READING IS A SELECTIVE PROCESS INVOLVING PARTIAL USE OF AVAILABLE MINIMAL LANGUAGE CUES SELECTED FROM THE PERCEPTUAL IMPUTE ON THE BASIS OF THE READER’S PERCEPTION
The principle aim of this paper is to discuss the assertion by Goodman (1998) that “Reading is a selective process involving partial use of available minimal language cues selected from the perceptual impute on the basis of the reader’s perception”. The paper will start with a brief definition of key terms and then focus on the discussion in full with respect to the question.
Whilst it’s true that reading is a selective process involving partial use of available minimal language cues selected from the perceptual impute on the basis of the reader’s perception, it is clear that language involves signs manifested in the form of symbols and cues used for communication.
Daniel (2006: 6) indicates that language cues are signs that entice an individual to use language with objective based on aggregation with the intended audience. It is impossible for an individual to read effectives without utilization of symbols that lead to meaningful and coherent flow of content information. Language itself is “a system of arbitrary vocal symbols used by an individual or a group to interact and communicate,” (Crystal 1996). This definition entails that language uses symbols to be recognized and respective by the community. However, these symbols or cues has to be internalized by many and an individual in particular both in spoken and written. When reading such a text, the reader has to pay kin interest in distinguishing selective cues possible with respect to the universally acceptable cues. Therefore, reading is a selective process involving partial use of available minimal language cues selected from the perceptual impute on the basis of the reader’s perception.
Language cues can provide the glue that helps fasten certain visual patterns into small children’s memories and adults especially when it comes to reading. According to Hopkins, Language Cues Provide ‘Glue’ For Visual Learning In Children in the sense that they guide them to see the insight of what follows the previous entity without much difficulties, (Science Daily, May 18, 2005). Language, in the form of specific kinds of sentences spoken aloud, helped the children remember the patterns by ‘gluing’ their properties into memory. Dessalegn said, “We knew going in that children are very poor at holding onto any visual memory of objects that involve ‘handedness:’ meaning, whether something is facing left or right. Our results show that this kind of visual memory can be made stronger if the children are given a language ‘mnemonic’ device, such as ‘The red part is on the left,’ to stick that image into their memories longer.” For them to read such instances they use communicative language cues justifying the Goodman’s assertion that reading is a selective process involving partial use of available minimal language cues selected from the perceptual impute on the basis of the reader’s perception. However, a more elaborate example is that In their experiments with normal 4-year-old children, Dessalegn and Landau displayed language card cues bearing red and green vertical, horizontal and diagonal patterns that were mirror images of one another. Half of the children heard, “Look! This is a blicket!” as they viewed the cards, but the other half heard only, “Look!” The patterns then were whisked away and three more cards appeared, only one of which bore the original pattern the children had seen. Though the investigators found that both groups performed better than chance, those who did make errors committed the same one: mistaking the original card for its mirror image. “This showed us just how difficult it was for small children to commit both color and location to memory quickly,” Landau said.
The second experiment examined whether giving the children a verbal cue that specifically labeled color and location would improve their performance. This time, when they saw the pattern cards, the children heard, “The red is on the left.” This group performed “reliably better” than the first, said Landau.
Stanovich (2000:9) indicates that readers capacity to encode and decode the text require a lot of input and internalization from the available recognized symbols and textual cues present in the metal language of the reader. It would be very difficult for any individual to manifest fluency in speech and reading without a Meta language full of cues and code. This justifies Goodman’s (1998) assertion that reading is a selective process involving partial use of available minimal language cues selected from the perceptual impute on the basis of the reader’s perception. Reading fluency and cues in a language is improved in many ways as Pressley (1998) says “The improvement is most likely due to the presence of relational language, which serves as a mental pointer to an individual. The bottom line is that language can help, but it has to be language that is specific and helps an individual bridge the time gap between when they see or recognize a text at an encoding point and the time they make meaning decoding it.
Adams (1996) says reading is such a selective process that involves massive language cues selected from the known domain of their vocabulary. This basic description of perceptual impute on the basis of the reader’s perception has a strong bearing on the behavior and response of the reader between the initial point at which a cue is recognized and the reflexive point at which language is manifested as a complete fluent utterance of speech. This situation may be a little bit different depending on the age under consideration. For example, when children encounter an unfamiliar word in reading, they may make use of context cues, that is, information from pictures or from sentences surrounding the unknown word. One of the most misunderstood topics in reading instruction involves the extent to which children should be encouraged to rely on context cues in reading. In part, this confusion stems from the popularity in education of theoretical models of reading that do not reflect scientific evidence about how children learn to read. Another source of confusion is the failure to distinguish the use of context cues in word identification from the use of context in comprehension. In the case or Supposing a child is unable to read the last word of the sentence; he might look at the picture or think about the meaning of the sentence, perhaps in conjunction with the first letter or two of the word (p- or pa-), to come up with the correct word, pale. (For this strategy to work, the child also will need to have some oral familiarity with the word pale.) Although heavy reliance on context to aid word identification is common among unskilled readers both normally-achieving beginners and older struggling readers—it is ultimately undesirable, because the child is guessing rather than attending carefully to all the letters in the word. Of course, teachers certainly want children to monitor meaning consistently as they are reading. This monitoring may be evidenced by certain behaviors during oral reading of passages, as, for instance, when a youngster attempts to self-correct after substituting a contextually inappropriate word (e.g., pole or pal vs. pale in the sentence above. Children who do not appear to monitor their own comprehension while reading should clearly be encouraged to do so. However, any instructional strategy that, implicitly or explicitly, discourages careful attention to the entire sequence of letters in a word will be maladaptive for an alphabetic language like English, where every letter counts, and where learning new words is greatly facilitated by close attention to individual letters. The words pale, pole, and pile each differ in only one letter, but their meanings are entirely different.
David and Benson in their article “Language Markers in Reading” strongly argue that reader’s perception and fluency in a language is mainly determined by makers which acts as cues available for recipient design and proper understanding of the communicated message. They further argue that these markers help the reader or listener to know which points are more important than the others. They are also used to capture or draw the attention and concentration to the understanding of the message. It is believed that any good writer or speaker should posses the knowledge and skill of how to use markers. While this view may be a little bit divergent in nature with the introduction of the new term language markers in reading, it is extremely in line with Goodman’s assertion that reading is a selective process involving partial use of available minimal language cues selected from the perceptual impute on the basis of the reader’s perception.
Beers (2003) seem to disagree with Goodman’s assertion as he says scientific evidence strongly demonstrates that the development of skilled reading involves increasingly accurate and automatic word identification skills, not the use of “multiple cueing systems” to read words. Skilled readers do not need to rely on pictures or sentence context in word identification, because they can read most words automatically, and they have the phonics skills to decode occasional unknown words rapidly. Rather, it is the unskilled readers who tend to be dependent on context to compensate for poor word identification. Furthermore, many struggling readers are disposed to guess at words rather than to look carefully at them, a tendency that may be reinforced by frequent encouragement to use context. Almost every teacher of struggling readers has seen the common pattern in which a child who is trying to read a word (say, the word brown) gives the word only a cursory glance and then offers a series of wild guesses based on the first letter: “Black? Book? Box?” (The guesses are often accompanied by more attention to the expression on the face of the teacher than to the print, as the child waits for this expression to change to indicate a correct guess.) Even when children are able to use context to arrive at the correct word, reliance on context to compensate for inaccurate or non automatic word reading creates a drain on comprehension. This kind of compensation becomes increasingly problematic as children are expected to read more challenging texts that have few or no pictures, sophisticated vocabulary, and grammatically complex sentences.
It can be concluded that Goodman’s (1998) assertion that reading is a selective process involving partial use of available minimal language cues selected from the perceptual impute on the basis of the reader’s perception is justifiable as shown in the paper. However, some weaknesses also were spotted with regard different spheres. Specific activities that utilize logographic cues include: students making symbols within the margins of print text and worksheets that provide a pictorial summary of the information given and picture flash cards that foster vocabulary development are typical examples validating the connection between reading and language cues. Teaching methods employing logographic cues can help to encourage and increase word recognition, text reformulation and information organization. The method also helps to tap into the sensory stimulation that encodes information into long-term memory (LTM).
Beers, K. (2003). When Kids Can’t Read What Teachers Can Do. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann,
Fukkink, R. G., & de Glopper, K. (1998). Effects of instruction in deriving word meaning from context: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 68, 450-469.
Jenkins, J. R., Matlock, B., & Slocum, T. A. (1989). Two approaches to vocabulary instruction: The teaching of individual word meanings and practice in deriving word meaning from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 215-235.
Kajder, Sara. Bringing the Outside In: Visual Ways to Engage Reluctant Readers. Stenhouse Publishers, 2006.
Stanovich, K., & Stanovich, P. (1995). How research might inform the debate about early reading acquisition. Journal of Research in Reading,18, 87-105.
Science Daily, May 18, (2005). Language cues can provide the “glue” that helps fasten certain visual patterns into small children’s memories.
Adams, M. J. (1998). The three-cueing system. In F. Lehr & J. Osborn (Eds.), Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and learning (pp. 73-99). New York: Guilford Press.
Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York: Guilford.
Sheehy, Kieron. “The Effective Use of Symbols in Teaching Word Recognition to Children with Severe Learning Difficulties”. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 49 (2002): 47-59
Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York: Guilford Press.