lukua, joista kukin esittelee selkokielen tilanteen yhdessä Euroopan maassa. Luvut vaihtelevat pituudeltaan ja osin myös painotuksiltaan, mutta ne rakentuvat saman disposition mukaan. Tämä mahdollistaa lukemisen myös alaluku ja teema kerrallaan.

Luvut alkavat lyhyellä johdannolla kyseessä olevan maahan: johdantoluku piirtää kontekstin, jossa selkokielen tilannetta seuraavissa alaluvuissa tarkastellaan. Lukija saa tietää esimerkiksi maassa puhuttavista kielistä ja lukutaidon tilasta. Toinen alaluku esittelee selkokieleen ja laajemminkin kognitiiviseen saavutettavuuteen liittyviä historiallisia kehityskulkuja. Millaiset seikat ovat vaikuttaneet siihen, mikä on selkokielen tilanne nyt?

Kolmas alaluku käsittelee selkokielen nykytilannetta: selkokielen määrittelyä, selkokielen (Easy Language) ja selkeän kielen (Plain Language) suhdetta, saavutettavuuteen liittyvää lainsäädäntöä ja resurssointia sekä selkokielen sidosryhmiä eri maissa. Neljäs alaluku tarkastelee selkokielen kohderyhmiä tuoden esiin merkittäviä periaatteellisia eroja siinä, kenelle selkokieltä missäkin suunnataan. Viidennessä alaluvussa esitellään selkokielen tuottamiseen liittyviä ohjeita, suosituksia ja sääntöjä. Kuudes alaluku esittelee selkokielen käytännön tuloksia, kuten uutisaineistoja, tietotekstejä ja kaunokirjallisuutta. Seitsemäs alaluku luo katsauksen opetukseen ja tutkimukseen, johon liittyen esitellään usein myös lähialojen tutkimusta.

Luvut päättyvät kirjoittajien ajatuksiin tulevasta. Mihin maamme on menossa? Millaisia suunnitelmia, haasteita ja toiveita selkokielen ja saavutettavan viestinnän tulevaisuudessa on nähtävissä? Jokaisen maan yhteydessä annetaan myös pieni autenttinen esimerkki selkokielisestä tekstistä.

Toimituksen periaatteena oli yhtäältä kunnioittaa kunkin maan kirjoittajatiimin asiantuntemusta oman maansa asioissa ja toisaalta palvella tiedonhaluista lukijaa. Tämä ei ollut aina ihan helppoa. Maalukujen ensimmäisiä käsikirjoitusversioita lukiessamme huomasimme, että eri maissa oli totuttu kertomaan selkokielestä ja saavutettavuudesta tietynlaisia kertomuksia, jotka sellaisenaan eivät välttämättä sopineet kirjaan. Näkökulmat vaihtelevat osin myös kirjoittajien taustan mukaan. Tarkkaavainen lukija voikin löytää kirjasta kiinnostavia yksityiskohtia, kompromisseja, aukkoja ja epäjohdonmukaisuuksia. Toimittajina olemme ainakin osasta näistä tietoisia.

Kirja havainnollistaa, miten tarve selkokielelle on syntynyt ruohonjuuritasolla itsenäisesti eri maissa. Ilmiön pääpiirteet ovat samat: kasvava joukko ihmisiä ei ymmärrä yleiskieltä. Tarve yksinkertaistetulle kielelle on totta. Kirja näyttää lukijalle sen, miten tilanteeseen on eri puolilla Eurooppaa reagoitu. Kirjoitusprosessin aikana kymmenet selkokielen toimijat ja selkokieltä tutkivat ovat tulleet tietoiseksi toisistaan. Lukijoiden myötä tietoisuus eri maiden kokemuksista vielä moninkertaistuu. Toimijat voivat oppia toistensa töistä, eikä pyörää tarvitse keksiä joka maassa uudestaan. Tutkijoille kirja avaa näkymiä inspiroivalle työmaalle nopeasti kehittyvällä tieteidenvälisellä kentällä.

Käsikirja Euroopan selkokielistä kuvaa ajantasaisen tilanteen vuoteen 2020 asti. Toimittajina kuitenkin toivomme, että kirja alkaisi saman tien tietyiltä osin myös vanhentua. Toivomme selkokielen ja sen tutkimuksen kehityksen yhä kiihtyvän. Kun katsomme vuoteen 2030 – tai vuoteen 2050 – näemme siellä jo hyvin erilaisen Euroopan. Euroopan, jossa jokaisella ihmisellä on lakisääteinen oikeus saada palvelua ja tulla kohdatuksi selkokielellä. Euroopan, jossa selkokielen tutkimus ja opetus ovat vakiintuneet yliopistojen oppituoleihin ja koulutusohjelmiin.

Kirjoittajat:

Camilla Lindholm on pohjoismaisten kielten professori Tampereen yliopistossa. Hän johtaa Svenska Litteratursällskapetin rahoittamaa Lätt finlandssvenska – en språkform för minoriteter inom minoriteten -hanketta.

Ulla Vanhatalo on yleisen kielitieteen dosentti Helsingin yliopistossa. Hän johtaa Koneen Säätiön rahoittamaa Selkokielen ytimessä -hanketta.

Kirjoittajat ovat yhdessä toimittaneet Handbook of Easy Languages in Europe -kirjan.

Handbook of Easy Languages in Europe. 2021. Toim. Camilla Lindholm ja Ulla Vanhatalo. Sarjassa Easy-Plain-Accessible. Berlin: Frank & Timme.

Kirjasta on saatavilla painettu ja sähköinen versio. Sähköinen versio tulee maksuttomasti käytettäväksi helmikuussa 2022.

 

 

The writer of the blog: Silvia Hansen-Schirra

The role of intuition for Easy Language

Our intuition typically tells us quite well whether a text is good or bad, whether it is comprehensible or not. But what if the target reader has special communication needs? This is for instance the case for people with cognitive impairments or learning difficulties. Of course, Easy Language can be applied to make texts more accessible for them. But do they also have an intuition for the quality of these texts? Are they able and willing to accept and process texts which are not easy enough? One might argue that we can simply ask the target group readers and let them judge upon the quality of a text. But then other questions arise: Are reading processes always consciously observable? Can we deliberately recall them? And how do we know where the actual problems of understanding are in the text? Are terms problematic? Or is it all about complex syntax or semantic ambiguities?

At least in Germany, the first sets of rules for Easy Language were developed from a practical perspective (the rules by Inclusion Europe and the Netzwerk Leichte Sprache). They were also based on intuition. Later, the publication of the Duden Leichte Sprache (Bredel & Maaß 2016) provided us with a scientifically-based linguistic foundation. However, the research gap still exists: We still do not know how efficient these rules are for different target groups. Can we really trust our intuition concerning text comprehensibility? Does Easy Language really help making information easier to read and thus more accessible?

Making things more objective – or look into my eyes, baby!

Our research group „Simply complex! A multimodal and interdisciplinary approach to examine linguistic complexity within Easy Language” at the University of Mainz in Germany focuses on the existing research gap: our major objective is the investigation of the empirical validity of the postulated rules for Easy Language. Therefore, we conduct multimodal studies which also serve to develop a neurobiologically-feasible model of Easy Language. What does this mean exactly? We try to investigate the cognitive processes involved in reading and understanding Easy Language texts. For this purpose, we use methods such as EEG (electroencephalogram), fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) – both techniques, which you may know from the doctor or the hospital – and eyetracking.

Let’s focus on the latter since it becomes more and more popular among the Easy Language research community. With this method, eye movements are recorded and quantified. We distinguish between fixations (areas the eye stops on) and saccades (jumps between fixations). Moreover, regressions can be identified, i.e. when the eye jumps back to previous text. Eyetracking research is based on the eye-mind hypothesis (Just & Carpenter 1980), which assumes that there is a relation between what is being fixated and what is being processed.

What the eyes reveal…

But how can we make use of eyetracking recordings in terms of comprehensibility research? The following figure shows a so-called gaze plot, in which single fixations are visualized. The bigger the fixation, the longer the reading time on the specific word. The German sample text includes anglicisms, which – depending on their usage frequencies – cause longer reading times for readers with communication barriers.

The second figure shows a so-called heat map while reading a hyphen-segmented compound. Red areas indicate longer reading times or more fixations. This example shows that the two nouns making up this compound are processed separately, which might lead to irritations during the semantic integration of the word in the mental lexicon. This in turn might lead to misinterpretations of the compound or misunderstanding.

Our research group uses – among other methods – eyetracking methodology to evaluate Easy Language texts. This method allows us to make reading behavior observable and quantifiable and to draw conclusions on conscious as well as unconscious reading processes. By triangulating this kind of data with comprehensibility ratings and tests, we can identify whether existing rules are efficient and whether there are differences depending on the readers’ communication barriers. Finally, we will be able to suggest optimizations or specifications concerning the rules, which better meet the specific demands of the target groups.

 

About the writer:
Silvia Hansen-Schirra is Professor for English Linguistics and Translation Studies and Director of the Translation & Cognition (Tra&Co) Center at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz in Germersheim. She is the co-editor of the book series ”Translation and Multilingual Natural Language Processing” and “Easy – Plain – Accessible”. Her research interests include machine translation, accessible communication and translation process research.

Literature:
Bredel, U.; Maaß, C. (2016). Leichte Sprache. Theoretische Grundlagen und Orientierung für die Praxis. Berlin: Duden.

Just, M.A.; Carpenter, P. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to Comprehension. In: Psychological Review, 874, 329-354.

 

 

The writer of the blog: Orsolya Kiss

The concept of Easy Language is primarily applied to languages that are spoken as majority languages (https://easy-to-read.eu/). However, a recently established project has made successful steps in adopting it into a minority language, Tatar. The project is carried out by Bokpil (https://bokpil.eu), a multilingual non-profit Easy to Read book publisher, in cooperation with the Finnish Tatar minority.

In Finland, Tatar is used mainly as a family and community language and different Tatar generations have different reading skills and habits. Creating a new Easy Language is a long and challenging process in every language, but results so far suggest that Easy to Read literature helps to enhance reading skills in this minority language.

Since 2019, Dr. Sabira Ståhlberg’s Pedagogical Easy to Read books are being translated from Finland-Swedish into Tatar. The project aims at developing the minority language speakers’ reading skills. Children who have a high command in their minority language and develop reading skills in all their languages usually manage the school language better, too (Tovar-García & Hèctor Alòs i Font 2017; Ståhlberg 2020a: 22–23).

Feedback from the Finnish Tatar community suggests that minority language speakers can develop reading skills in their mother tongue through Easy to Read books. The six recently translated Easy to Read books have been already incorporated among the reading materials of the Tatar Sunday school in Helsinki (Yafay 2021, in print).

Tatar reading skills in Finland

Tatar is a Turkic language spoken as a minority language approximately by seven million people worldwide. The global diaspora is concentrated in the countries of the Baltic Sea region, Australia and USA (Cwiklinski 2016), and in post-Soviet countries, including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan (Sakurama-Nakamura 2021). There are less than 1,000 Tatar speakers in Finland forming one of the traditional linguistic and cultural minorities of the country (Daher 2016: 95). The ancestors of the Finnish Tatars arrived from Mishar Tatar villages south of Nizhny Novgorod over a century ago (see Leitzinger 2006).

Minorities with immigrant backgrounds usually do not preserve their language for more than three generations (Borbély 2016: 63). However, there are still many Tatar families where the fifth and even the sixth generation acquires Tatar in early childhood. Tatar language in Finland has changed through contact with other languages, mainly Finnish, Swedish, and Turkish. Since the 1990s, Kazan Tatar influences strongly the Tatar literary language in Finland. Finnish Tatar can therefore be considered a variety of Tatar, different from the Mishar dialect spoken in the ancestral villages, and also from literary Tatar spoken in Tatarstan (Nisametdin 2011).

Another important difference is the script. In Finland, the earlier Arabic script has been replaced by Latin script with Turkish orthography, while in Russia, Tatar is written with the Cyrillic script. Unofficially, Latin script is also used in Russia, yet it differs from the orthography in Finland, which has received some Finnish influences (for instance the letter ä).

My recent case study (Kiss 2019) about the Finnish Tatar minority’s sociolinguistic situation shows that there are significant generational differences in reading skills and habits. I conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 persons aged between 19 and 81. The participants evaluated their Tatar speaking, listening, writing and reading skills on a scale from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest).

In each generation, Tatar writing skills scored the lowest points. Interestingly, while reading skills scored the highest points among the oldest generation (average 4,6 points), the youngest evaluated their reading skills (average 3,4) as the second-lowest after their writing skills (average 3,1). The younger participants explained this with the fact that they are often unsure about the orthographical rules. Participants from all generations mentioned that there are several words in the orthography that are still controversial among the Tatar community members.

The elderly read more often in Tatar than the younger participants. While those over 60 years read Tatar texts at least once every week, not one below 30 years reported reading Tatar texts more than a few times per month. The text types included: text messages from family and community members, invitation cards to events and the Finnish Tatar magazine Mähallä habärläre, published twice a year, nowadays in Latin script.

Eight informants were also familiar with the Cyrillic Tatar alphabet and they occasionally read literary texts or news on the Tatar language website Azatlıq Radiosı; some found it harder and more time-consuming due to lack of proficiency, dialectal differences with the literary language and Russian-influenced vocabulary. In contrast with the Tatars living in the Russian Federation, Russian is not the second language for Finnish Tatars.

In the Tatar language education in Finland, materials published in the literary language are often used. The participants saw these materials as inadequate, as the teachers had to “translate” or retell the materials in Mishar Tatar to the pupils. In 2018, the Finnish Tatar community tried to solve the problem by publishing Tatar grammar course books with Latin script.

Easy Tatar project

In 2019, a translation project of Easy to Read books into Tatar was launched by Bokpil and the Tatar communities in Helsinki and Tampere. The SelkoTatar (Easy Language Tatar) team consists of writer and scholar Dr. Sabira Ståhlberg and translator Fazile Nasretdin, who has published several translations both in Tatar and Finnish, editors and a dozen test readers (Ståhlberg 2020b; Ståhlberg & Nasretdin 2021, in print).

The goals are to create easily understandable and more modern Tatar reading materials in Latin script and to support minority language development and vocabulary acquisition. Sabira Ståhlberg’s Pedagogical Easy to Read (a concept developed by the international Bokpil team, see https://bokpil.eu/en/pedagogical/) books are reported to be especially useful for this aim, as the books contain several content and three language levels (https://bokpil.eu/en/easy-read/levels/). At this moment there are five books published in Tatar on the easiest level and one book in the easier level.

The Easy to Read books discuss current and important topics such as climate change, pollution, bullying and coping with different kinds of situations. Reading books with modern vocabulary and topics young readers also encounter at school can support their language skills both in their home and school languages, and this supports their learning and multilingualism (Ståhlberg & Nasretdin 2021, in print).

Easy Language is different in every language and the rules must be adapted to each specific structure. As this is the first Easy to Read project in Tatar globally, the team had to develop the Easy Tatar Language. The main guidelines come from general Easy Language rules: shorter, easier words and sentences and more accessible grammatical structures. Yet there is a difference: these books aim mainly at improving reading skills in a language the readers chiefly speak. Certainly, the books are also helpful for readers with reading difficulties or language learners (Ståhlberg & Nasretdin 2021, in print).

When working with Easy Language, it is crucial to know the skills and interests of the target group (Leskelä 2019). The first goal in this project was to develop Easy Language for Finnish Tatar speakers, using the Mishar dialect. After a survey, the SelkoTatar team decided to make the first step toward an international Easy Tatar Language. This language form uses words and expressions, which are understandable both for Tatars in Russia and in the diaspora (Ståhlberg & Nasretdin 2021, in print). Feedback from the Tatar-language school in Helsinki shows that the books are read with fluency and they increase motivation to read more in Tatar among the young readers (Yafay 2021, in print).

Conclusion and other perspectives

Several recent publications about this project (Ståhlberg 2020b; Ståhlberg & Nasretdin 2021, in print; Yafay 2021, in print) suggest that translating Pedagogical Easy to Read books into a minority language and using them as reading materials can increase the speakers’ language skills, vocabulary and motivation to read and write in the minority language.

In addition, I propose that such translation projects might be especially beneficial for minority language communities who lack stable orthographical rules. Translating and testing the books enable a broader discussion about orthography and offer an opportunity for stabilization of the rules. Communities who lack time or resources to create Tatar language materials in Latin script, for instance the Estonian Tatar minority (see: Iqbal 2021, in print), could also profit from these books in minority language education.

It is also important to create easily accessible language materials for both  minority language speakers and learners. The Tatar-language books published are available free of charge on the Villa Bokpil website (https://villa.bokpil.eu/tt/) . In my case study (Kiss 2019), two participants had passive proficiency in Tatar, but both of them reported reading in Tatar. One of them even read Tatar texts every week because she wanted to learn the language, but she struggled to find Tatar language materials representing the language variety of her Tatar relatives. Therefore, I argue that Easy to Read translations support language revitalization for members wishing to learn their relatives’ language by offering more up-to-date materials.

The first steps have been encouraging. However, to create guidelines for Easy Language is a great task and a long process for every language (Leskelä & Kulkki-Nimenien 2015: 25–56). In the case of Tatar, due to the widespread diaspora and many language variations, the geographical, linguistic and sociolinguistic challenges are enormous, not only for the translators, editors and test readers, but also for researchers. Several important questions and topics should be investigated:

• • What grammatical structures and which words are perceived as easy by Tatar speakers in the translations, and why? Are they also easy for Tatar speakers outside Finland?
  • What grammatical structures and words belong to the three different language levels? Why are these perceived to be easy?
  • How does reading Easy to Read books in a minority language influence vocabulary acquisition?
  • How do Easy to Read books in Tatar help multilingual Tatars with dyslexia or reading difficulties?
  • How could other text types, such as news, be created in Easy Tatar? How would it differ from the Pedagogical Easy to Read books?

About the writer: Orsolya Kiss is a Master student at the University of Tartu, Estonia. She writes her master thesis about the address forms used in Estonian and Finnish Tatar and is interested in the Tatar Easy Language project.

References

 Online resources

Easy to Read: https://easy-to-read.eu/

Bokpil (multilingual): https://bokpil.eu

https://bokpil.eu/en/first-easy-to-read-books-in-tatar/

https://bokpil.eu/en/three-new-tatar-books/

Tatar-language Easy to Read books: https://villa.bokpil.eu/tt/

Literature

Borbély A. (2016). Fenntartható kétnyelvűség. Magyar Nyelv 112.

Cwiklinski, S. (2016). Introduction. In I. Svanberg & D. Westerlund (Eds.), Muslim Tatar Minorities in the Baltic Sea Region. (pp. 1–18). Leiden/Boston: Brill.

Daher, O. (2016). Tatar minority – Fully integrated into society. In O. Daher, L. Hannikainen, K. Heikinheimo-Pérez. National Minorities in Finland. Richness of Cultures and Languages. (pp. 95–104). Riga: Minority Rights Group Finland.

Iqbal, M. (2021) (in print). Families of Estonian Tatars navigating between four languages. Journal of Endangered Languages, 11(19).

Kiss, O. (2019). A finnországi tatár kisebbség mint kétnyelvű közösség (The Tatar minority of Finland as a bilingual community) [Bachelor thesis, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary]

Leitzinger, A. (2006). Suomen tataarit: vuosina 1868-1944 muodostuneen muslimiyhteisön menestystarina. East-West Books Helsinki.

Leskelä, L., & Kulkki-Nieminen, A. (2015). Selkokirjoittajan tekstilajit. Kehitysvammaliitto.

Leskelä, L. (2019). Helppoa vai vaativampaa selkokieltä – selkokielen mittaaminen ja vaikeustasot. Puhe Ja Kieli, 4, 367–393. https://doi.org/10.23997/pk.75679

Nisametdin, F. (2011). Havaintoja Suomen tataarien kielestä. In: K. Bedretdin (Eds.), Tugan tel-kirjoituksia Suomen tataareista. (pp. 303-315). Helsinki: Suomen itämainen seura.

Sakurama-Nakamura, M. A (2021). ディアスポラの⾔語選択−ウズベキスタン、カザフスタン、タジキスタンを事例として − 博⼠論⽂の要約／Language preservation in diaspora – the example of the modern Tatar diasporas in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan – Summary of Doctoral Dissertation [Doctoral dissertation, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba Japan] Retrived from: https://researchmap.jp/mizuki_sakurama/published_papers/31549789/attachment_file.pdf

Ståhlberg, S. & Nasretdin, F. 2021 (in print). Tatar Easy to Read: language learning, reading development and support for endangered languages. Journal of Endangered Languages, 11(19).

Ståhlberg, S. (2020a). Multicoloured language. Helsinki: Bokpil. https://villa.bokpil.eu/en/multicoloured-language/

Ståhlberg, S. (2020b). Easy to Read books — a method for developing literacy in endangered languages. http://www.el-blog.org/easy-to-read-books-a-method-for-developing-literacy-in-endangered-languages/

Tovar-García, E. D., & Alòs i Font, H. (2017). Bilingualism and educational achievements: the impact of the language used at home by Tatar school students in Tatarstan, Russia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(6), 545–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2016.1213847

Yafay, K. (2021) (in print). Tatar diline kazandırılmış “Ciñel tel” projesi. Journal of Endangered Languages, 11(19).

The rapid progress of Easy Language research in recent years has mainly focused on written Easy Language. However, the need for Easy Language applies not only to texts; it also concerns the language in spoken interaction. How can the concept of Easy Language be applied for this purpose?

In 2012, the first set of Finnish recommendations for Easy Language Interaction (the ELI guidelines) was published in the Haavoittuva keskustelu (‘Vulnerable Conversation’, eds. Leskelä & Lindholm) book, a research volume that compiled conversation analytical research on linguistically asymmetrical conversations. This set consisted of 45 recommendations for the more competent speaker, designed to promote co-operation between speakers of different linguistic levels. Almost a decade later, I have returned to the topic in my PhD thesis, which I plan to complete next year.

Our original ELI guidelines were divided into five sections: 1) Orientation and context of the speech, 2) Taking the co-participant into consideration, 3) Reciprocity and turn-taking, 4) Verbal means of speech, and 5) Checking and repairing. Each section contained several recommendations aiming to provide support for the challenges of linguistically asymmetric interaction. As these recommendations are rather new, they could be considered mainly as hypotheses waiting to be either verified or disqualified by research.

In my research I have focused on the ways in which Easy Finnish could be used in conversations. Using Conversation Analysis methods, I have analyzed data that has included different kinds of authentic conversations between adult persons with intellectual disabilities and the professionals who work with them. I have observed interesting interactional phenomena in the data, such as repairing comprehension problems and negotiating epistemics in conversations. Do the Finnish ELI guidelines provide support for the interactional challenges in these situations or should they be refined in some way?

Spoken language differs from written language

A few obstacles arise when we consider spoken Easy Language. Certainly, like written language, speech can be simplified. But language used in interaction and in authentic conversations functions differently to written language on paper. Speakers are usually unable to make conscious, thoughtful linguistic choices to favor simple vocabulary or structures, unlike writers of Easy Language texts, because speakers have to produce language spontaneously, in fractions of seconds. Speech does not provide much time for linguistic reflection.

Moreover, if speakers concentrated solely on their output, their sensitivity towards their interlocutor would suffer. And sensitivity seems to be a key factor in linguistically asymmetrical conversations. Sentences formulated perfectly in accordance with the Easy Language guidelines may be useless, however easy they may be, if there is a lack of trust between the speakers. To build trust in conversation requires much more than merely the linguistically simplest output.

Easy Language interaction is based on trust

Spoken Easy Language requires somewhat different recommendations to those for written Easy Language. The Finnish ELI guidelines perceive the aspect of trust as the starting point. There is no single magical method  to gain trust, but there are several small means to show sensitivity towards the co-participant as well as willingness to bridge the linguistic gap between the speakers.

The ELI guidelines advise the more competent speaker to help the less competent speaker to become aware of the situation at hand: for instance, an everyday coffee table discussion or a formal conversation that has a certain institutional task. More competent speakers often overestimate the contextual knowledge of a co-participant with language barriers, and thus forget to offer enough contextual hints or advice. As a result of this, the participants may seem to participate in two different conversations without realizing it themselves.

The ELI guidelines also urge the more competent speaker to express their willingness to give the floor to the co-participant, let them lead the conversation at least occasionally and to be responsible for its progress. Constant conversational breakdowns or comprehension problems are often exhausting for the speakers. To avoid confusing situations, the more competent speakers often seek to guide the conversation with a strong hand and fill every moment with their own speech. The co-participant who needs Easy Language is easily left a passive listener whose initiatives are bypassed.

Sharing responsibilities, upholding reciprocity and cherishing sensitivity towards a co-participant who has limited linguistic and interactional capacities are by no means easy tasks in a linguistically asymmetrical conversation. But if they are successful, trust is built.

Persons with intellectual disabilities as equal contributors

An interesting  aspect of  my research concerns the epistemic rights and responsibilities in these conversations. Usually, speakers know the things that personally concern them, such as their own history or experiences, and are treated as epistemic authorities when referring to them. But persons with intellectual disabilities are not always treated as real “owners” of their personal matters. Their contributions are often met with hesitation and doubt, or even ignored. They are not seen as accountable for knowing the things that concern them, because they may confabulate (say things that are not true without consciously meaning to lie) or have a tendency to acquiescence (“yea-saying”).

How can people who may confabulate be held accountable for what they say? How can we believe their answers, if they seem to just want to follow someone else’s opinion? These are real, concrete problems for the more competent speakers whom the ELI guidelines are meant to help. At best, these guidelines can broaden the linguistic awareness of the more competent speakers in conversations involving persons with limited linguistic capacities. They may offer new ideas to bridge the language gap between unequal speakers. But even then, when providing support for the more competent speaker, they don’t automatically make the interaction equal. This has to be done by the people involved in each specific situation, and it must be done on their terms.

The writer: Leealaura Leskelä is a PhD student at the University of Helsinki, prepairing her thesis on using Easy Finnish in spoken interaction. She has a long experience as Easy Language practitioner in the Finnish Center for Easy Language.

Sources:

Leskelä, Leealaura (forthcoming): Showing knowing. Negotiating about epistemics in interaction between persons with intellectual disabilities and professionals. Journal of Interactional Research of Communication Disorders.

Leskelä, Leealaura & Lindholm, Camilla (2012) (eds.): Haavoittuva keskustelu. Keskustelunanalyyttisia tutkimuksia kielellisesti epäsymmetrisestä vuorovaikutuksesta [Vulnerable conversation. Conversation analytical research on linguistically asymmetrical interaction]. Helsinki, Kehitysvammaliitto.

Leskelä, Leealaura & Lindholm, Camilla (in review): Selkopuhe kehitysvammaisen henkilön kielellisen osallistumisen tukena [Supporting linguistic participation of persons with intellectual disability with Easy Language]. Proposed to M. Lindeman, M. Luodonpää-Manni, J. Paananen & C. Lindholm (eds.) Kieli, hyvinvointi ja sosiaalinen osallisuus [Language, well being and social participation]. Tampere, Vastapaino.

Lindholm, Camilla & Stevanovic, Melisa (forthcoming): Challenges of trust in atypical interaction. Forthcoming in Pragmatics & Society.

Matikka, Leena & Vesala, Hannu (1997): Acquiescence in quality-of-life interviews with adults who have mental retardation. Mental retardation 35:2, 75–82.

Schnider, Armin (2008): The Confabulating Mind: How the Brain Creates Reality? Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Sidnell, Jack & Stivers, Tanya (2013) (eds.): The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex.

Blogin kirjoittaja: Anneli Hanhisalo

Selkokieli on nykyään suosittu opinnäytteiden aihe useilla tutkimusaloilla. Yksi otollinen tapa tukea opiskelijoita ja koota yhteen aiheesta tehtävää tutkimusta kautta tieteenalojen ja korkeakoulujen ovat selkokielen opinnäytepajat. Pajoissa selkokielestä kiinnostuneet opiskelijat saavat opinnäytteistään täsmäpalautetta selkokieleen erikoistuneilta asiantuntijoilta. 

Klaara-verkosto järjesti syksyllä 2020 ensimmäisen selkokielen opinnäytepajan. Pajassa suomalaisten korkeakoulujen opiskelijat saivat tilaisuuden esitellä selkokieleen liittyvien tutkielmiensa aiheita sekä saada niistä palautetta selkokielen asiantuntijoilta. Ensimmäisestä pajasta saatujen hyvien kokemusten innoittamana tapahtuma päätettiin järjestää toisen kerran jo keväällä 2021. Tässä artikkelissa kerron kokemuksiani selkokielen opinnäytepajoihin osallistumisesta opiskelijan roolissa sekä siitä, millä tavoin niistä on ollut minulle hyötyä oman opinnäyteprosessini aikana. Pohdin myös sitä, miten pajat voivat edistää selkokielen tutkimusta laajemminkin luomalla arvokasta vuorovaikutusta selkokielen asiantuntijoiden ja aiheesta kiinnostuneiden opiskelijoiden välille.

Kun aloin suunnitella kirjoittavani selkokieltä käsittelevää sivuainetutkielmaa viime syksynä, olivat ennakkotietoni selkokielestä vähintäänkin suppeat. Tunsin kyllä sen taustalla olevan perusajatuksen kielellisen saavutettavuuden edistämisestä, mutta aikomuksenani oli hyödyntää tutkielmassani ennen kaikkea aiempia tietojani käännöstieteen ja terminologian aloilta. En siis juuri tullut edes ajatelleeksi, että työni voisi herättää kiinnostusta siksi, että se liittyy nimenomaan selkokielen tutkimukseen: tehdäänhän aiheesta muutenkin verrattain paljon tutkimusta, joten mitä merkitystä yhdellä opinnäytetyöllä muka voisi olla? Mutta kun ohjaajani sitten ehdotti osallistumista Klaara-verkoston opinnäytepajaan, halusin lähinnä mielenkiinnosta nähdä, mistä tapahtumassa oikein oli kyse.

Ensimmäinen opinnäytepaja järjestettiin 22.10.2020. Siihen ilmoittautui 17 henkilöä, ja sen aikana kuultiin esityksiä kaikkiaan seitsemästä eri opinnäytetyöstä. Paja eteni siten, että kukin opiskelija piti aiheestaan ensin noin viiden minuutin mittaisen alustuksen, minkä jälkeen muut pajalaiset saivat kommentoida alustusta ja esittää tutkielman aiheesta tarkentavia kysymyksiä. Keskustelu oli vireää, ja esimerkiksi itse sain kannustuksen lisäksi konkreettisia lukuvinkkejä ja ehdotuksia aiheeni rajaukseen ja aineistoon liittyen. Erityisen tärkeänä pidin myös asiantuntijoiden antamaa sisäpiiritietoa muun muassa eri organisaatioiden selkokielisten materiaalien tuottamisesta, sillä vastaavanlaista tietoa ei kovin helposti löytäisi pelkästään googlaamalla.

Ennen pajaa tuntemani jännitys ja epävarmuus aiheeni toimivuudesta osoittautuivat jo alkumetreillä turhiksi. Pajan ilmapiiri oli todella rohkaiseva: asiantuntijat suhtautuivat kaikkiin esiteltyihin aiheisiin suurella mielenkiinnolla sekä neuvoivat ja kannustivat kaikkia töidensä kanssa eteenpäin. Aloin itsekin uskoa aiheeni ajankohtaisuuteen ja tärkeyteen vasta pajaan osallistuttuani ja saatuani siitä palautetta selkokielen tutkijoilta, jotka pitivät valitsemaani näkökulmaa kiinnostavana ja hyödyllisenä. Omalta osaltani kenties parasta pajassa olikin se, että siihen pystyi osallistumaan hyvin matalalla kynnyksellä. Käytännössä lähes kaikki aiheitaan esittelevät olivatkin töidensä kanssa vasta ideointitasolla. Myös opinnäytteiden eri tasot tekivät tapahtumasta kiinnostavan, sillä mukana oli esitelmiä niin tulevista maisterintutkielmista kuin väitöskirjastakin.

Toinen opinnäytepaja pidettiin 25.3.2021, ja siihen ilmoittautuessani tiesin jo paremmin, mitä olisi luvassa. Sana pajoista oli selvästi kiirinyt, sillä tällä kertaa ilmoittautuneita oli jo 30, joista 13 oli opiskelijoita. Suurin ero ensimmäisen ja toisen pajan välillä olikin se, että paja oli suuremman osallistujamäärän vuoksi jaettu kahteen sektioon, joiden välillä pajalaiset pystyivät vapaasti liikkumaan. Sektiojako mahdollisti sen, että pajassa voitiin päivän aikana käsitellä kymmenen eri opinnäytetyötä. Tällä kertaa mukana oli myös esityksiä kandidaatintutkielmista, mikä laajensi opinnäytteiden kirjoa ennestään. Lisäksi moni pajalaisista lähetti etukäteen osia töistään muiden osallistujien luettaviksi. Mahdollisuus jo valmistuneen tekstin lähettämiseen osoittautui todella hyödylliseksi, sillä sain sitä kautta työstäni palautetta myös kirjallisesti.

Opiskelijan näkökulmasta opinnäytepajojen parasta antia oli niiden tarjoama asiantuntijoiden tuki ja näkökulma omaan tutkielmaan, muiden osallistujien tutkielmiin tutustuminen sekä motivaation ylläpitäminen läpi opinnäyteprosessin. Pajasta sai palautetta niin tutkimusideasta kuin kommentteja jo valmiiseenkin tekstiin, mikä ylläpiti kirjoitusmotivaatiota ja rytmitti tutkielman kirjoittamista. Motivaatiota myös lisäsi suuresti se, että pajoista sai käytännön kannalta tärkeitä vinkkejä esimerkiksi tutkimuskirjallisuuteen liittyen. Selkokielen asiantuntijoilla oli usein myös tietoa aiheisiimme liittyvästä aikaisemmasta tutkimuksesta sekä näkemys siitä, mitä uutta aiheemme voisivat selkokielen tutkimukselle tarjota.

Sen lisäksi, että opinnäytepajat kannustavat opiskelijoita tutkielmiensa kanssa eteenpäin, voivat ne edistää selkokielen tutkimusta laajemminkin. Selkokielen tutkimuskenttä vaikuttaa tällä hetkellä poikkeuksellisen vireältä ja elinvoimaiselta, eikä syyttä: selkokielestä tehdään vuosittain yhä enemmän kandidaatin- ja maisterintutkielmia, minkä lisäksi siitä on tekeillä useita väitöskirjoja. Selkokielestä ainutlaatuisen tutkimuskohteen tekee myös se, että se nivoo yhteen hyvin monenlaisia tutkimusaloja ja siten opiskelijoita useista korkeakouluista ja eri tieteenaloilta. Sen voivat  tuntea omakseen niin suomen kielen, kasvatustieteiden, pohjoismaisten kielten, kirjallisuuden, käännöstieteen kuin viestinnänkin opiskelijat. Opinnäytepajat ovatkin oiva keino koota yhteen aiheen tutkimusta kautta tieteenalojen ja korkeakoulujen.

Oman kokemukseni pohjalta uskon, että opinnäytepajat ylläpitävät olennaisesti selkokielen tutkimuksen vireyttä luomalla opiskelijoiden ja tutkijoiden välille ainutlaatuisen vuorovaikutusmahdollisuuden. Kaikki opiskelijat osannevat samaistua siihen tunteeseen, ettei oman opinnäytteen parissa puurtaminen tai jo valittu aihe tunnu merkitykselliseltä. Juuri silloin – tai vaikkapa aihetta vasta pohtiessa – voi opinnäytepaja antaa opiskelijalle uutta puhtia ja uskoa siihen, että oma aihe ja tutkielma on kuin onkin kiinnostava ja tärkeä. Asiantuntijoille paja puolestaan tarjoaa katsauksen siihen, minkälaisista aiheista opinnäytteitä ollaan tekemässä sekä parhaimmillaan myös mahdollisuuden vaikuttaa tutkielmien sisältöön ja aiheiden rajauksiin. Ensimmäiset pajat järjestettiin etäyhteydellä, minkä ansiosta mukaan pääsi helposti opiskelijoita eri puolilta Suomea. Erityisesti opiskelijan näkökulmasta onkin toivottavaa, että pajat pysyvät vastaisuudessakin osallistujajoukoltaan yhtä moninaisina ja kynnys osallistua niihin yhtä matalana.

Kirjoittaja: Anneli Hanhisalo on kääntämisen ja tulkkauksen maisteriohjelman opiskelija Helsingin yliopistossa. Hänen suomen kielen valinnaisten syventävien opintojen tutkielmansa käsittelee etuustermien esittämistä Kelan selkokielisillä verkkosivuilla.