Dear Margaret and everybody-
Your question about limitations of reading "misspelled" text is very
interesting and fruitful in my view. I could not pass this opportunity
initiated by Don and I sent his original message to all literacy faculty in
my University of Delaware. Richard Venezky, one of leading expert in how
people learn to read, immediately replied expressing doubts of how general
this ability to read non-conventional spelling can be. He wrote, "I've never
heard of such studies but suspect that there are limits on the validity of
the conclusion, especially if reading time is a criterion measure. See how
long it takes you to read the following: Can you prievece the heshigt
wremtraak on the cumoln?"
I was puzzled by his example. I read "Can you perceive the highest watermark
on the column?" But the sentence did not make sense to me at all so I wrote
him back,
> Maybe my dyslectic mind does not work right but I can easily read your
> message although I do not understand what it means. "Can you perceive the
> highest watermark on the column?"?! Am I right?
Richard replied that I was right. It is difficult to read sentences that do
not make sense in any spelling.
What can I say? I think if Don's posting is "an urban legend", somebody has
to investigate it by looking at the boundaries it validity. I think we are
dealing here with contextual pattern recognition involving negotiation of
local and global (holistic) properties both pragmatic and dialogic. It can
be also that fluent reading involves not "narrowing down" - recognition only
conventional patterns of spelling - but rather "broadening up" - being able
to construct meaning from diverse non-conventional patterns of spelling.
This latter hypothesis may be an alternative to Bruner's focus on schemata.
It is based on my immigration experience of talking with a Polish immigrant
who could not (or did not want?) to speak Russian with me. I spoke Russian
and he spoke Polish. Although Polish and Russian belong to the same Slavic
group of languages they are different language - believe me. I could not
understand a word of what he was talking but I had vague holistic intuition
- an uncomfortably vague feeling constantly emerging in me - of what he was
saying and our numerous conversations (sometimes even heated debates on
politics) apparently made pragmatic and dialogic sense to both of us (but
maybe in different ways?) so I assume that we understood each other rather
well in this "language game" (Wittgenstein) :-).
Bruner's schematic regularities may or may not play role in this process but
I'm more excited about expanding networks of meaning that Jay was talking in
his book Science Talk and Wittgenstein's "language games" than schemata or
rules or recognition general patterns (like in phonics focus on word
chunks),,, Good research is needed..
What do you think?
Eugene
-----Original Message-----
From: Margaret Riel [mailto:margaret.riel@sri.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 2:28 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: Lteter Oerdr?
Hi all,
I have seen a number of these passages float past on the web in the last
week. I wondered if there was anything special about the texts. So I took
Gordon's words and transposed them with a aim of making it hard to read. I
noticed that all words with 3 letters or less were unchanged and these words
provide strong context. It was still fairly easy to read--but not as easy
as the texts that were sent.
It seems to be an example for how language experts can use context to solve
simple word puzzles rapidly. If the puzzle is harder, it takes more work. I
was curious what happens if I just deleted every third word... would we
still be able to read a message based on context? The puzzle is a bit
harder but I think that the meaning is still clear. However I know what it
said...
Margaret
I'm vrey itesentred in tihs. Wehethr or not tehre has been smatysteic
rrcaeseh, it ctanlreiy twohrs itinresnteg lghit on the posserces ilovenvd in
"naorml" radineg. I had no dicifltufy in rediang the pagsase below.
On the ______ hand, when __ am reading ___ own or ____ people's papers
__normal speed, _____ when typed, ___ equally have ____ difficulty in ____
typos or _____ errors. i ____how these ______ are related.
Gordon
Don,
I'm very interested in this. Whether or not there has been systematic
research, it certainly throws interesting light on the processes involved in
"normal" reading. I had no difficulty at all in reading the passage below.
On the other hand, when i am reading my own or other people's papers at
normal speed, particularly when typed, I equally have little difficulty in
spotting typos or spelling errors. i wonder how these phenomena are
related.
Gordon
Has anyone ever come across the actual research on this?
"Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer
in what oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is
that the first and last ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be
a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. This is
bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the
wrod as a wlohe."
--Margaret Riel <margaret.riel@sri.com>
Sr. Researcher, Center for Technology in Learning SRI, &
Pepperdine University "http://gsep.pepperdine.edu/~mriel/office"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 01 2003 - 01:00:08 PDT