Suzanne,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

> > 1. Alphabets provide the simplest way to write most languages.

> (SUZ) This statement is meaningless without definitions, as
> Mr. Daniels has said.

SB: I wouldn't say meaningless. I would say open to several possible
interpretations and therefore difficult to test.

> (SUZ) However, children do go through a morphemic/syllabic stage of
> spelling before the alphabetic stage.

SB: Does this suggest to you that a morphemic/syllabic writing system
would be simpler than an alphabetic one?

> > 2. The alphabet works by the principle that letters represent
> >speech sounds.

> > SB: Most writing systems contain more than just sound signs.
> > They also include a few meaning signs

> (SUZ) I am afraid speech sounds doesn't mean much. Most writing

systems are discussed based on the type of phonology that is
represented.

SB: These statements were an attempt to communicate with the general
public. The idea was that the dictionary pronunciation guide
represents how an alphabet is supposed to work. The symbols
represent phonemes found in the broadcast dialect.

> > 3. Literacy is easily acquired if the spelling tells readers the
> >pronunciation, and the pronunciation tells writers the spelling.

> I hate to do this but yes, define literacy.

SB: The quality or state of being literate;-)
(see my earlier post)

> In various highly publicized international literacy studies
> Finland, Scotland and Japan have all done well - all different
> types of writing systems. The highest correlation is usually
> considered to be between "economic support of education
> infrastructure" and "level of literacy". You want to do a lot of
> research to make a statement about this one way or another.

SB: These are not my statements. Upward thought that an overly
complex writing system handicaps learners. He agreed with G. Dewey
that (traditional) English Spelling was a roadblock to reading.

> One Study comparing English and German children showed that in
> grade 3 German children were ahead of English children, but in
> grade 6 they could all read at the same level of competency.

SB: What was the test used to determine reading competency?
By grade 6 most students can read 1000 or so word-signs. You would
almost have to have a spelling test to differentiate a shallow and a
deep orthography.

Upward did publish a study in Reading Research that showed that 2nd
year students of German could spell in German better than they could
in English. Upward was a professor of German.

The issue is whether or not the non-transparency of a written code is
a major reason for reading failure. Half of the students will learn
to read any writing system no matter how it is taught. The
performance of the lowest quartile is where orthographic transparency
should make the most difference.

> (SUZ) I think the consensus is that anyone can learn to read any
> writing system, but some writing systems are harder to spell. I
> teach dyslexics so I don't say this lightly.

> Personally, I am waiting for a better spell-checker - one that will
> accept 'wut' for 'what'

The Franklin spellers can almost decipher spellings such as wut. You
will receive a list of possible words: wot, what,...

I think the teachable part of English spelling are the
orthographically plausible sound spellings. wut hwut hwat wot waht
what .... would all be plausible invented spellings.

You might also check out www.freespeling.com where alternative
plausible invented spellings are encouraged.

> (SUZ) The problem with these studies is that they are using a

completely different, if valid in its own way, definition of literacy.

SB: There are dozens of ways to define literacy and when one claims
to have achieved it in record time, it is important to know what kind
of literacy has been achieved.

Laubach defined literacy as the ability to read a newspaper.
To be more precise there would be no difference in understanding
between a newspaper article they read and one that was read to them.

When I talk about literacy I usually mean understanding the code
which is a step up from phonemic awareness. Can the student
recognize a word they use in speech from a sequence of sound-signs on
the page. To be code literate they would have to be able to
recognize words they had never seen in print.

Over half of those who learned using the i/t/a in the 1960's could
not do this. They could not spell unfamiliar words in i/t/a. They had
not overlearned the system. I would not call them code literate.

The method used to teach the i/t/a was optimized for learning sight
words and this complicated the transition to traditional spelling in
the 3rd grade.

What Swadesh, Pike, Laubach, and others are saying is that code
literacy can be achieved in 3 months or less.

--Steve