What is it most adults do when they come to a new word?

Moderators: Debbie Hepplewhite, maizie, Lesley Drake, Susan Godsland

Lesley

Post by Lesley » Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:49 pm

Your point being, Steve?

Judy
Posts: 1184
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:57 pm

Post by Judy » Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:15 pm

[
quote]if I do not recognise it, I go through the letters sounding the names of the letters, but not the sounds that they make.
Steve, please could you explain how that helps you pronounce the word

User avatar
Debbie Hepplewhite
Administrator
Posts: 3654
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:13 pm
Location: Berkshire
Contact:

Post by Debbie Hepplewhite » Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:49 pm

It depends how unusual the word composition is to me.

I recognise digraphs such as /th/ and /ph/ automatically.

I read from left to right.

I seem to sound it out in syllable chunks.

I don't use letter names at all.

Judy
Posts: 1184
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:57 pm

Post by Judy » Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:50 pm

My 8 yr old grandson told me that one of the ways he works out how a word is spelt is to break it up into bits he knows and gave me the example of 'dic - tion - ary'. Am I right in thinking this is similar to what you are saying?

Guest

Post by Guest » Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:03 pm

I did Latin at school so I just decode the words grapheme by grapheme, except for those whose names are very familiar to me like antirrhinum and angelica (known before I learnt Latin) and then the process is too fast to tell. In tandem I am aware of the English pronunciation of plants like acer (which I persist in thinking of as 'acker') and recall hearing some of these on Gardeners' Question Time.

I suspect (no, I know really) that this is not a typical reading response. However, I do appear to have some kind of system for recognising grapheme strings and relating them to different languages. For example there is one word in the Ruth Miskin nonsense word list which I read as a German word. Interestingly, without any comment from me, my daughter (with GCSE German) and my husband (a term of German at school in the sixth form) did the same. My younger daughter, who had only done a little German at the time, read it as an English word. I won't say what the word is so as not to spoil the fun.

ps Despite the ll, gllomy didn't make me think 'Welsh'. I think it's because it is preceded by the 'g'. (Now, someone will find me a Welsh word which starts 'gll'!)

Elsy

Kiki
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:05 am

Post by Kiki » Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:11 pm

How you approach the task of reading a new word will largely depend on how you were taught to read, how long the word is and how bothered you really are to read it.

It is also important to realise that just because you or others think you can read well does not mean that you are reading to your full potential. I have always been considered a good reader. Yet when I first came across the Clackmannanshire project (many moons ago) I would read 'Clack' 'something' 'shire'. I'd even say " Clack something shire" The meaning wasn't a problem, it was some place in Scotland, I just didn't bother reading/decoding the middle of the word- it looked rather daunting. However I soon thought how ridiculous that was and decided to apply the decoding techniques I was learning about and, low and behold, Clackmannanshire revealed itself as a very easily read word.

Using the 'reading' technique you describe I can't image you do vey well with longer new words especially if you don't consider the sounds that the letters represent. Of course adults don't usually have to read out loud to others so most probably will never know. I imagine most people wouldn't bother as long as they were happy with the meaning.

However, Judy is quite right to question your point here Steve, as misinformed and inferences drawn from adult strategies have often been innapropriately and damagingly applied to teaching children

Guest

Post by Guest » Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:11 pm

Judy wrote:My 8 yr old grandson told me that one of the ways he works out how a word is spelt is to break it up into bits he knows and gave me the example of 'dic - tion - ary'. Am I right in thinking this is similar to what you are saying?
Yes, the process that your grandson uses to process a word such as 'dictionary' is very much the same or probably even identical.

I read the words left to right in sets of 2 words, but do not read each letter left to write.

The groups of letters I recognise are very focused, the ones I don't are more blurred -- maybe only slightly -- until I focus in on them and break them down more.

A typical visual representation of understanding -- clarity -- and not understanding -- fuzzy/out of focus/blurred.

This process becomes easier when there is a greater variety of 3 and 4 letter combinations absorbed on a regular basis.

When it comes to latin names, the 2, 3 an 4 letter groups that one might use as patterns to recognise everyday or more common words may not be such a huge help because of the possible unregularity of the spellings.

This is an assumption though.

Its easier to recognise what you are familiar with/remember.

Guest

Post by Guest » Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:44 pm

Hi Kiki

Your right, I don't think that I really had a point. I was trying to express my interest in how adults learn new words. Something someone brought up in another post. I wasn't suggesting that adult strategies should be taught to children.

I would be interested to know though when a child's strategy changes to an adult one, and how they differ?

"I just didn't bother reading/decoding the middle of the word- it looked rather daunting".

I would suggest that there is a difference between reading and decoding.
Reading - words that one is familiar with.?
Decoding - words that one is unfamiliar with.?

I would be very interested to have you expand upon your graphical/visual representation of the 'mannan' part of the word that you classify as "daunting". After all, it is mereley an joining of the words 'man' and an'. Words much easier than 'clack' and 'shire'.

I find this very interesting.

Perhaps repitition of letter clusters creates confusion of recognition.

"Using the 'reading' technique you describe I can't image you do vey well with longer new words"

Actually reading has never been a problem for me, as recorded in my final junior year reading test. There were no more words on any of the reading tests that I could not read, followed by a classification of a reading age of 16 years old at the age of 10.

The bits I recognise I read -- 'clack' & 'shire' -- the bits that I don't recognise I decode. My strategy for parts of words is perhaps less painful than Kiki's, I merely see them as blurred or slightly out of focus, much less painful than 'daunting'.

Guest

Post by Guest » Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:34 pm

When it comes to latin names, the 2, 3 an 4 letter groups that one might use as patterns to recognise everyday or more common words may not be such a huge help because of the possible unregularity of the spellings.
They're not irregular in Latin though, it being very regular.
:) :) :)

I take your point though, in their not being peculiar to English.

Elsy

User avatar
maizie
Administrator
Posts: 3121
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:38 pm
Location: N.E England

Post by maizie » Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:29 pm

My view point is that people who read well see words as shapes or patterns.
Sorry, Steven, I have been 'observing ' myself reading for quite a while now (having had the 'sight word' argument with other people before) and I can assure you that I can very clearly see every letter in a word, not a 'shape' or a 'pattern'.

I think that you should read this (long) article, written by someone not connected in any way with the reading debate:

http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ctf ... ition.aspx

Our SENCo came back from a 'training' a year or two ago with a 'new' method of teaching spelling. She thought we should all give it a try. When I heard her 'teaching' a group of 'poor' Y7s with it I fell about laughing, and posted it on here for everyone to have a giggle over.

I have since discovered that it is NLP based and that people actually take it seriously!


It was called Magical Spelling, and it went like this:

Look at the word on the card.
How many letters are in the word?
Can you see any small words within the word?
Can you see anything else e.g. double letters, digraphs etc?
What is the first letter?
What is the last letter?
The third letter? Etc.
Watch the word while I move it to the left
Take a picture of the word in your head so that you can still see the word when I hide it.
Check that the picture in your head is the same word (as) written on the card.
Ask again how many letters, position of letters etc.
Write down the word.
Look at the word to see if it looks right
Look at the card and check the word.
Check every letter and give every correct one a big tick.

It still makes me fall about laughing.........

User avatar
maizie
Administrator
Posts: 3121
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:38 pm
Location: N.E England

Post by maizie » Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:33 am

Dick,

I am absolutely delighted that someone has taken the trouble to read it! I got it from this board originally (one of Susan's excellent links, I think), about 2 years ago, and have posted it on various fora, with no response at all! I know it won't make any impression on closed minds...



Do you like my 'Magical Spelling' too? :D

Guest

Post by Guest » Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:44 am

My approach is exactly lke Kiki's. A while back, I think it might have been Tricia, posted something about sesquipedophobia, which I didn't read properly but got the meaning. When I thought I had a good use for that word I had to go through it systematically, except for the 'phobia' bit at the end.
Then having said it to myself I could easily spell it and I use it all the time now. (truly!)

JAC

Judy
Posts: 1184
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:57 pm

Post by Judy » Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:21 am

Can you raed tihs? Olny srmat poelpe can.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was
rdanieg.
> >> > The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at
> >> > Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in
a
> >> > wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer
be
> >> > in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and
> >> >
> >> > you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn
mnid
> >> > deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
> >> >
> >> > Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > if you can raed tihs psas it on !!



Anyone like to comment on what is going on here? :lol: :lol: :lol:

rborseth
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 12:44 am
Location: China
Contact:

Post by rborseth » Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:34 am

Dick

I'd be interested in what you found out about True Type. One of my book readers use it and it is very clear and easy to read. I would like to know how to use it in other programs.
Also interesting information there about ClearType that clued me in on that. Easy to activate if you're using Windows XP and really gives your vision a boost when reading text from the monitor. Double thanks!
Peace and Unity

Roger

rborseth
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 12:44 am
Location: China
Contact:

Post by rborseth » Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:36 am

Opps I meant Clear Type.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests