(7)af

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

Chapter TwoReading: Definitions,

Types, and Models of Processing

2.1 IntroductionThough our work is primarily concerned with speed-reading, the

direction of the study makes it inevitable to specify a space for discussing

some basic issues that are thought to be more related to normal reading.

Discussing such facts is meant to arrive at a resolution of whether or not

speed-reading is similar to or different from normal reading.

The first section of this chapter will essentially provide an outline

of the attempts of some researchers to define reading which would form

the support we need to present our own definition of it. In the subsequent

section, we will tackle what taxonomies of reading types are there; as

well as what types of reading each taxonomy involves. Then, we proceed

to discuss the processes taking place during reading by looking at some of

the most prominent process models that take into consideration the

processing of low-level functions only. That is, we will describe some of

the work cognitive psychologists have done to understand how isolated

words are perceived, recognized and understood. Such models are to be

compared, then with the position of the componential models(1) that pay

attention to the high-level functions as well.

By so doing, we will arrive at the position we adopt, viz. skilled

reading involves a number of component processes which can be studied

and tested. That is not to say we believe that reading is merely identifying

individual words and stringing the meaning of words together; the

13


process of comprehending text is much more complex than that (See 3.8

and 3.9).

2.2 Reading Definitions Our efforts in this section are geared towards discussing

researchers’ divergent viewpoints of reading and to present what they

mean and assume by this term. This shall pave the way for our own

definition of the term.

Like Urquhart and Weir (1998), we start approaching our

conception of the term reading by dictionary definitions. Oxford

Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2000: 1053) gives sixteen entries for

the word read, of which fourteen refer to the verb. Below, some of them

are given with examples:

1- to show a particular weight, pressure, etc., e.g. what does the

thermometer read?;

2- to guess what somebody else is thinking, e.g. I can read your

mind;

3- to look at and understand the meaning of written or printed words or

symbols, e.g. Some children can read and write

before they go to school;

4- to go through written or printed words, etc. in silence or aloud to

others, e.g. I am going to go to bed and read; and

5- to study a subject, especially at a university, e.g. She is reading

for a law degree.

We should say right away that the first two definitions of reading

are out of our objective here. Furthermore, reading dreams, faces, lips,

road signs, music and the like are also not included in our attempt to

define reading(2). Although they have an obvious legitimate use of the

verb read, but we are more concerned with using the term in relation to

14


written texts. Therefore, the last three definitions, mentioned above, are

more promising for our own purpose.

Urquhart and Weir (1998: 22) define reading as “… the process of

receiving and interpreting information encoded in language form via the

medium of print”. In this sense, reading is closely connected with

language texts(3) which requires primarily as an initial step the ability to

decode which is not the only sub-skill. Accordingly, the reader comes to

the reading task with existing language and comprehension sub-skills.

Hoover and Gough’s (1990: 128) central claim of their view of reading is

that it consists of two components, decoding and linguistic

comprehension. These two parts are of equal importance and reading is

not reduced to decoding only, but involves the full set of linguistic skills,

such as parsing, bridging inferences, and discourse building (See also

Ferraro, 1987: 294). It follows that another claim of the simple view (4) is

that “both decoding and linguistic comprehension are necessary for

reading success, neither being sufficient by itself” (Hoover and Gough,

1990: 128).

One more support of such a view of reading comes from

Haberlandt (1994: 2) who distinguishes between different component

processes of reading at the word, sentence, and text level. These

components are insinuated in the generation of meaning representations

of the text. For example, word-level processes comprise both encoding

and lexical access; sentence-level processes include syntactic parsing

processes, and text-level processes establish links between a sentence and

the previous text. Any particular text has meaning and Nuttall (1982: 18)

views reading as essentially concerned with meaning specifically “with

the transfer of meaning from mind to mind: the transfer of a message

from writer to reader”. She has excluded, from her work, any

interpretation of the word reading in which meaning is not central(5). Such

15


view of reading is strongly supported by Ajideh (2003: 2) who points out

that reading is regarded not only as a reaction to a text, but also as an

interaction between writer and reader mediated through the text (6). It

follows from this that reading efficiency cannot be measured against the

amount of information contained in a text. Rather, it is a matter of how

effective a discourse the reader can create from the text depending on

either his rapport with the writer or his purpose of reading.

Alderson (1984: 3) views reading both as a product and a process.

Research has concentrated on the product rather than the process, as the

former is, in his view, inadequate for two reasons: first, because of the

unpredictable and normal variation in product. Second, because knowing

the product does not tell us what actually happen when a reader interacts

with a text. Or, in Alderson’s opinion, a product view relate only to what

the reader has got out of the text, while a process view investigates how

the reader may arrive at a particular interpretation.

For the purpose of finalizing our own definition, we shall consider

reading as being composed of both process and product. The process

form the basis of the product which are both different regarding the

cognitive demands that each requires. When one reads, s/he constructs

mental models of what the writer wants to communicate; and to succeed

in communication, i.e. understand meaning, the reader draws both on

existing linguistic and schematic knowledge and the input provided by

the printed or the written text. The two phases of process and product will

vary from reader to reader, purpose to purpose, one type of text to

another, on level of difficulty and familiarity to another, and from one

type of reading to another. Once we include other kinds of reading, than

what is known as normal or careful reading, we may then be tempted to

take the view that different tasks may require different types of reading

and different models of the processes involved.

16


2.3 Different Taxonomies of

Types of ReadingTalking about reading assumes distinguishing between different

kinds. This process of differentiating enables us to match a specific

reading type with the needs of the reading material. In fact, many of the

reading models available in the literature tackled careful reading. Rayner

and Pollatsek (1989: 439), for instance, remark that most of their work

discusses careful reading of a textbook through which one should pay

great attention to the written material. In spite of this concern with

reading carefully, they point out that one can also read coping with other

types of reading under certain conditions. No two persons disagree about

the fact that reading a novel, that is entertaining, is much faster than

reading a book on a biological or philosophical matter.

Urquhart and Weir (1998: 101) remark that reading researchers, in

Britain, have to some extent ignored expeditious reading behaviours.

There is “very little on how readers process texts quickly and selectively,

i.e. expeditiously, to extract important information in line with intended

purpose(s)”. In this section, therefore, we shall review some taxonomies

of reading that include other types of reading in addition to the careful

one. Moreover, we are going to clarify what each type means according

to the taxonomy that subsumes it.

2.3.1 Freeman’s Taxonomy (1988)

Freeman (1988: 25) starts his taxonomy of reading types by

describing the skilled reader as “one who varies his reading speed and

method to suit both the material he is reading and his reason for reading

it”. He gives an example of a student who is looking through a list of

17


exam results to find his own result. Of course, as a first step, he shall scan

the list very quickly for his name. Finding his name, he will read his

result carefully and might read it more than one time to make things sure.

Freeman claims that this supports his viewpoint that one can vary his type

of reading according to his purpose. Freeman’s taxonomy includes the

types that shall follow.

2.3.1.1 Scanning

Scanning is a very rapid search for some important point which

might be a page number, a title or a key word. Scanning involves

a deliberate ignorance of everything but the item(s) for which the text is

being scanned. Freeman adds that the student needs this type of reading

to scan books or notes for a point for an essay. Moreover, the student may

have to scan periodicals and indexes for items that are important in study.

The most important requirement for scanning is concentration and paying

great attention to the original purpose behind it, otherwise readers would

be bad scanners. Freeman defines a bad scanner as “someone who allows

his attention to be caught by matters which are irrelevant to the purpose

in hand” (ibid.: 26). To get rid of bad scanning, Freeman (1988: 10) sets

out an advice of five steps to apply so that readers would be good

scanners. These steps are:

1- removing irrelevant and unwanted stimuli, e.g. noise, hunger, cold,

2- putting aside other pressing matters by listing or time tabling them,

3- suppressing unwanted thoughts by quickly switching to the topic

under study,

4- understanding what the reader is studying, and

5- taking a lively interest in the subject outside one’s study hours.

18


2.3.1.2 Skimming

In skimming, we are simply looking at a text to see what is there. It

is very much like scanning with the exception that in skimming we are

not looking for anything in particular. Freeman gives the following

example to illustrate this difference: suppose one picks up a book on

Democracy to look at the main ideas, chapter headings, and so on to see

whether or not the book is of interest or usefulness to him, the reader here

is skimming. If he is looking to see any paragraph or sentence on, for

instance, the birth of democracy, then the reader is scanning. Thus, when

we are searching for something specific, we are scanning, while when we

are formulating an overall picture of the text, we are skimming.

2.3.1.3 Reading to Study

As the title of this section suggests, this type of reading is

associated with study. Because its aim is to control what is being read, it

is slow and repetitive. The reader ends the reading task, with the hope

that he has comprehended the entire major facts, ideas, and arguments in

the text. Freeman states that reading to study might be broken down into

five stages: Survey, Question, Read, Recall, Review, i.e. SQ3R formula.

He advises the student to use this method seriously and regularly for the

sake of understanding what is being studied (See also Crumpler et al.,

2002, who advise students to employ this formula to survive and succeed

at college). Freeman (1988: 40) summarizes the application of this

formula as follows:

1- Surveying it in two minutes, jotting down what you observe.

2- Noting down the questions you hope to be able to answer by reading

it.

3- Reading.

4- Closing the book. Jotting down the main points of the chapter.

19


5- Reviewing what you jotted down in (4) against your questions in (2)

and the chapter itself.

2.3.1.4 Light Reading

Most people adopt light reading most of the time especially in

reading novels. The aim related to this type of reading is escapism, or in

Freeman’s words “…to fly for an hour or two into another world, away

from the problems and distress of the world of today” (ibid.: 26). The

reader, in such reading, does not attempt to digest the material, nor does

he assess the text critically. The value of light reading lies in that much

happiness and relief is achieved or gained.

2.3.1.5 Word-by-Word Reading

There are two most important occasions that demand

word-by-word reading. These are foreign language materials and

mathematical or scientific formulae. Freeman (1988: 27) gives the

difference in reading the following two lines of print:

(a) a stitch in time saves nine; and

(b) methoxyhaemoglobinaemia.

The reader needs only one glance at (a) to understand it, while he would

look at (b) for longer time to know what it means. This difference in the

ability to read (a) and (b) depends on what Freeman calls familiarity with

the material. Common words and phrases are automatically recognized

without the need to focus every word and letter as the case with (a). With

(b), the reader’s eye has to stop and spent more time to recognize the

word, which is only one letter more than (a), because it is an unfamiliar

word.

The other occasion that is much similar to foreign language in

using word-by-word reading is mathematical and scientific formulae. The

author gives an example of the formula H2O that contains the statement

20


‘that which is formed when two atoms of hydrogen are combined with

one atom of oxygen’. Being unfamiliar with formulae requires slowing

down one’s reading wherever he comes across a formula(7).

2.3.2 Urquhart and Weir’s Taxonomy (1998)

This taxonomy is a reaction against the restricted attention given to

careful reading at the global level, i.e. comprehension of the main ideas

in a text. The emphasis is often given to the local level, e.g. word

recognition or syntactic parsing.

This is why Urquhart and Weir feel a need to discuss further kinds

of reading in addition to careful reading at the local level. Their main

illustration includes the following: search reading, skimming, scanning,

careful reading (at the global level), and browsing. The first four types

appear frequently in their work and are categorized along two axes of

(a) local vs. global(8), and (b) careful vs. expeditious. Added to that, they

have also examined each type in terms of: purpose, operationalisations,

comprehension focus, text coverage, rate of reading, direction of

processing, and relationship with underlying process. In what follows, we

are going to summarize the exposition put forward by Urquhart and Weir

for these types of reading.

2.3.2.1 Search Reading

Search reading is concerned with locating information on

predetermined topics. This means that the reader is looking for

information to answer question set prior to reading. This type differs from

skimming in that it is guided by predetermined topics so that there is no

need to establish a macropropositional structure for the whole of the text.

The text is processed rapidly and selectively. When the information

searched is located, the reader relies on careful reading. The type of

21


processing involved is both bottom-up and top-down (See 2.4.1.1 and

2.4.1.2 for explanation of such processing). The periods of closer

attention to the text tend to be more frequent and longer in relation to

those observed in scanning. Such periods involve more than mere

matching of words. Urquhart and Weir (1998: 214) set out the following

operationalisations that might operate in search reading:

1- Keeping alert for words in the same or related semantic field.

2- Using formal knowledge of text structure for locating information.

3- Using titles and subtitles.

4- Reading abstracts where appropriate.

5- Glancing at words and phrases.

2.3.2.2 Skimming

This type of reading is used to answer the question: what is

a certain text, as a whole, about? So, it is reading for gist that involves

processing a text selectively to get the main idea(s)(9). Both expeditious

and careful reading are involved, here, in addition to bottom-up and

top-down processing. The rate of reading is rapid, but with some care, i.e.

quick processing of the text to locate important information that is to be

read more carefully after that. The purposes of using this type of reading

are:

1- to establish a general sense of the text;

2- to make an outline summary with macropropositional structure; and

3- to decide on the relation between the relevance of texts to the reader’s

needs.

Wherever it is possible, the reader might use one or more of the

operationalisations designated for skimming. These are:

1- identifying the source,

2- reading titles and subtitles,

22


3- reading the abstract carefully,

4- reading the introductory and concluding paragraphs carefully,

5- reading the first and last sentence of each carefully,

6- identifying discourse markers,

7- noting repeated key words,

8- identifying markers of importance,

9- skipping clusters of detail, and

10- glancing at any non-verbal information.

2.3.2.3 Scanning

Scanning involves locating a specific symbol or group of symbols

quickly through a text, e.g. finding a number in a directory, names,

figures, dates of particular events…etc. the focus here is on local

comprehension that leads to ignore most of the text. Reading rate is rapid

and the level of processing is surface rather than deep and it is mainly

reader-driven processing(10). The operationalisations used may include

looking for or matching, for example:

1- specific words/phrase,

2- figures/percentages,

3- dates of particular events, and

4- specific items in an index or directory.

2.3.2.4 Careful Reading

Careful reading is the kind favoured by many educationalists and

psychologists to the exclusion of all other types often associated with

reading to learn, i.e. reading of textbooks. Urquhart and Weir (ibid.: 103)

mention the following defining features of careful reading:

1- The reader attempts to handle the majority of information in the text.

This means that the process involved here is not selective.

23


2- The reader has a submissive role in that he accepts the writer’s

organization and what the writer appears to consider the important

parts.

3- The reader attempts to build up a macrostructure on the basis of the

majority of the information in the text.

2.3.2.5 Browsing

Urquhart and Weir have included this type of reading in their

taxonomy because not all people are likely to engage in careful reading

for a large part of the time. Consequently, they have added browsing to

describe a sort of reading in which the reader’s goals are not well defined.

Here, readers may skip parts of the text fairly randomly. There is little

attempt to integrate information into a macrostructure only for a topic like

‘this text seems to be about….’. In relation to the resulting

macrostructure, the outcome of the comprehension process is

indeterminate. Urquhart and Weir added that “ it is not a requirement for

browsing that the text be ‘loosely structured’; we can ‘browse’ through

virtually any text, given only that it consists of more than a few words”

(ibid.: 104).

Having established these types of reading, Urquhart and Weir

mention that there is a correlation between one type of reading and

a particular genre of text. Although people are more likely to apply their

careful reading processes to a study text, however such kinds of texts

might be read for amusement. Moreover, readers do not maintain one

type of reading throughout the length of a text. On the contrary, they

jump from one type to another over a small number of pages.

Comparing and contrasting the five types mentioned above

terminates this exposition of reading types. Urquhart and Weir have

24


examined the factors that differentiate them and came out with the

following:

1- Skimming, search reading, scanning, and careful reading differ from

browsing. The former types have what is called a clearly defined goal,

which is absent in the latter type.

2- In relation to selective processing, search reading, scanning,

skimming, and possibly browsing involve the factor of selectivity,

while careful reading lacks the presence of this factor. In the first three

types, little attention is given to some parts of texts, while in careful

reading all the text is to be examined.

3- In both careful reading and skimming, the reader’s aim is to construct

a macrostructure, i.e. the gist of the text. In the former type, this is

achieved by reference to the whole text, while in the latter, it is

a matter related only to parts of the text. This kind of construction is

not available in scanning, and in browsing only a vague notion of the

topic might be constructed without mentioned attempt to retain it.

Turning to search reading, it is manifested in searching key ideas in

the macrostructure.

2.3.3 Harvard-Westlake School Taxonomy (2000)

Harvard-Westlake School considers reading the most valuable skill

that one can master. With no mastery, there is no assurance that one can

succeed. In order to talk about reading, this school distinguishes between

different types of reading so that one can fit his reading style to suit the

needs of the material. The types that have been put forward are:

skimming, exploratory, close, review and audible reading(11). For

whatever reason one reads, the primary goal of all of his reading is

comprehension (Harvard-Westlake School, 2000: 1). In the sections to

follow, we are going to elaborate these types a little.

25


2.3.3.1 Skimming Reading

According to Harvard-Westlake School, skimming is the most

rudimentary sort of reading. Its aim is to familiarize the reader as quickly

as possible with the material to be read. This is done by leafing through

the material to look at titles, subheadings, illustrations, maps, and, charts.

Skimming is also used to search out passages that have been best lost. In

such a situation, the eyes should race over the pages looking for key

words that help to locate the exact position of those lost materials. In

skimming, the reader feels himself lost, but by practicing this act over and

over he shall refresh his memory and develop it. Harvard-Westlake

School claims that skimming is considered a valuable step in all other

types of reading to the extent that one may skim the material before

starting any type of reading even pleasure reading (ibid.).

2.3.3.2 Exploratory Reading

Harvard-Westlake School treats exploratory reading as half-way

point between skimming and close reading in addition to being similar to

pleasure reading. The aim of using this type is to acquaint the reader with

the subject matter of the text, but with no complete understanding and

retention of it (ibid.: 2). Exploratory reading is used with supplementary

material, and to gain general knowledge from a text. To say that a reader

is using exploratory reading, the following requirements must be met:

1- Reading as quickly as possible.

2- Keeping the mind on the material.

3- Pausing to rest the eyes upon finishing each section of the material.

4- Summarizing what you have just read.

26


2.3.3.3 Close Reading

Close reading is the essence of the academic study in that it aims at

full mastery of the material in addition to full retention of details. It is

composed of five separate steps that are vital and end as a whole. These

steps are summarized as follows:

1- Skimming: This step involves skimming the material as described

above.

2- Pre-reading: This step includes the following sub-steps:

One- Reading carefully the first paragraph or the introductory

section.

Two- After that, reading quickly through the body of the material.

Three- Avoiding stopping for unfamiliar words or ideas.

Four- Putting discrete marks in the margin alongside words or

passages that trouble you.

Five- Returning to careful reading when you have reached the final

paragraph or concluding section (For comprehensive details on

pre-reading plans and their benefits, see also Langer (1981) and

Ajideh (2003).

The reader at this point should have a sense of the argument and

development. If this is not the case, the reader should look for the

author’s thesis, which is usually located in the opening paragraph to help

him make sense of the rest of the material.

3- Clarification: Here, the reader clarifies his understanding of the

material by looking up difficult words.

4- Careful reading: During this step of careful reading, the following

requirements need to be met.

One- The reader has to be conscious of forcing himself to read

quickly, but with understanding.

27


Two- The use of textual marks to help in retaining the information

later.

Three- Reading with a pencil in hand to underline only those items

to be memorized verbatim.

Four- The use of a combination of marginal checks and notes to

identify important short passages and for a more complete

understanding.

5- Synthesis: It is the last step of close reading through which the reader

tries to synthesize the entire passage. He has to be certain that there is

a sense of continuity and that he understands the whole as well as the

parts.

2.3.3.4 Review Reading

Review reading is the form of reading that involves the rapid

re-reading of the text to refresh the memory. Both the marginal and

textual notes are quite helpful in this concern. The reader starts by

re-reading the introduction and conclusion, then he skims the passages, in

the body of the material, that he understands clearly. As for those parts

that are more confusing, he reads them more closely. Questions or areas

of doubt are put forward to this reading to clear them up by the end of the

reading session (Harvard-Westlake School, 2000: 2).

In addition to those taxonomies presented so far, Carver (1990: 70)

distinguishes between five types of reading, viz. scanning, skimming,

rauding, learning, and memorizing. This distinction is based upon the

different reading processes that take place(12). Carver characterizes, for

example, the types of learning and memorizing as representing more

memory intensive reading processes. The reader’s goal, in the learning

type, is to know the material to enable him to answer typical multiple-

28


choice questions about its content. In memorizing, on the other hand, the

reader tries to remember all of the material in as much detail as possible.

Viponed and Hunt (1984-1989) also posit rather different more

general types of reading. These are, viz. information-driven, story-driven,

and point-driven reading. Employing a story-driven type, the reader

focuses, when reading a fictional text, on the plot, events, and characters

to engage with the story. Regarding point-driven story, the reader

distances himself from the text and views it as a product written not for

enjoyment or certain exposition, but he attempts “to construct a version of

what the narrator might be getting at” (Vipond and Hunt, 1989: 157). It is

quite clear that this way of reading underlies academic literary studies.

It follows from what has been said above that our focus is not on

teaching methodologies of these reading types. Rather, it is on the

application of a description of reading types. Although we agree with the

view that readers should be flexible, but Baker and Brown

(1984: 30) have the right to suggest that “there are students who still fail

to set their own purposes, reading everything at the same rate”. However,

we are more concerned with finding out how many of these types are

available to our readers of EFL. That’s why further consideration might

be given to questions like: Are the different types of reading, mentioned

in this section, really reading? If so, do our English learners have access

to all of them? If not, what are the types that learners are restricted to?

Are some types more accessible than others?

2.4 Models of Reading Cognitive Science approach views the mind as an information

processing system. Within this framework, information input to the

system is visualized as flowing between various processes in the brain.

29


Therefore, it is cognitive scientists’ job to determine what these processes

are, how the information flows between them, and what each one does

with the information it receives.

The purpose of this section is to explore how the above mentioned

approach has been applied to the study of reading, and to familiarize both

the researcher and the reader with the state of the field. In an attempt to

explain what occurs during reading, different cognitive models and

theories(13) have been posited. Urquhart and Weir (1998: 39) distinguish

two types of models, process models in contrast to componential models

(Cf. de Beaugrande, 1981; Rayner and Pollatsek, 1989; Groome, 1999;

and Zakaluk, 2003). The former type includes descriptions of how words

are memorized, how long they are kept in working memory(14), and so on.

The latter merely describes what components are thought to be involved

in the reading process, with little or no attempt to say how they interact,

or how the reading process actually develops in time (Urquhart and Weir,

1989: 39). Below, we shall cover these models with examples of some of

the more influential ones.

2.4.1 Process Models

Process models are either sequential or non-sequential. Some

process models are sequential in that the reading process involves a series

of stages. Every single stage is complete before the next stage begins.

Others are non-sequential, because there is simultaneous information

available from different sources to synthesize (See Chang, 1983: 217ff).

Process models development goes roughly as follows. There is, first of

all, what is called bottom-up models which was replaced by the top-down

models that are in turn replaced by interactive models.

30


2.4.1.1 Bottom-up Models

In bottom-up models, the processing of information is very fast and

flows through the processing system in a series of stages, or in a serial

fashion. These models have little influence from general world

knowledge, contextual information, or higher order processing strategies.

Downing and Leong (1982: 209) remark that these models are also

referred to as data-driven which work their way from sub-skills to the

integration of skills, or from sensory representation to the

syntactic-semantic level. In other words, they are initiated by stimulation

at the bottom end of the nervous system, i.e. the sense organs, which then

proceeds up towards the higher cortical areas. For such kind of

stimulation, Groome (1999: 14) calls these models as stimulus-driven in

which the type of processing carried out is determined by the nature of

the incoming stimulus.

A representation of the bottom-up models is depicted in the

following figure.

Fig. (1) Bottom-up Models (Based on Zakaluk, 2003: 3)

31

MEANING (deep structure)

WORDS (lexical level)

LETTER/SOUNDS (character level)

Level I

Level II

Level III


The models of reading often cited as bottom-up are Massaro

(1975), Laberge and Samuels (1974), and Mackworth(1972). However,

the most comprehensive and influential model was proposed by Gough

(1972). In his one second of reading, Gough has posited a number of

representations and processes which information must go through to

attain its first final form. Each letter is first thought to be captured by the

visual system via the initial fixation as a set of lines, curves, and angles

which are stored as an iconic representation. An icon may contain

materials corresponding to 15 or 20 letters. This icon will persist until it is

replaced by the icon arising from the second fixation some 250 msec

later(15). These representations are recognized then by a scanner. The

recognized patterns are stored after that as letters in what Gough calls the

character register. In collaboration between a decoder and some

code book, the string of letters in the character register is converted into

a string of systematic phonemes. By a process known as the librarian,

and with the help of the lexicon, the string of phonemes is recognized as

a word. All the words in a sentence are processed in the same manner.

After that, all the words proceed to an area which is known as the

merlin in which the syntactic and semantic rules operate to assign

meaning and attain understanding of the sentence. The sentences proceed

then to Gough’s TPWSGWTAU area (The Place Where Sentences Go

When They Are Understood). At this point, the text has been read and

understood. To vocalize this text, sentences from TPWSGWTAU are

an input to an editor, which scans them for phonological correctness, and

then passes them to an overall contextual script.

This chain of events taking place during one second of reading may

be visualized as in figure (2).

32


Fig.(2) Gough’s Model of Reading (1972)

(Adapted from Katz, 2003:3)

33

VISUAL

SYSTEM

VOCAL

SYSTEM

SUPPOSE THE EYE… “SUPPOSE …”

ICON SCRIPT

SCANNER

CHARACTER

REGISTER

DECODER

PHONEMIC TYPE

EDITOR

TPWSGWTAU

MERLIN

PRIMARY MEMORY

PATTERN RECOGNITION

ROUTINES

CODE BOOK

LIBRARIAN

LEXICON

PHONOLOGICAL RULES

SYNTACTIC & SEMANTIC

RULES


In addition to the weaknesses of Gough’s (1972) model mentioned

by Rayner and Pollatsek (1989: 465ff), and Urquhart and Weir (1998:

41), we believe that it has other limitations. According to this model,

information flows in a bottom-up fashion. This amount to say that

information sequentially proceed from lower to higher levels in a way

that each level can directly affect only the level immediately above it.

The model does not take into consideration the effect of higher level on

lower level processes. It goes without saying that context or schema can

affect the meaning ascribed to a word and overall comprehension. This is

not allowed in Gough’s model, which does not provide for schema effects

until after meaning has been assigned. Furthermore, Groome (1999: 14f)

points out that perception of complex stimuli is difficult to be explained

by these models. This difficulty is due to the fact that these models

“assume that the stimulus strikes an entirely nervous system”.

For these reasons, theorists assume that there is a second type of

processing in reading based on the generation of schemas acquired from

past experience. These schemas are sent down the nervous system to be

compared with the incoming stimulus. This type of processing is known

as top-down, schema-driven, or concept-driven processing.

2.4.1.2 Top-down Models

The major motivation for top-down models to be invested is the

need to overcome various bottlenecks in the processing system. The

reader achieves this goal by using world knowledge and contextual

information from the passages being read in making hypotheses about

what will come next during reading. The reader’s job is seen as the

formulation of hypotheses and their confirmation by sampling the visual

information on the printed page (Rayner and Pollatsek, 1989: 462 and

de Beaugrande, 1981: 263).

34


In this sense, it is evident that the flow of information proceeds, in

these models, from the top downward. That is why the process of word

identification is dependent upon meaning first. Thus, both higher level

processes of past experience and the reader’s knowledge of the language

pattern interact with the flow of information and direct it. The direction of

processing is quite clear in figure (3).

Fig. (3) Top-down Models (Based on Zakaluk, 2003: 4)

The best-known top-don models of the reading process are those of

Goodman (1970) and Smith (1971). Goodman is often cited as the

representative of these models. He considers reading a process of

hypothesis verification whereby the reader uses selected data from the

text to confirm his guesses. The reader in this model starts with an eye

fixation on a point on the line in order to select graphic cues from the

field of vision. This process of selection helps to formulate a perceptual

35

MEANING (deep structure)

SYNTAX (language pattern)

Grapheme/Phoneme Correspondence

(letter/sound relationship)

Level I

Level II

Level III


image of part of the text; and it is guided by a number of factors including

reader’s strategies, cognitive styles, and prior knowledge. The formulated

perceptual image is formed partly of what the reader sees and partly of

what he expects to see.

The next step is to enrich this perceptual image. This is achieved

by the reader searching his memory for related syntactic, semantic, and

phonological cues(16). After that, he tries to make a tentative choice

according to the graphic cues. If the reader is successful in guessing the

word, the resulting choice is held in STM, but if he is not successful, he

looks back to the earlier text. When the choice is made, it is tested against

the prior context for grammatical and syntactic acceptability. If it fits in

with the earlier material, its meaning is assimilated with prior meaning

from the text and the results are stored in LTM. Here, a new hypothesis

about the forthcoming text is made and the cycle is repeated. Goodman’s

model is schematically outlined as in figure (4) below.

36


Fig. (4) Goodman’s Model of Reading (1970) (Adapted from Rayner & Pollatsek, 1989: 463)

37


The top-down models of the reading process, Goodman’s model is

one among them, are also challenged. An opposing view is that of

Stanovich (1980: 42). Stanovich draws on more than one study to provide

a contrary view to that of the top-down theorists. He states that (1) good

readers are more mindful of graphic information than poor readers; (2)

skilled readers did not prove to be more reliant on contextual information

than unskilled readers; and (3) good readers are predominantly text-

driven. This reinforce that good readers do rely on graphic information

which may be more efficient than predicting words based only upon

context and language structure. Moreover, good readers use context when

orthographic and phonemic cues are minimal (See also Urquhart and

Weir, 1998: 44).

A further critique of these models is presented by Wildman and

King (1979: 137) who suggest that the implementation of the hypothesis

test strategy as an approach to word identification impedes rather than

enhances reading speed. The amount of time required to generate

a prediction by the top-down procedure simply does not account for the

high speed word responses of fluent readers.

Most of our reading material is in fact neither sufficiently

stimulus-driven processing nor adequately predictive for the

hypothesis-test processing. Neither of these processes operates effectively

in isolation as the unique means of word identification. The third

alternative, then, would sustain a balanced view of the reading process.

The interactive model described as follows as such a theory.

2.4.1.3 Interactive Models

Since neither the bottom-up nor the top-down model of the reading

process totally accounts for what occurs during reading, cognitive

psychologists have proposed the interactive models. In these models,

38


readers draw upon both the bottom-up and the top-down information

before they arrive at an eventual interpretation of the text. Grabe (1991:

383) interprets the term interactive approaches as that referring to “the

interaction of many component skills potentially in simultaneous

operation; the interaction of these cognitive skills leads to fluent reading

comprehension”.

The most frequently cited example of the interactive models of

reading is that of Rumelhart (1977) whose model aims at providing

a framework for the development of models that are alternatives to serial

processing mechanisms (Rayner and Pollatsek, 1989: 468). Furthermore,

the model is based on the assumption that our perception of words

depends not only on lower level functioning, but also on higher level

contexts which include the syntactic and semantic ones and the

interaction between them. Reading here is seen as a synthesis of patterns,

calling for the application or integration of different knowledge sources,

viz. the orthographic, lexical, syntactic, and semantic knowledge

(Katz, 2003: 8). The basic design of this model is depicted in figure (5).

39

Graphemic Input

Feature Extraction

Device

PatternSynthesizerVIS

Most Probable Interpretation

Syntactical knowledge

Semantic knowledge

Orthographic knowledge

Lexical knowledge


Fig. (5) Rumelhart’s Interactive Model of Reading (1977: 730)

The pattern synthesizer receives input from the different forms of

knowledge mentioned above in order to determine the meaning of a text.

This pattern synthesizer is visualized, by Rumelhart, as a message centre

which is constantly being scanned by each source of knowledge for the

appearance of hypotheses relevant to its own sphere of knowledge. The

centre, then, evaluates that hypothesis which is either confirmed or

disconfirmed. Reading, according to Rumelhart, is thus neither

a bottom-up nor a top-down process, but a synthesis of the two(17)

(See also Downing and Leong, 1982 and Urquhart and Weir, 1998).

Another proponent of interactive models is Stanovich (1980) who

calls his model an interactive-compensatory one. The term compensatory

refers to the idea that any weakness in any one of the knowledge sources,

mentioned in Rumelhart’s model, can be compensated for by strength in

another source (Fecteau, 1999: 476).

By combining the bottom-up and top-down approaches and

positing multiple knowledge sources working in parallel, interactive

models avoid the problem of unidirectionality. However, these models

suffer from the opposite extreme of componential complexity that is

40


evidenced in the so many interactions taking place and leading to

a complex function; which in turn requires the message centre to manage

and control the constantly changing and rejected hypotheses (Katz, 2003:

10). What is more, these models are weak from the experimental point of

view. They can account for all sorts of data, and are very good at

explaining the results, but at the same time, they are poor at predicting

such results in advance.

41


2.4.2 Componential Models

All the models of reading looked at so far have attempted to

describe the actual process of reading. In this section, we shall describe

alternative theories that try to model not only the reading process, but the

reading ability as well. Hoover and Tunmer (1993: 4) state that the use of

componential models is “to understand reading as a set of theoretically

distinct and empirically isolable constituents”.

More than one example of such models are available in the

literature at our disposal. Hoover and Tunmer (1993) is the simplest

model which consists of only two components, viz. word recognition(18)

and linguistic comprehension. It was originally inspired by the simple

view of reading proposed by Gough and Tunmer (1986) and Hoover and

Gough (1990). Other models include three components. Examples are

Coady (1979), Bernhardt (1991b), mentioned in Urquhart and Weir

(1998: 49), and Breznitz and deMarco (2002). The components of

Coady’s model are conceptual abilities, process strategies, and

background knowledge. Bernhardt’s model involves language, literacy,

and world knowledge. Breznitz and deMarco’s model has decoding,

comprehension, and reading rate as its components.

2.5 Some Components in

DetailsIn componential models, a component is defined as

“an independent elementary information processing system that operates

upon internal representations of objects and symbols” (Joshi and Aaron,

2000: 87). Building on this, reading is composed of more than one

independent component. While reading, one of these components may

42


function normally where as other components may fail to function in

an optimal level.

In what follows, we shall discuss low-level functioning

components, viz. word recognition and lexical access in details.

Although other high-level functioning components mentioned earlier are

of equal importance, we opt, however, to delay discussing them, with

other ones, to the next chapter (See 3.9); to examine whether or not they

have any mentioned effects in relation to reading speed, our main

concern.

2.5.1 Word Recognition

The meaning of the term word recognition is rather disputed. It has

come across more than one elaboration until an ultimate definition of it

has been formed. Hoover and Tunmer (1993: 8), for instance, mention

three interpretations of word recognition. The first one has “the term to

mean recognizing an English word in print, be able to pronounce it, and

give its meaning”. It seems that Hoover and Tunmer forgot all about the

use of pseudo-words that are involved in many experiments on word

recognition. So to include such words, they extend the term, in their

second interpretation, to mean “recognition of pronounceable strings of

letters, which are not actual words in English”. However, there are also

unpronounceable pseudo-words. Thus, their third interpretation has

involved “the recognition of any letter string with space boundaries on

either side”.

Despite this, the other pertinent fact is that the process of word

recognition is still extremely confusing and not well understood. For this

reason, we will content ourselves with what is generally agreed upon.

From the standpoint of the simple view of reading of Hoover and Gough

(1990: 130), efficient word recognition is simply skilled decoding. They

43


define it as “ the ability to rapidly derive a representation from printed

input that allows access to the appropriate entry in the mental lexicon,

and thus, the retrieval of semantic information at the word level”. This

means that there must be efficient, i.e. fast and accurate, access of the

mental lexicon for proper, arbitrary orthographic representations.

Generally, the adequate measure of decoding, for Hoover and

Gough, must tap the ability to access the mental lexicon for arbitrary

printed words. In relation to beginning readers, an adequate measurement

must assess skill of deriving appropriate phonologically based

representations of novel letter strings. It is quite clear that Hoover and

Gough’s definition of decoding is inconsistent with their measurement of

it. Although the words efficient and rapidly are used in the definition,

however, there is no mentioning of either rate or efficiency in the

measuring criterion used (See also Carver, 1993: 441).

Given that the purpose of word recognition is to access the lexicon,

and derive meaningful representations, Goodman (1982b: 53) equalizes

these representations to meaning. He considers decoding as going from

language to meaning which contrasts with encoding, going from meaning

to language. So there is no decoding without a message. Anything short

of meaning, and does not go from code to meaning is not decoding. If the

reader shifts from print to sound with no meaning resulting, then we have

what Goodman calls recoding, a transforming of code to code. This

recoding process is one of the steps that are involved in word recognition

according to Hirai’s (1999: 368) view. The latter states that word

recognition may involve (a) a pattern analysis of the visual stimulus, (b)

some phonological recoding, and (c) lexical search on the basis of either

the visual or phonological representations, or both. This issue has been

originally raised by Rubenstein, Lewis, and Rubenstein (1971: 655) who

sharpened the phonological recoding hypothesis which holds that word

44


recognition is done in two stages. The first one is the stage of converting

a string of letters into a string of phonemes by the grapheme-phoneme

correspondence rules. For example, a string of letters, like thin, is to be

converted into a string of phonemes, like /In/. The second stage includes

searching the mental lexicon to find an entry that matches the string of

phonemes /In/. When this entry is found, the word is recognized.(19)

Another important word aspect, which is of great significance for

our concern is sight reading skill. This skill emerges as a result of

treating decoding as a basic requirement for word recognition. Thus, it is

not treated as an independent component, in the componential models,

but as a skill built on decoding and, therefor, not independent of it

(Ehri, 1998: 98 and Aaron et al., 1999: 95). Sight-word reading is

considered a speeded up decoding process, i.e. we have the following

equation: decoding + speed = sight-word reading. Rapid and automatic

recognition of words and the rate of processing are important factors to be

reckoned with in reading. When the process of decoding becomes

automatic, by training to increase its speed, reading comprehension

would be improved. In this way, the reader’s attention would be free to

process meaning (Grant and Standing, 1989: 519). In this concern, Hirai

(1999: 369) remarks that “the speed of word recognition appears to be

a crucial factor underlying fluent reading”. Nevertheless, the disputed

issue of considering reading speed, as an independent component is not

resolved yet (Joshi and Aaron, 2000: 87).

Turning to the factors that affect the speed and accuracy, with

which a word is identified, the most clearly established factor is the

frequency with which a certain word is encountered in the language.

Groome (1999: 223) points out that frequency can be measured by taking

a sample of books, magazines, or any other printed material and counting

the number of times that a particular word appears. These occurring times

45


amount to some twenty million words in the case of the Thorndike Lorge

Word Frequency Count (1944) or to one million words in the case of the

Kucera and Francis Count (1982). Rayner and Pollatsek (1989: 68) give

examples about the frequency of words such as IRK, JADE, COVE,

VANE, and PROD that have counts of 2 to 5 per million; and words like

CAT, COAT, GREET, and SQUARE that have frequency more than 30

per million. A high frequency word such as COAT is different from a low

frequency one as COVE in the lexical decision time which is about 100

msec. They also differ in their naming times which is 30 mesc.

Rayner and Duffy (1986) investigated the effect of word frequency

on reading. They measured eye fixations during reading that enabled

them to remark that low frequency words were fixated for about 80 msec

longer than high frequency words. Rayner and Pollatsek (1989) consider

the difference in fixation time, as the better guess of the effect of

frequency on the time needed to identify a word. In this sense, it is quite

clear that high frequency words are recognized faster and more

accurately, i.e. more efficiently than low frequency words.

Another important factor of word recognition efficiency is the

context in which a word occurs. This issue has been the major concern in

cognitive psychology that always questions whether words are recognized

less quickly and accurately in isolation than when they follow a preceding

word or is part of a sentence. More specifically, there is evidence for such

context effects on word recognition; but it is “unclear whether all of these

effects can be ascribed to intra-lexical processes, … or whether

an interaction between higher-order processes and lexical access needs to

be invoked” (ibid. : 221).

One way of investigating the effect of context is via eye-fixations

experiment. It has been demonstrated that in a particular context, words

are fixated for shorter periods and skipped more often than in

46


an unpredictable context. Zola (1984: 280) gives examples on such types

of effects on the recognition of a certain word. He also gives the

following two sentences:

(1) Movie theatres must have buttered popcorn to

serve their patrons.

(2) Movie theatres must have adequate popcorn to

serve their patrons.

The word popcorn in the second sentence is fixated longer than in the

first. Zola justifies this by the limitation of the range of possible

succeeding nouns imposed by the word buttered in (1) than does the word

adequate in (2). Hence, popcorn is recognized faster in (1) than in (2).

The other way in this concern, i.e. context effects, studies the effect

of what is known as semantic priming. This relates to whether the

meaning of a preceding word or sentence can affect the recognition of

a succeeding word. The task used in these studies is the lexical decision

task where two words in sequence, the prime and then the target, are

presented on a screen. The experimenter, then, measures how quickly the

second word, i.e. the target, is processed. Subjects are faster in processing

when the words are related (e.g. cat-dog) than when they are unrelated

(e.g. cat-pen). This demonstrates that the speed of processing the target is

dependent on the meaning of the prime (See Meyer and Schvaneveldt,

1971: 229 and Balota, 1992: 8).

Additional studies provide an abundant body of evidence regarding

factors affecting word decoding. These studies suggest that the major

determinant of word decoding development is phonological abilities

(Goswami and Bryant, 1990: 10; Share, 1995: 182; and Elbro, 1996: 8).

dejong and van der Leij (2002: 52) point out that such abilities “pertain to

the ability to detect, to store, and to retrieve the basic sound elements of

one’s oral language”. What is more is that Abu-Rabia and his colleagues

47


(2003: 427) treat these abilities not only as a determinant of word

decoding, but more importantly as one of the basic cognitive processes

taking place in word recognition. They define it as “the knowledge that

spoken words are composed of phonemes and syllables”. Wagner and

Torgesen (1987: 196) distinguish three types of phonological abilities,

viz. phonological awareness, verbal working memory, and rapid naming.

The relation between phonological awareness and rapid naming on the

one hand and word decoding on the other is causal in nature. This nature

is supported by longitudinal studies, and studies of children with dyslexia.

Such support stems also from studies that have demonstrated that the

training of phonological awareness enhances the acquisition of word

decoding. The other relation is between verbal working memory and

word decoding which is mainly correlational. However, the effects of

verbal working memory on word decoding were small and could be

completely accounted for by phonological awareness (Wagner et al.,

1994: 85 and 1997: 475).

2.5.2 Lexical Access

Closely related to word recognition is the concept of mental

lexicon. The latter was proposed by Treisman (1960, 1961) and further

developed by Oldfield (1966) both cited in Downing and Leong

(1982: 158). The lexicon is defined as:

An abstract associated network of information. In it,

each event or concept has a unique internal

representation. These internal representations have

different degrees of association with one another,

depending on how frequently they have been

continguously activated

(ibid.)

48


Given that the purpose of word recognition is to access the lexicon,

it is generally agreed that there are three different conditions under which

the lexicon has to be accessed, viz. in reading, listening, and talking. In

reading, the lexical items are arranged in a system similar to pages of

words of similar orthographic properties. What is of significance for our

concern, here, is questioning the way the reader proceeds from the

information that he obtains from a stimulus word to the internal lexical

entry related. It is a process of transition from perception to conception;

from a series of black-on-white characters to the corresponding concept.

More directly, how do readers access the appropriate word so efficiently?

Do they search right a way through the lexicon? Or, are there other routes

that they have to follow?

Both Rayner and Pollatsek (1989: 84) and Urquhart and Weir

(1998: 52) recognize two routes for accessing the lexicon. The first is the

direct route that goes directly from the visual input to meaning. The

second one is indirect and known as the phonological route, since it goes

from visual input to meaning via sound. Downing and Leong (1982)

mention another route known as the dual or parallel route. It is termed as

such, because it mixes both visual and phonological input to access the

lexicon. When we turn to Groome (1999: 224ff), we find him employing a

rather different typology of the models of accessing the lexicon. He

differentiates between simultaneous access models, and serial search

models. Simultaneous models assume that there are feature detectors, in

the lexicon, for each lexical item that are simultaneously activated by

many lexical entries. This activation process continues until one becomes

pre-eminent. Within the serial search models, the lexicon contains

a master file of words linked to a series of access file which are of three

types, orthographic, phonological, and syntactic-semantic access files.

These files are searched to match the word perceived by directing the

49


master file which holds all the information of the word including meaning

(For more details on these models, see Forster, 1976).

To sum up, Rayner and Pollatsek (1989: 109) come up with the

conclusion that the common ground for all positions is that direct visual

access is important and that sound encoding plays some part. The direct

route alone cannot explain the subject’s ability to handle pseudo words

like mand, or brin which are not likely to be present in the reader’s

lexicon. Moreover, the phonological route is necessary to explain the

phonological influence on word recognition. For example, the recognition

of words like touch slows down, when they are preceded by words like

couch (Urquhart and Weir, 1998: 52).

50


Notes to Chapter Two1- Some of the high-level functioning components of these models are to

be discussed later on in chapter three to examine their relation with

speed-reading in particular.

2- Our main focus is on how to read language messages rather than

reading maps, for example. In other words, we are concerned with the

non-technical, every day use of the word.

3- This kind of connection is viewed differently by different scholars. For

such views, see Downing and Leong (1982).

4- See Carver (1993) who merges this simple view with what he calls

rauding theory.

5- Cf. Zakaluk (2003: 11) who states that “...reading for children is

a matter of word calling and correct pronunciation than a search for

meaning”.

6- Rusenblatt (1994), cited in Falk-Ross (2002: 2), characterizes the

reading process as a transaction between the reader and the text,

strengthening the importance of the reader’s prior knowledge and

goals.

7- The only respect that foreign languages and mathematical and

scientific formulae differ is that the latter are highly condensed

methods of conveying information.

8- According to Kintsch and van Dijk (1978), local comprehension refers

to the decoding of micropropositions and the relations between them,

while global comprehension is related to the level beyond that of

micropropositions, i.e. from macroproposition to discourse topic.

9- Hoover and Tunmer (1993) distinguish between skimming and reading

for main ideas, but for Urquhart and Weir (1998), they appear to be the

same.

10- This type of processing is the opposite of that of text-driven. In such

kind of processing, i.e. reader-driven, the reader has a previously

51


formed plan, and might delete chunks of the text that are irrelevant to

his purpose (Urquhart and Weir, 1998: 42).

11- We opt not to discuss this type since it is related to reading aloud.

12- In other attempts, Carver (1992, 1993) points out that in rauding

theory, the most important kind of reading is the one associated with

the reading process called rauding, i.e. typical or normal reading.

13- Downing and Leong (1982: 202) state that “the terms, model and

theory are often used interchangeably. The difference is relative”.

14- Earlier models of human memory storage distinguished between two

memory storages, viz. short-term memory (STM) and long-term

memory (LTM). The former is a part of entry into the latter. With the

accumulation of evidence that these storages are separate memory

stores, Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) developed the concept of the STM

as a conscious working memory.

15- From the time the icon is formed, the letters are identified and read out

at the rate of 10 to 20 msec per letter. With an icon persisting for some

250 msec and with at least 3 fixations per second, Gough estimates that

the rate of reading can be in excess of 300 words a minute.

16- Rayner and Pollatesk (1989: 462f) point out that the way of relating

these cues to a perceptual image is not clear unless the image is

identified as a sequence of letters or a word.

17- Hirai (1999: 368) remarks that most versions of interactive approaches

to reading have taken a story bottom-up orientation to the processing

of lower level linguistic structure.

18- Hoover and Gough (1990: 130) use the term decoding to refer to

efficient word recognition (Cf. Hoover and Tunmer, 1993).

19- It is important to note that these two stages work properly on both

spoken and written input.

52

(7)af

Documents

Transcript of (7)af