Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

Chapter Two
Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing
2.1 Introduction
Though 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

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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 Learners 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

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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 Goughs (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

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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 Aldersons 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

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

2.3 Different Taxonomies of Types of Reading

Talking 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 Freemans 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

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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. Freemans 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 ones study hours.

18

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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 Freemans 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 readers 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

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

that which is formed when two atoms of hydrogen are combined with one atom of oxygen. Being unfamiliar with formulae requires slowing down ones reading wherever he comes across a formula(7).

2.3.2 Urquhart and Weirs 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

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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 readers 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

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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 10glancing 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 eventsetc. 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

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

2- The reader has a submissive role in that he accepts the writers 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 readers 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

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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 readers 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

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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: 1- Reading carefully the first paragraph or the introductory section. 2- After that, reading quickly through the body of the material. 3- Avoiding stopping for unfamiliar words or ideas. 4- Putting discrete marks in the margin alongside words or passages that trouble you. 5- 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 authors 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. 1- The reader has to be conscious of forcing himself to read quickly, but with understanding. 2- The use of textual marks to help in retaining the information later.

27

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

3- Reading with a pencil in hand to underline only those items to be memorized verbatim. 4- 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 readers goal, in the learning type, is to know the material to enable him to answer typical multiplechoice 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,

28

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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. Thats 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. 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.

29

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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.

MEANING (deep structure) Level III WORDS (lexical level) Level II LETTER/SOUNDS (character level) Level I Fig. (1) Bottom-up Models (Based on Zakaluk, 2003: 3) 31

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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 Goughs 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

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

SUPPOSE THE EYE

SUPPOSE

VISUAL SYSTEM

VOCAL SYSTEM

ICON

SCRIPT

SCANNER

PATTERN RECOGNITION ROUTINES

EDITOR

PHONOLOGICAL RULES

CHARACTER REGISTER

TPWSGWTAU

DECODER

CODE BOOK

MERLIN

SYNTACTIC & SEMANTIC RULES

PHONEMIC TYPE

LIBRARIAN

PRIMARY MEMORY

LEXICON

Fig.(2) Goughs Model of Reading (1972) (Adapted from Katz, 2003:3)

33

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

In addition to the weaknesses of Goughs (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 Goughs 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 readers 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

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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 readers knowledge of the language pattern interact with the flow of information and direct it. The direction of processing is quite clear in figure (3).

Level III

MEANING (deep structure) SYNTAX (language pattern) Grapheme/Phoneme Correspondence (letter/sound relationship)

Level II

Level I

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

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

image of part of the text; and it is guided by a number of factors including readers 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. Goodmans model is schematically outlined as in figure (4) below.

36

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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

37

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

The top-down models of the reading process, Goodmans 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 textdriven. 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

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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). Syntactical knowledge Semantic knowledge

Graphemic Input

VIS

Feature Extraction Device

Pattern Synthesizer

Most Probable Interpretation

Orthographic knowledge

Lexical knowledge

Fig. (5) Rumelharts Interactive Model of Reading (1977: 730)

39

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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 Rumelharts 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 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.

40

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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 Coadys model are conceptual abilities, process strategies, and background knowledge. Bernhardts model involves language, literacy, and world knowledge. Breznitz and deMarcos model has decoding, comprehension, and reading rate as its components.

2.5

Some

Components

in

Details
In 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

41

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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 42

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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 Goughs 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 Hirais (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 43

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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 readers 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 44

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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 45

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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 ones oral language. What is more is that Abu-Rabia and his colleagues 46

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

(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.) 47

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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 48

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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 subjects ability to handle pseudo words like mand, or brin which are not likely to be present in the readers 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).

49

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

Notes to Chapter Two

1- 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 readers 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 50

Reading: Definitions, Types, and Models of Processing

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.

51