🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C0nKMG.4vG@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
> In article <1993Jan8.141523.4947@memstvx1.memst.edu> connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>>Two comments:
> 
>>1. If you consult any professor of education, you will discover that it
>>has long been known that people read English by recognizing whole words.
>>In fact, it was at one time usua;lly taught that way: the "look-and-say"
>>method.  And most teachers do teach a lot of sight words.
> 
> You have misstated even the educationists; the claim is that good readers
> read by recognizing whole words.

I could have been clearer, but this is in fact what I wanted to say.

> And if you consult somebody else, you will be told that this is utter
> nonsense.  The "look-and-say" method of teaching produced a generation
> of illiterates, and set of the one successful revolution against the
> excesses of the educationists.  

Come, come: I never said that this was a *good* way to teach reading.
As for the "generation of illiterates": I was born in 1941, so I should
be illiterate!  The see and say method may have been theoretically
awful, but we know this only because of the research of educationists.
And before you blame the education establishment, it might be well to
remember that the method was developed because the earlier method --
phonics -- was producing unsatisfactory results.  The simple truth is
that there is no perfect way to teach reading.  See and say isn't as 
bad as critics like to claim, and phonics isn't the perfect solution
either.

Do remember that my point was simply that English has, on occasion,
been taught as if phonics didn't matter -- which is what the original
poster suggested ought to be tried, if I understood him rightly (I was
about as angry as you obviously were when you replied).

> Now I do know how their the "reasoning" behind the educationists' claim.
> It has long been known that good readers take in even several words at a
> glance.  But this does not mean that the brain processes things this way.

I find your first sentence impossible to process.  But let it pass.  Any-
way: the brain processes all sorts of things that aren't there, which is
why we can sometimes understand code puzzles with only a few letters in
place.  Example: "You can kiss my ***", or its German equivalent, "Du
kannst mich ... "  Or fewer letters yet.  (By the way: these are just
convenient examples, not personal comments!)

> Also, I believe that most readers of this group are aware that, no matter
> what language is being read, the brain carries out the processing which
> recognizes roots and modifications.  It is this ability to use structure
> which enables the efficient learning and use of language, not memorizing
> lots of minor variations.
 
Nu?

--Leo Connolly