 |
 |
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 >