Joe,
Excue me, I don't know what you talking about this. Because there is so
many long word and hard word I never heard (like phonological, aural,
heterographic and etc.. There is other more words, I don't know) . Can you
explan to a simple word about this. I am sorry!! I would like to read this
but I lost it and don't know what you are talking about.
Lourdes Tollette
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Martin [SMTP:]
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 1999 5:50 PM
To: SignWriting List
Subject: linguistish shtuff.
***WARNING: Lingusitic techno-babble follows: Normal people delete
now! Seriously linguistics-infected types may read on.....
Fernando:
I'm utterly thrilled with all these references you sent. Thank you Thank
you. Spent hours last night reading your posts. (^_^) Curious now.......
evidence seems to indicate phonological recoding used as a reading
strategy by congenitally deaf persons, even though they have no way to
access the aural phonetic content; there seems no way to investigate
empirically--until now, using Signwriting. With the phonetic information
encoded in pictogens (?) or graphemes being in the visual modality, it
seems logical to map visual Phonetic Form onto meaning, without any
necesity to involve auditory processing at all. With this established (has
it been?) it would seem possible to determine if in fact the congenitally
deaf are trying to do something analogous using the graphemes of
alphabetic writing--- and since that system is designed around sound, the
mapping would leave terrible gaps and it would be hard to learn to read...
this seems nearly the same question you are investigating; In reading your
message it wasn't always clear if you were separating "ideographic
reading" from "non-aural phonological decoding;" if these aphasic readers
can match heterographic homophones (I assume that means in an alphabetic
script(?) then it's matching pictures of (written) words with pictures of
things; they should be able to read signwriting, possibly using only the
right hemisphere. the difference between deaf readers and lesioned
readers...i get confused.
Anyway, I'm wondering about this prediction; Naive readers who know
Sign should be able to read signwriting. They shouldn't be able to read an
alphabet-based writing system like Stokoe notation. Then after exposure
to "grapheme-phoneme correspondence instruction," they should be able to
read that too. Because they would see how to map the picture of the word
onto the picture of the referent; i.e. pick out the (visual) phonological
parameters and map them onto the manually-produced atriculatory movements
that these graphemes represent. Again, with no auditory involvement at
all. They could read the Signwriting without instruction because it is
so highly motivated, (and that may involve phonology, or it might just be
drawing pictures of pictures....I dunno.)
Sure is hard to be concise when discussing this stuff. What I'd really
like to know is if anyone has tested reading in any script designed to
represent signed language--thus accessing phonologic structure
while bypassing the auditory channel. (so logograms don't count. ;-)
That started out to be a simple, brief little question.....
I'll go now.....
joe
PS; Love your tag line !
> Fernando Capovilla, Plain Old Ordinary Scientist
> Bottom Right Corner South America :-)
> >
____________________________________
Joe Martin, Plain Old Ordinary Student
Top Left Corner USA
|
SignWriting List Forum