suzmccarth wrote:

>
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Nicholas Bodley" <nbodley@...> wrote:
> >
> > Peter Daniels wrote:
> >
> > [PTD} English spelling is widely regarded as quasi-logographic
> >
> > I'm just realizing that, for the first time. It's something of a
> shock.
>
> As long as the terms 'logographic' and quasi-logographic' are used
> to describe Chinese and English writing systems the similarities in
> phonlogical processing between the two will be obscured. There are
> sub-lexical (phonological) dyslexics among readers of both Chinese
> and English. Since Defrancis and others described Chinese
> as 'morphosyllabic', recognizing the phonological basis of Chinese
> writing, a great deal of work has been done in the area of reading
> theory and dyslexia among Chinese students. To continue calling
> Chinese 'logographic' does such a disservice to those who wish to
> observe how children access literacy through a writing system.

What do you think "logographic" means?

> "As surface dyslexic and phonological dyslexic reading patterns
> were found in the present study, it could, therefore, be inferred
> that students of Chinese logographic writing systems probably make
> use of both the lexical procedure and the sub-lexical procedure to
> read. The presence of two sub-types of dyslexia in Chinese
> orthography contrasts with the perception that Chinese readers
> perceive words as "wholes" and that they only use the lexical
> procedure for word identification. As the dual-route model of
> reading was found in both alphabetic and logographic writing
> systems, it might be claimed that the dual-route model of reading is
> common to existing writing systems."
>
> http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/ho01706.htm

--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...