--- 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.

"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

Suzanne McCarthy