Illiteracy

[robert_columbia]

@bump

How does this happen? I realize that language in general has come rather easily to me- I sort of figured out how to read not long after learning to talk apparently, but

I’m completely stymied in understanding how once you realize that “hey, those groups of letters correspond to the words that people say”, it just doesn’t all fall more or less into place from there, especially if you know the alphabet and the sounds that the letters make (covered in kindergarten in 1978, BTW). Or the other way around; once you know the alphabet and the sounds the letters make, how is reading not just an emergent behavior?

Is it a matter of not having ever been taught the alphabet and the sounds that letters make, or is it that they don’t make that leap between the sounds of the letters and sounding out the words, or is there more to it?

Lack of reading comprehension is another thing I’ve never understood- once you know how to pronounce the words, and assuming you don’t have the vocabulary of a cactus, it’s just a matter of understanding sentences just like what people say.

I also don’t really feel that I can fully relate to knowing the letters of the alphabet and not being able to read. True, we are talking about English which is largely and infamously spelled like it sounded in the middle ages and nobody talks like that anymore. Are there large numbers of Spanish speakers who know the Roman alphabet and can more or less sound stuff out but can’t map “no estacionar” on a sign to the phrase “no estacionar” (no parking) that they would recognize if they heard a traffic cop say it aloud? They pronounce it slowly in their head but they can’t make the jump.

@bintang

I think you don’t grasp just how much work your parents, teachers, and others put into your development. You might want to give them more credit. You (more than likely) didn’t just “figure it out”. It takes patience, repetition, and good teachers to make someone literate.

If you picked up reading quickly it’s not because you were some wunderkind. It more than likely was because your mom or dad read to you. Gave you books (Dr. Seuss and the like), and helped you out a TON.

A smart person can totally miss a step because they lacked a good support system and then just learn to fake it in school. Sure, they should tell someone they need help but in elementary school the importance of reading is trumped by the importance of not getting laughed at by your classmates.

I can’t remember ever being unable to read. Literally. I have memories back to age 4 at least that my mother confirmed actually relate to things that happened when I was 4.

[md2000]

The son of a friend of mine learned to read “whole word”. He was lazy, never challenged, and a little slow. I remember him trying to read a definition “anthropology - the study of human organs”. Basically whole word is “recognized the group of letters” versus sylabic or phonetic reading. (A famous and fierce debate). So not surprising, unless he looked carefully, the kid simply assumed the word was one he was more familiar with “organs” not “origins”. Sounding out, even badly, is an acquired skill that some generations may have skipped. I would rate this kid as moderately literacy-challenged. He was allowed to take some first aid tests, for example, with the intructor reading the test to him, which only encouraged the problem. (She liked him and wanted to “help”).

[Nava]

@robert_columbia

Are there large numbers of Spanish speakers who know the Roman alphabet and can more or less sound stuff out but can’t map “no estacionar” on a sign to the phrase “no estacionar” (no parking) that they would recognize if they heard a traffic cop say it aloud? They pronounce it slowly in their head but they can’t make the jump.

Yes, in Spanish there are also people who need to turn the phrase around in their heads before they can make the connection. It’s not a problem with whichever language is in use, it’s a language interpretation problem. A lot of them turn out to have underlying issues which hadn’t been diagnosed when they learned to read (such as dyslexia, or a very small amount of long-sightedness); others have many other issues with basic language skills (can’t define a word or come up with a synonym to save their life).

Watching from outside, it’s as if those people have with everyday language the same problem I have with many government documents, the kind written by someone who wasn’t even conscious that he was using professional slang. “Indicate the value of passive movements according to regulation 3.12/97 in schedule a” - What The Fuck? (it means “input how much you paid for stuff for your business in rectangle a”, and there isn’t a dictionary in the world which will have that definition of “schedule”).

[robert_columbia]

@Nava

…
Watching from outside, it’s as if those people have with everyday language the same problem I have with many government documents, the kind written by someone who wasn’t even conscious that he was using professional slang. “Indicate the value of passive movements according to regulation 3.12/97 in schedule a” - What The Fuck? (it means “input how much you paid for stuff for your business in rectangle a”, and there isn’t a dictionary in the world which will have that definition of “schedule”).

If this is a passive movement I don’t want to know what an active movement is.

[DrDeth]

Yes, and you can even use odd definitions of “literacy” to prove your dogma. In the ancient Roman world, graffiti is everywhere. Clearly the plebes could read and write to the extant of “Brutus sucks it!”. But even the well educated, such as even a Roman Senator could not read a letter thru in one go. They had to sound it out first, then read it. Julius Caesar was considered unique in that he could read a letter without sounding it out. (Likely many scribes and secretaries could do so also).

So were the plebes who could barely read graffiti “illiterate”? How about the senator who had to sound it out first, likely moving his lips, etc? Today we could call the first “illiterate” and the senator “functionally illiterate” by some definitions.

[Nava]

@robert_columbia

If this is a passive movement I don’t want to know what an active movement is.

The money you got paid, which goes in rectangle i (the regulation’s code isn’t real, but the structure of the form is an actual one I have to fill five times a year and the instructions really are that shitty).

[md2000]

@DrDeth

Yes, and you can even use odd definitions of “literacy” to prove your dogma. In the ancient Roman world, graffiti is everywhere. Clearly the plebes could read and write to the extant of “Brutus sucks it!”. But even the well educated, such as even a Roman Senator could not read a letter thru in one go. They had to sound it out first, then read it. Julius Caesar was considered unique in that he could read a letter without sounding it out. (Likely many scribes and secretaries could do so also).

So were the plebes who could barely read graffiti “illiterate”? How about the senator who had to sound it out first, likely moving his lips, etc? Today we could call the first “illiterate” and the senator “functionally illiterate” by some definitions.

Of course, we encounter new writings (in one form or another) every day so we get plenty of practice to keep our skills up. How often did a new set of written words pop up in the average senator’s life? Also keep in mind the “not stupid” had fantastic memories when written reminders were an extreme rarity. So, the average senator maybe own 1 or two books, would not try to read more than once every day or three, and a whole page of words would be a rarity. (Not talking about teh more educated, prolific authors of Roman times).

Also, IIRC, the roman vernacular latin was very different from written formal latin even before Julius Caesar, so it would be the equivalent of trying to read and puzzle through Olde Englishe or dense legalese, which I would probably read out loud a few times to be sure I got it.