-
2. How the Mind Can Meet the Brain in Reading: A Comparative Writing Systems Approach
- Hong Kong University Press, HKU
- Chapter
- Additional Information
2 HowtheMindCanMeetthe BraininReading:AComparative WritingSystemsApproach CharlesA.Perfetti, Ying LiuandLi-HaiTan Reading i s a t onc e bot h simpl e an d ric h — simpl e enoug h fo r cognitiv e research to have gained an increasingly clear picture of how it works; rich enough t o yiel d importan t lingerin g question s t o b e addresse d b y th e convergence o f cognitiv e an d neurocognitiv e methods . On e particula r characteristic of reading can illustrate this simplicity and richness: it begins with a reader looking a t marks that ar e encoded i n a system — a writin g system. We have to take into account that the world has different writin g systems if we want to achieve a full understanding of the reading processes. In wha t follows , w e wil l highligh t som e o f th e issue s tha t hav e bee n informed b y takin g a writin g syste m approac h an d t o poin t t o som e possibilities fo r ho w neuroscienc e method s wil l ad d t o th e picture . To be clear, it is the cognitive-behavioral approac h that has dominate d our ow n researc h an d i t has produce d th e mos t informatio n o n reading , including how writing systems make a difference. Thus , our treatmen t o f the cognitiv e neuroscienc e approac h i s i n proportio n t o it s relativ e contribution t o our thinking abou t th e general questions o f reading. On e way th e cognitiv e approac h form s th e foundatio n fo r othe r approache s is that i t establishe s a heuristic architectur e fo r reading . 36CHARLE SA.PERFETTI,YINGLI UANDLI-HA ITAN C? A Cognitiv e Architecture fo r Readin g Figure 1 shows an overall cognitive architecture, according to more or less standard view s tha t hav e emerge d fro m research . Althoug h generall y i t reflects a consensus, there i s one way i n which thi s architecture migh t b e controversial. The assumption that word identificatio n include s a routin e early phase of mutual orthographic-phonological activatio n — as opposed to a one-directio n rout e fro m orthograph y wit h a n optiona l rout e fo r phonology — is probably not a consensus view. It reflects a hypothesis that visual processing of writing system units immediately initiates phonological processing. The representation of word meaning is immediate but, typically, slightly lagged with this orthographic-phonological activation . Figure 1 reflects th e question of how writing systems influence readin g in a mos t genera l way , representin g th e fac t tha t th e orthographi c unit s are provide d b y th e writin g system . Th e detail s o f thi s influenc e ar e a n empirical matter . A basi c constrain t o n thes e detail s provide d b y th e relationship betwee n writin g system s and th e spoke n language i s critical: that al l writing system s encod e spoke n language s i n one wa y o r anothe r (DeFrancis, 1989) . Th e Chines e writin g syste m ha s som e importan t differences fro m alphabeti c and true syllabic systems that allo w it to mak e more direc t contac t wit h meanings , certainl y linguisti c meaning s an d perhaps non-linguisti c meaning s a s well. But its characters ultimatel y ar e connected t o language a t the level of the syllable-morpheme, givin g the m both a phonological an d semanti c correspondence . The standard wa y to consider the connection betwee n writing syste m and languag e i s a s follows : eac h syste m ha s a basi c writin g uni t tha t i s mapped ont o on e uni t o f th e languag e system . Alphabeti c system s ma p phonemes; syllabary systems map syllables, and logographi c systems...