04,AIP.; 440

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 1138 114 CS 005 442

' AUTHOR 4'

TITLEpuB DATENOTE

UPS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

k

ABSTRACT. ,In the,most adequate psycholinguistic model of the

reading proc'eses the prdficient silent.reader decodes directi'fromgraphic surface4structure into deep structure, with no decoding intooral-surface structure. Three cue systems used by all proficient s

readers include graphic cues (letters and words), syhtactic cues. (the

4;

grammatical atr gement of mcrds),.and semantic cues (the weaning ofthe words and co cepts that the reader brings tc the reading'..process). Reading.is s four step pxocess: (1) sampling words and .'

phrases, (2) predicting othei wofds and phrases that might fcllcw,(3) testing the predictiCns, and (4) ccnfirmingor correcting thepredictions. Aids for anlayzing how we/1 a reader uses cue systemsinclude the cicze procedure and miscue analysis: the latter tests thedifference tetween text and the readex.'s oral response. (DC)

Hayes, Christopher G.An Overview of Psycholinguistic Reading Theory..Mar 8015p.: Paper'presented at the Annual Meeting of theConfere'nce on College Coaposition and Communication(31st, Washington, DC, March 13-15, 1960),

MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.*Eecoding (Reading) : Miscue AnalYsis:*PSycholinguistics:- *Readimg gomprehension: *ReadingDiagnosis: Reading Prccesses: *Reading Research

0

t.

?

4

t

***********************************************************************'Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that ,can be made *

* frOM the Original document. *

0

4Ti ocerommtNI OF HCALTII.

ROL/CATION I WILFANIF,NA TIONAL IN51flI.J7T Of

COUCATION

TIMI NI HA% III ( N 141 P1,101111110 1 1..411 I I Y A. 141111V11, I ,111f0THr. prilsoN Oil 0110ANI7ATIONOPICINATING tt POINTS OT VIEW OR OPINIONSst A TrO OD Nor Nut trstArrit. uPrir-SF NI Oi r tAt. NATIONAL INTO TUT ( 01EDUCATION POSITION oR POLICY

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATEllfAL HAS OEEN GRANTED BY

Christopher G. Hayes

TO THE EDUCATIONAl. RESOURCEsINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)"

Christopher G. HayesEdwar'd L. LottoUngllish Department

Ohio State University

An Overview of Fsycholinguistic Reading Thedfy

Because, we all know how to read, defining that act may appear easy

.enough to do. Actually, the cognitive gymnastics we go through when We read

are difficult to describe objectively. The most useful definitions I have

found derive their usefulness from their generality ahd simplicity.

Kenneth Goodman, for instance, insists that "Reading Must . be regarded

as an interaction between the reader and.written language, through which the

reader attempts to recoinstruct a message from the writer."1

More succinctly,

.2

"reading is not.readrng unless there is some degree of comprehension. . .

This emphasis on comprehension has led psycholinguistic reading theorists

to contend that reading instruction should stress students' abilities to

decode graphic symbols,.forjrileaning, and notilkerely insist upon students'

abilities to recode graphic symbols into sounds.V.

Frank Smith has noted in PsycholinguistiCs and Reading that the impetus

for current cognitive approaches toward reading has.come from work of3Noam

Chomsky and the generative transformational schod) of liriguistist.

Specifically, that school offers two relevant theorfes: The first one

suggests a distinction between the physictil aspect.of language (the surface

structure) an0 thi underlying meaning of language (the deep structure).

Bridging these Iwo levels are grammatical rules that govern the meaningful

,

arrangement of surface structure eiements. Only because_gach of us has a

filly developed grammar can we distinguish between th surface structures of-,

'man bites dog" and "dog bites man II or comprehend therOfference between a1

%3\

,

,

4"Maltese cross" and a "cross Maltese."

/ M.

,/

I. . .

,

\

:Sixteenth of a second (half the first time), the subjects were much less

\ lticely to identify correctly indtvidual letters than they Oere to remember

the tqords the lkters spelled. Prom this Kolers infers,Jirst, sthat."If nor-

.

reading is preceded by a smrial scan on a letter-by-letter basis, its

Hayes and Lotto, 2_

The second contribution of the Chomskinn sC,hobl involves the creative

aspects of laeguage;.that is, a person's grammar-provides "a setof rules for

generating (and recognizing) an infinite number of erammatical sentences:hid

'Because proficient readers can and do recognize various grammatical structures

4000

they actually bi-ing Are.understanding to the teixt Oan the text's words

provide.

These two theories have led Frank Smith to a statement.that lays the

foundation for a psycholinguistic attitude toward reading.' "Reading," he

.

writes, "is not primarily a visual process."5 As one miOht expect, such a

seemingly heretical assertion suggests a number.of Implications.

One implication is that the more a reader brings to a text, the less

visu'al information he or-she will need to identify a letter, a wprd, or the

4

meaning in a sentence% Conversely, the more visbal information a reader

needs in order to drew meaning from a text, the slyer and less meaningful

the reading tends to be.6 There is, in fact, a strict limit to the am unt of

information the visual, system can process in a given time. To ill trate:

Paul Kolers and M. T. Katzman conducted en experiment with proficient college

readers-in which the experimenters flashed onto a screen a series of six-

letter sequences, some of which were words and some were not. They found 'that

if each letten remained on the screen longer than a quarter of a second, the

subjects coUld often remember and correctly.identify. the individual letters

in a sequence, but could nbt often remember words that the six-lmtter sequences

spelled. Howgver, when each letter in a sequence was flashed for only one-

.1

maximum rate would be between .

1144 ,

minute."7

Hayes and lotto, 3

thirty and forty-two words'per

Second, Kolers concludes that "recognition of words has only a

limited dependenCe on the recognitimi or 'discriminability' of individual

letters:"8 Reading, then, appears to be much ttiore than a visual process

during which a.reader has to see and idefitify every etter or word to gain

, meaning.,4

Vith this in mind, we can turn our attention to psycholinguistic models

of the reading process. You see in the appendix five models. the 'first

model illusfrates a conventio l and incomplete.theery of the reading

Acess. Evidence supporting he theory of deep structure is the basis of

that model's inadequacy, for it'omits a crucial step, comprehending the{I

dla

syntactic and s!rantic messages of the surface structures oftswritten and

spoken language. The second model allows for the deg strut.ture, but it

misarranges the steps. As SmIth points out, "it is not,posSible o go fromt

4

s .

the surface structure of wTitten language to the sfaceist\ ructure of speech

.d

,without meaning, without the deep structure of written fbnguage."

9

I

True, a person may pe ableto recode the graphic:symbols on the pageinto.

speech4sounds. But this person who reads lette, by lter or word by word

is probably, parroting sounds, not reading for,eani . The Oioficieni

reader, however, decodes the deep structure from 0 surface structure of

_,

t ed A

the wrigtten language, 'then recedes that meaning po the surfa.ce structure

A....,

of the spoken lan'guage, and finally decodes the caning of'that. Model 3

1 /

illustrates that process, However, since both deep structures are the same i

/

there is no need foi- the'second decoding. !ft the model for.reading aloud,

. /theb, readers schn the/printed Swface str9Pture, decode its deep-structure,

,/ - 1/

and then recode that #essage into 'the surpce structure of speech.

See model 4 And the proficient silent 4'eader decodes directly from.graphic, , J.

1

,

Mayes.and lotto, 4

surface structure Intb deep structure. See model 5.

Is there evidence that such a prOcess actually takes place? Againi

Kolers offers persuasive proof, thrs time In Studies involving bilingual

speakers ind writers of English and French.

In one eeriment, Kolers found that If he flashed, one at a time, a.

list of words onto a screen, the subjects could more frequently remember

words that had appeared twice than words that had appered only once.

More to the point, if, for ipstance, the word "desk" appeared.twice and if

the words "snow" and its French synonym "neige" appeared only once each,

the Subjects could just as freouenily remember the word "desk" as they could

" sn ow " Readers lend to perceive and remember words in terms of therr(

10semantic meanings, not their graphic appearances.

Kolers also had bilingual students read aloud a pastag{in which

English phrases and sentences alternated with French phrases and sentences.

F.Irst, he fouhd that when the text changed from English to French--or.

A/ice-versathe readers often read the beg1nning word of the'French passage

with an English accent. Kolers infT, then, that "reading is not simply a\

matter of transleting visual g vhemes into phonemes."lt Moeedver, the..

subjects reading these m1xed71 gui;e texts often stranslated wordi in one

)

,

4 language to corresponding words,: \j116 other language. A subject might read, 1

i., :,---,-..:.:.,:., *, .

"bbok" when4the text actual ly r60:"1 Eyre." The _bi l ingual students would

._1-.. ---, I

'also adjust syntax to fit meaning, -Timcy would smoothly continue reading

or tOnslating'in English, for'rriltahce, even'after the text had changed to. s

an Idiomatic phrase ici French. Ti4.subjects made these changes without any .

ogs, of comprehension and without even realizing they had '.done so.

Clearly;,,they were'decoding the deep structure, not the -surface striicture.

12 .

Again, skilyul reading involves more than recoding graphic surface struc- A

tUre into oral. surface: structUre. lt involves recognizing the grapt) signs

Hayes and Lotto, 5

and thelr arrangement (syntax) and above all involves understanding the under-,

lying meaning those symbols a'nd patterns rePresent.

t

his emphasis oh graphic symbols, their.

syntax, and their meaning implies)

three cue systems that all proficient readers use:\ graphic cues (letters and

f

words); syntactic cues (the grammatical arrangement of the words); and semantic#

.

cues (the mea)ling of the words and concepts that the reader brings to the

reading process). These cues seem to be derived from the trinity of surface

structure, grammar, and deep structure. Wh'ile these Coe systems might at first

appear to be aryanged in the order that a reader uses them, actually\theY are ,

7

not. A reader uses all three simultaneously.

But there is-a process at work, whiCh has four steps: sampling, predicting,

testing, and confirming,c Briefly, readers sample the wordli.and phrases,./

usually with the eye moving about four words ahead of utterance. Then, using

their 1ntuiAve syntactic knowledge, they vedict ofher words or.phrases that

grammatically and lemanticaLly might follow what they have already read. As the

eye moves on, readers test the predictions they make to determine if those

predictions, flt into the syntax and meaning of upcoming phrases.- Finally, the

readers either confirm pr correct their predictions. Whether they confirm

or corTect depends on rf what theyread makes sente For the third time,

reading means' comprehending.

If this theory ofwhat goes on when a'reader'.'Y3

you ere notaione. 'It seems complex to me also,

.seems complex to yOb,

if tkis mOdel of reading

seems complex in theory, the actual practice-W6e6:a., uman being injects his or

: ,1.

, \.-.--

hei- oWn idiosyncratic personality into the proceSS-i-mist beimOre complex, if

not even chaotrc. HQW can we hope to underSc49.d wf* lane of our students is,

doing right and What wrong, let alone what we 'ilt1 vO a' teachers to help the

student b4come a Aglefficient reader? At fe"Ost t o glethods have

f4

14

-

Hayes and Lotto, 6

developed as aids in analyzing how well a leader uses all the cue systems avail-

able and how efficietly he or she makes use of, the cyclical nature bf reading.

These two are (the clo procedure and miscue analysis. The next !Japes- in this

section will discuss the cic4e procedure in detail. Rirt now I wish to turn to

miscue analysis.

Miscue analysis is a.proCedure developed by Kenneth Goodman as an aid in

understanding what is going on when a reader rJads. Goodman himself has called

it a "window- on the reading process" A miscue is sJmply a difference between

a text and a reader's oral re§ponse to that text. A mEgcue analysis attempts

to dtscribe, in a systmatic manner, the miscues per(ormed by a reader so that

the teacher can d4vise ways to help that student in overcoming the miscues that

hinder comprehension.

The procedure of miscue analysis starts out simply enough. A story or other

reading is selected whiCh is somewhat difficult for the student. The-student

then reads the story into a tape reCorder. Before the student reads, the

teacher mentions that the reading will not be graded but the student will be

asked to retell the story after the reading is over and that no help will,be

given during the reading. The student will have to do the best he or she -

can to handle any problems. As)the student reads, the tkacher marki-all the

miscues on a worksheet which is simply a copy of the story typed SO it pre-

serves the lines exzNtly as they are in the 'book. Goodman has,developed a

system of symbols to m rk the miscues. Of course, too much will happen as the

udent reads for the te cher to be able to mark all the miscues, so the

marking of the worksheet Is ompleted at a later-time.from the tape recording.

After the student.is finished readingf he or sht simply retells .the story with-

out looking back at the text. This li'art s also recorded. After the retelling,

the teacher asks open-ended.questio4 to probe areas omitted in the retelling.13

HayeS and Lotto, 7

After the session with the student is over., the teacher completes the work.-

sheet-from the tape recording and then codes the miscues_ Several taxonomies

of coding are available ranging from the highly sophisticated--and time consum-

,

ing--to the much sImpler apd easIer to use. All the taxonomies are designed

to highlight the pattern of m1sC9tes. And, "because miscue analysis gets at

the pm'ocess and goes beyond tKe superficial, it produces informatfon thattcan

14become the basis for specific instruction."

In order to devise these specific instructions the teacher must analyze

the patterns behind the miscues. As Constance'Weaver says, "Basically, the

teacher needs to find out three things: 1) Does, the reader use preceding syh-i

tactic ,and semantic context to predict what is coming next? 2) Does the reader

usellollowing syntactic and semantic context to confirm-or reject these predic-

tions? ahd 3) Does the reader correct (or attempt to-correct) tnose miscues

that don't-fit in context?"15 The various taxonomies and forms used to code

mrscues attempt to generate this information. lf.the student is making miscues

which don't go with the surrounding context or which alter the meaning of the

passage then he or she needs help in using context to generate meaning.

The teacher can,use a number of strategies to give this help.

For 6cample, Dorothy Wats\on Aiscusses a student named Tim who reJied.'

heavily on Phon1%.,s, and didn't use semantic or syntactic strategies to take

advantage of the context/of a reading.16 The analysis of Tim's miscdes showed

that he often substituted words that were similar graphically to the text but

which did,not fit the context in any meaningful way. lie substituted "pound"

for "proud" in the phrase, "he was sO proud of" and "smile" for "sma)l" In

Ahe. family-rs,small farm.-". These miscues contribuled to a low comprehension

4

score. One method of instruction that would help Tim.overcorbe these difficulties

,.

.

would be to have the teacher read aloud to Tim and pause frequently. Tim would.

then fill in the pauses. After Tin) becamp,adept at this, the teacher couldr

Hayes and Lotto, 8 i

block out highly predictable words in tim's text and let him guess at, the

meanings from the context. As Tim gets better and better at this exercise, the

words blocked out can be the ones that ate less predictable. This exercise,

which is reallyp variation on the cloze procedure, encourages Tim to rely on

semantic and syntactl rather than graphic cues In\his reading..

........

t.. t.

A less formal way'of helping Tim would be simply to encourage him to ask

. \

himself if his r6:ad1ng made sense to him. If it didn t make sense, the teacher

and Tini would talk about Ways he could gain meaning from the text. Finally, the

miscue analysis would tell the teacher if Tim habitually confused two words--for

example "thought" and "through." If this were-the case, the teacher would

Aevise lessons that highlighted the differerlike'jn meaning and form of these

two words. All of these strategies.deal with 04 total reading process of each

reader and attempt to help the 'reader become profiaent in the use of all the

repding cues available to him or her. As GoodMan warns about miscue analysi5,

it "is only useful to the extentJhat-fhe user ,Comes to viereading as the

tpsyholinguistic process it is. Miscue analysis involves its usercin

the observed behavior of oral rea'ders as an intera tion between language and

1117

( thought, as a process, of constructing meaning from a graphic dis lay.

-Of course, by now you may have been able to guess ohe mifijor rawback in

miscue analysis--it can be very time-consuming. This reason alone is" enough

to explain why Goodman's work has nOt had much influence on the great mass of

reading instruction in the United Sta-tes. As' Patrick Groff says of that g.reatorg

staple of reading instruction, theabase/ reader, "This most influentJal guide

to the teediing of reading has included more and more phonics and a greater

emphasis on p systematic:approach to the teaching of 'reading during the very

period of time that the number of collegiate devotees to Goodman's denunciation

of these two ideas has grown in size."18 Groff goes on_to po

otheorettcal objections to Goodman's theorie-S, including "its

out other,

k of correspondence

f

Hayes and Lotto, 9

to what research says about the effectiveness of phonics instruction" and the

questionable nature of Goodman's inherent assumption that-what 6 reader does

aloud mirrors what he does when reading silently.

But to throw out Goodman's idea's about how reading should be taught

because of these questions seems foolish to me.

-odman never says that

phonics aren't important. He simpty wants to give,them their proper place1

within the reading process. And his insights into the difference between

efficient and inefficient readersthat' "as readers become more efficient, they

use less and less graphic idiDut"19--are important for college teachers -of

reading. PhOnics has its Place at the beginning of reading instruction, perhaps

even for some college readers I have had asstudents, but most college stu&nts

haveHmastered phonics and can sound out'unknown wor.ds. These studentS need

4

help in becoming more efficient readers and GoodMan offers the insights that

Will enable us to help ak7m.

10

41,

5

tr

NOTES

1Kenneth S.',600dman, "The Psycholinguistic Nature/Of the Reading Process,"

in The Psyctiojillgui!Ltjc:_11alturs,RLIts_Rs.,,adlillIts, ed. Kenneth,S. Goodman(

(Detroit: Wayne State Univ. Press, 1973), p, 15,

Goodman, "The Psycholinguistic Nature of t4 Reading Process," p. 26_,---._

3 Frank Smith and KennetS. Goodman, "On the Psycholinguistic Method of

Teaching Reading," in Psycholinguistics and Reading, ed, Fran0Smith (New York:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973), p. 179.

4 Frank Smith, "Psycholinguistics and Reading," in Psycholinguistics and

Readin9, p.

5 tmJth, p. 6_

6 1

Smith, p. 7.

7 Paul, A. Kolers "Three Stages of Reading," in Psycholinguistics

Reading, pp. 30-31e

8 Kolers, "Three Stages of Reading," p. 31.

9 Frank Smith, "Decoding: The Great Fallacy," in PsycholinguiStics and

*Reading, p. 82.

10 Kolers, "Three Stages of Reading," pp: 46-47.

11, Paul A. Kolers, "Reading Is Only Incidentally Visual," in Psycholinguistics

and the Teaching of Reading, eds. Kenneth S. Goodmiln,and James T. Fleming

-(Newark:, Del.: Internacional Reading Association, 1969); p. 13.

12 Kojer, "ThTet Stages of the Reading Process," pp.. 4T-48, and "Reading

Is Only Incidentally Visual," pp. 12-14.

13This entire description of miscue analysis is taken from an iirticle by

Kenneth Goodman, "Miscues: Windows on the Reading Process," in Miscue Analysis:

Applications to Reading Instruction, ed. Kenneth Goodman (Urbana,-111.:

National Council of Teachers of English, 1976), pp. 7-8.

14 Goodman, "Miscues," p. 8.

15 Grammar For Teachers: Perspectives and Definitions (Urbana, Ill.:

National Council of Teachers of English, 1979), p. 45.

I.

if

16

Hayes -and Lotto, 11

Do othy Watson, "Helping the Reader: From Miscue Analysis to Strategy 4

Lessons," 'Miscue Analysis: Applications to ReadingLInstruction, ed.

Kenneth Goo man (Urbane, 111.: National Council of Teachers pf English, 1976),

pp. 103 ff.

17Goodma , "Miscues," p. 4.

18

p. 382.

19Goodman, 'Miscues," p. 9_

Patrick Groff, "Goodman and His Critics," 112_a_d_ia1d, 18 (1979),

it

t-

;1.

a*

Z.

f

e'fr-7

4 -

An:Overview of Psycholinguistic'Reading Theory

A Seleted Bib1iogra'phy

'David P., and Dorothy J. Watson, eds. Findings of Research in

Miscue Analysit: Cldssroom Ifitplications. Urbana, Ill.: National

rOUneil of Teacher's of.Engliih, 1976

Gibson, Eleanor:4,j., and Harry Levin. The P.ychology of Reading.

Cambride: MIT Press, 1975.

Goodman1Kenne'th t., ed. lohsCue Anal sis: A lications to Readin

Instruction. Urbana, ationa ounci o eac ers-o

106.

and

Reading.

Groff, Patric4. 376-83. '

S

James T. Fleming, eds. Psycholinguistic's and the TeachiuNewirk, Del.: International Reading AssoCiation, 1969. ,

"Goodman a d His Critics`..m Reading WAld, 18 (1979),

, Hei1iian, Arthur W. Piinciples and Prac'tices of Tachig Reading.. 3rd

ed. Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill

Huey, E. B. The PsyChology and Pedagogy of Reading. 1908; rpt.

Cambridge: MIT Press; 1968..: .

, ,

Kolers, P. A.., .and M. T. Katzman. "Naming Sequentia14:Presented Letters

and 'Words:", Language and Speech, 9 (1966), 84-95-,

M1vin,1Mary P. "Psycholinguistics and the Teaching of4Reading."

, Elementary School Journal,.79 (1979), 276-83.

Mosentbal*, Peter. "Bridge Principles in an Repry to Goodman."

Reading Research Quqrterly, 12 (1976-77),, 58 -603,

Newman, HarOld. "Psycholinguistics and,Reading: A Dissenting Point of

View." Reading Wc;r1d, 18 (1979)1368-75.s

Smith, Frank. Comprihension and Learninv A Conceptual Framework for

Teachers. New Ytark: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1975.

----------, ed. Psycholinguisties'and Reading. 'New York: Holt, Rinehait

'and Wington,, 1071. ,

Understandis Reading. 2

and Winston.

d ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart

11-

. '

Awl

".Hayes tnd Lotto, 13

Wardhaugh, Ronald. Readins_i_ A Linguistic_PersRective. New York:

Harcourt, 1969.

Weaver, Constance. Grammar fof Teachers: rs ectives and Definitions.

Urbana, 111_: PationaI Counci o ea ers of EnOr?h, 1979.

1.

4

14

APPENDIX

Theories of Reading node] E.;44..

1. surface structure surface structurewriting J language

Thiti "conventional" model of thelreading,process fails to take into consideration

Chi/ reader's decoding of the surface structure into Meaning (deep structure)..

2. surface structurewi-i.ting

p.

surface structure deep structure

spoken language spoken language

While this model includes a reader's comprehension of the:surfaCe strUcture (i.e.,

underatanding.of ihe deep structure 6f the spoken language), that phase Of the

pKocess is misplaced.. The work of Smith and Folers strongly suggests that it is,

not possible for a proficient reader to decode the surface structure oC writing

into the surface structure of spoken language wlthout-first decoding Om deep

structure of the graphic symbols.

surface structurewriting

deep strucure surface-structurewriting. spoken language

The deep structure of written material is first decoded from the written siirface

stkucture and then recoded into the surface structure of speech. There is no

Deed lb extract meaning twice, however, since both-deep structures are the same.

deep structurespoken 1 neuage

4. surface structurewriting

.

stdeepl,

surface structureypoken language

%

5.,

This, theni- is Frank Smith's ICiodel of the oral reading trocess..,

surface structure Aeepwriting I

structure1

Troficfent silent reading requirestetructure. In fact, subvocalizingdecrease comprehension.

no decoding of deep tructure into oral surface-

slows ddwn the reading rate and often tends to

*Smith, 'Frank. Fsycholinguistics and Reading. tw York: Holt, Rinehart and

WInwtorri, 1973. Attil

A