From the writeup below it looks like Paulescu believes that complex
orthographies (unphonetic spelling) causes dyslexia. Or should we use
another word than "cause"? It appears that dyslexics use memory rather than
phonemic awareness. Perhaps they were taught that way early and rewired
their brains accordingly.
The second article points out the need to teach phonemic awareness. But how
can we do that without an English friendly, keyboard friendly phonemic
spelling system. Our dictionary keys are no help. That's where I hope
truespel can come in.
tom z
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1225119.stm
Research published in Science magazine suggests that parts of the brain
crucial to reading are not working properly in dyslexics.
The problem exists across many nationalities, but the research found that
English-speaking dyslexics suffered most, because the language is so
complex.
The main scientist behind the study, Eraldo Paulescu, suggested languages
like English and French could be changed to make them easier for people to
read.
He said: "There is an argument for reforming complex orthographies, or
writing systems, to improve literacy problems in these languages."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,465794,00.html
The New Science of Dyslexia
Why some children struggle so much with reading used
to be a mystery. Now researchers know what's wrong—and
what to do about it
By CHRISTINE GORMAN
The mystery—and perhaps some of the stigma—may finally
be starting to lift. The more researchers learn about
dyslexia, the more they realize it's a flaw not of
character but of biology—specifically, the biology of
the brain. No, people with dyslexia are not brain
damaged. Brain scans show their cerebrums are
perfectly normal, if not extraordinary. Dyslexics, in
fact, seem to have a distinct advantage when it comes
to thinking outside the box.
But a growing body of scientific evidence suggests
there is a glitch in the neurological wiring of
dyslexics that makes reading extremely difficult for
them. Fortunately, the science also points to new
strategies for overcoming the glitch. The most
successful programs focus on strengthening the brain's
aptitude for linking letters to the sounds they
represent.
When you think about it, that anyone can read at all
is something of a miracle. Reading requires your brain
to rejigger its visual and speech processors in such a
way that artificial markings, such as the letters on a
piece of paper, become linked to the sounds they
represent. It's not enough simply to hear and
understand different words. Your brain has to pull
them apart into their constituent sounds, or phonemes.
When you see the written word cat, your brain must
hear the sounds /k/ ... /a/... /t/ and associate the
result with an animal that purrs.
Neuroscientists have used fMRI to identify three areas
of the left side of the brain that play key roles in
reading. Scientifically, these are known as the left
inferior frontal gyrus, the left parieto-temporal area
and the left occipito-temporal area. But for our
purposes, it's more helpful to think of them as the
"phoneme producer," the "word analyzer" and the
"automatic detector." We'll describe these regions in
the order in which they are activated, but you'll get
closer to the truth if you think of them as working
simultaneously, like the sections of an orchestra
playing a symphony.
Using fMRI, scientists have determined that beginning
readers rely most heavily on the phoneme producer and
the word analyzer. The first of these helps a person
say things—silently or out loud—and does some analysis
of the phonemes found in words. The second analyzes
words more thoroughly, pulling them apart into their
constituent syllables and phonemes and linking the
letters to their sounds.
As readers become skilled, something interesting
happens: the third section—the automatic
detector—becomes more active. Its function is to build
a permanent repertoire that enables readers to
recognize familiar words on sight. As readers
progress, the balance of the symphony shifts and the
automatic detector begins to dominate. If all goes
well, reading eventually becomes effortless.
In addition to the proper neurological wiring, reading
requires good instruction. In a study published in the
current issue of Biological Psychiatry, Shaywitz and
colleagues identified a group of poor readers who were
not classically dyslexic, as their phoneme producers,
word analyzers and automatic detectors were all
active. But the three regions were linked more
strongly to the brain's memory processors than to its
language centers, as if the children had spent more
time memorizing words than understanding them. The
situation is different for children with dyslexia.
Brain scans suggest that a glitch in their brain
prevents them from easily gaining access to the word
analyzer and the automatic detector. In the past year,
several fMRI studies have shown that dyslexics tend to
compensate for the problem by overactivating the
phoneme producer.
Fortunately, the human brain is particularly receptive
to instruction. Otherwise practice would never make
perfect. Different people respond to different
approaches, depending on their personality and the
nature of their disability. "The data we have don't
show any one program that is head and shoulders above
the rest," says Shaywitz. But the most successful
programs emphasize the same core elements: practice
manipulating phonemes, building vocabulary, increasing
comprehension and improving the fluency of reading.
This kind of instruction leaves nothing to chance. "In
most schools the emphasis is on children's learning to
read sentences," says Gina Callaway, director of the
Schenck School in Atlanta, which specializes in
teaching dyslexic students using the Orton-Gillingham
approach. "Here we have to teach them to recognize
sounds, then syllables, then words and sentences.
>From: Keith Johnson <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Keith Johnson <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: spelling [was: Re: Difficult to perceive phonetic contrasts]
>Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:26:02 -0700
>
>I really don't think that any claim is being made that dyslexia is CAUSED
>by
>opaque orthographies. If I remember right, I think what you're
>referring to is
>a study claiming to identify the biological causes of dyslexia, and that
>speakers (or better, readers and writers) of languages with opaque
>orthographies may well have more problems reading and writing than those
>who
>speak languages with more transparent orthographies. It could well be
>the case
>that the task of reading and writing in languages like English exposes to a
>greater extent the trouble dyslexia can cause. English might create
>more havoc
>in the dyslexic writer but I doubt it creates the dyslexia.
>Keith "Arizona" Johnson :)
>Quoting Tom Zurinskas :
>
>>From: Ole Stig Andersen
>>>Reply-To: Ole Stig Andersen To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Re: spelling [was: Re: Difficult to perceive phonetic contrasts]
>>>Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 00:08:21 +0200
>>>
>>>John Wells wrote
>>>
>>> > And what about "lead (Pb), lead (v. present), led (v. past)", but
>>> > "red, read (present), read (past)"? Why do we all have to burden our
>>> > memories with such inconsistencies? Lectal variation has nothing
>>>to do with >
>>> > it.
>>>
>>>Which prompts me to ask:
>>>
>>>I see the common sense in the notion that spelling "inconsistencies"
>>>burden
>>>the memory, but is it correct? Is there any kind of hard evidence to that
>>>effect?
>>>
>>>
>>>Ole Stig Andersen
>>>Copenhagen
>>
>>Paulescu 2000? states that languages lilke Italian that have consistently
>>spelled orthographies have half the number of dyslexics as USA or UK. He
>>thinks the cause for half the dyslexics in USA and UK is the inconsistent
>>phonetic spelling of English.
>>
>>tom z
>
|
