In an earlier blog, I recommended that you look at “Children of the Code” as a reference for gaining a deeper understanding of dyslexia and its human costs. I really hope that you’ve taken a look at this wonderful resource. One of the best treatments in this outstanding series of documentaries summarizes the often-tragic human consequences of reading failure that begin with the failed kid being very ashamed of themselves. Every teacher and every clinical professional that is dedicated to helping these children understands that reading failure, with rare exception, has consequences for the kid that extend far beyond the classroom, and that stem from the fact that such a girl or boy is a self-identified academic bust. It is just not very self-reassuring to be a Red Bird, or to find yourself being given special attention in reading classes — which is not high on the average child’s list of ‘fun activities’!
In the same way, almost every dedicated educator and professional has also had the joy of seeing a kid break out from being a non-reader, to rapidly spurting ahead to achieve grade-level or above-level reading proficiency. The impacts on the psyche of such a kid are literally life-changing. If you want to witness what I’m talking about, go to Scientific Learning and see several young men and women who have recently undergone this transformation. As you listen to them, put out your antennae to see how their new-found reading success has changed their perceptions of THEMSELVES. These young men and women have evolved from being ASHAMED, to being PROUD of themselves. Helping a kid break out in their academic achievement by training their brain to master the language skills that critically support reading — then to master reading itself — is a wonderful happening, for all concerned!
One final comment: The video at this website is a small part of a longer video that documents consistent break-outs in reading for the children of a class of Fast ForWord trainees in Bartlett High School, in Anchorage, Alaska. This video was produced by a reading teacher, Karen Kennedy, in an effort to show other teachers and administrators in Alaska that this program resulted in unprecedented reading gains in her special classrooms. In the video, you can see that the great gains that were achieved were almost certainly attributable to the synergisms betwen FFW AND an OUTSTANDING special reading teacher!
childrenofthecode.orgAt the top of the article a quote is provided from Searle (a distinguished philosopher in the area of philosophy of mind and philosophy of language).
“The big step between us and animals is language. But the big step between civilization and more primitive forms of human society is written language…. it doesn’t just enable it (civilization) in the sense of making it possible, but rather, it constitutes it. ”
Then the author of the article the continues:
The ‘code’, the technology of written language, is the most influential invention in the history of history. It is the “OS” (operating system) of civilization. Becoming code users literally changed how our minds think, self-reflect, remember, abstract, categorize, and codify. Today’s social institutions; our science, law, politics, organizations and technologies are all outgrowths of what the code made and makes possible in our minds. We are all, in a very real sense, children of the code. For some of us the code is an invisible, taken-for-granted, mind-enabling platform, for others it is an ever-present mind-shaming barrier that all but determines what is possible in life.”
The author’s conception of language is very different than Searle’s. First, and less importantly, the author seems to focus on “written language” which he calls (“the code”). For Searle and others, written language is only one aspect, and a rather incidental aspect compared to the main focus, which is the structure of thought and it’s relationship with language. For Searle, the construction and structure of language is, also, dependent on the structure of thought, rather than language being the source from which we construct and develop our thought, as the author seems to indicate many times. Secondly, the author portrays language (written langage) as a kind of separate living entity, which, in his words, makes us, determines us, and of which we are children. This is not what Searle means I believe. (Also, in the authors quote of Searle, the author pieces together some parts of quotes from Searle in this interview: http://www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/searle.htm#WrittenLanguage and skips over what I believe are relevant parts. Searle’s view on the importance of written language is focused on it’s part in the development and functioning of social institutions. The author does cover this, but also mentions “Becoming code users literally changed how our minds think, self-reflect, remember, abstract, categorize, and codify.” The author neglects to consider the natural/innate structure of thought, and that language is mere reflection of this structure. It’s our language; we are not entities of language (as if it is a living entity that changes us). As a developmental story, the development of our thought gave rise to the development of language. Not that we discovered language and it gave rise to the development of thought, or some story like this, which the author seems to portray.
Searle’s position on language making possible and constituting civilization has to do specifically with social institutions and in particular the exhanged communication that takes place for their development and functioning.
Searle does mention that writing has
“changed the way we think and talk. I can’t have the kinds of feelings that I have without language, but I can’t have those without writing. So I mentioned falling in love, but there are all kinds of other emotions that you cannot have without some way to articulate those. And that requires social forms of articulation, and they require written forms of articulation.”
This position of Searle’s is more adaquately covered in his books rather than the brief interview (linked above). It’s not so much that our feelings are dependent on language, that is, that we first must know how to express feelings in language (verbal or written) in order to have those feelings. Pre-language children obviously have emotions, as do animals, as clearly indicated in their outward expressions and behavior: we know what a child is encountering at most if not all times by his/her clearly apparent expressions and behavior, just as we can very well understand what other adults are encountering. The non-verbal aspects of human beings is expansive, perhaps the largest aspect of ourselves, and perhaps the most meaningful aspect. The occurrence of the non-verbal aspects doesn’t rely on language (oral or written) in any way. I’m not sure what Searle fully means by what he mentioned above – he seems to eventually re-focus on the role of language in shared expressions of emotion – “social forms of articulation”, as related to the social institutions. I think his statement about how we can’t have emotions without language (oral and written) isn’t accurate as it is portrayed briefly in the interview. Again my point about pre-language children, animals, non-language adults, our own non-verbal lives as people with written and verbal language, etc. I think Searle’s point is more about social communication, and this actually is fairly obvious – that language is of central importance. In the philosophy of mind and language, this is not what is discussed. Rather, the relationship between the structure of thought/emotion and language is discussed. The interview between Searle and Boulton is more sociological in nature. There is much more in the philosophy side of it, and this is what Searle does, and this isn’t covered in the interview. I wonder why the author uses Searle, and if he cut out the philosophy aspects of the interview, which would be of much higher abstraction and complexity.
More to the point of your own article, the impact on those who have dyslexia is very unfortunate, as is the impact on those who can see the words as they are but can’t derive meaning from them (not due to any cognitive/intellectual problem, but do to a seemingly neurological problem). For those with dyslexia, on the view of the author of the article at the homepage of childrenofthecode.com, they would also be emotionally impoverished, as well as being so with regard to their identities, consciousness and reflectiveness, etc. This is not so necessarily. Yes the condition places great limitations on their abilities to take part in social cooperation and social institutions, as well as certain aspects of personal and intellectual development, and of course the development of their work, the extent that they can discuss various subjects with others etc. But as for certain of the most fundamental and meaningful of all of human capacities (those that are non-verbal, including what might be called perceptual abilities, namely, the visual and auditory aesthetic appreciation of themselves, others, and the world) these are quite fully functioning (but of course their presence often depends on things like parental upbringing, historical treatment, the kind of peer population they were raised with, etc).
What do you think is the underlying problem of dyslexia? Does it have something to do with visual perception (not visual acuity of course)? What could explain the distortions of the letters and words? Do you think the representations of the distortions is accurate (such as the drawings of what the letters and words looks like), or do you think something else could be happening, such as that only aspects of the words are seen at a time, then other aspects, rather than the whole words? Could the representations of what happens be limited by the ability of dyslexics to explain/describe what they perceive accurately? (I don’t think it’s a matter of simply reporting what they see in front of them, but rather of a perceptual problem involving rapid changes in their visual field, and the popular representations of what a dyslexic perceives are generalizations/approximations. Also, if they see words like is popularily represented, then other objects, people’s faces, etc, would be similarily distorted, especially objects with fine detail: similar interpretation is given to these things: they are “read” in a similar sense.
What if they look at words and do not read them? Simply looking at them. Is it the reading/interpretation of the words that causes the onset of the problem? I wonder if they could observe the problem occur, and then end, say if they look at words and not read them, then read then, then stop reading them. I can look at any word and just stare at it, and especially after a few seconds or more I no longer consider it’s meaning. Would this entail any change in the dyslexic, in terms of how the word would appear (be perceived)?
To clarify my above comment:
“For those with dyslexia, on the view of the author of the article at the homepage of childrenofthecode.com, they would also be emotionally impoverished, as well as being so with regard to their identities, consciousness and reflectiveness, etc.”
In my first comment above, I provided a quote from Boulton (the author of the website), and showed how he thinks there is a fundemental relationship of dependency on written communication and emotion, identity, consciousness, self reflection etc.
From above comment: “… fundemental relationship of dependency BETWEEN written communication and emotion, identity, consciousness, self reflection etc.”
fundamental
Myomancy.com.myomancy.comDyslexia is a complex area and many dyslexics have symptoms not related to reading or writing. These include poor physical coordination and poor short-term memory.
Approaches such as Childern of the Code and Fastforward for Langauge have helped many people to read but they fail to treat the underlying problems and the other symptoms.
A lot of research indicates that dyslexia and ADHD are both linked to an underdeveloped cerebellum. Training programs that teach phyiscal coordination (the best know is the Dore Program) in order to develop the cerebellum appear to have a significant impact. Users of the program (and I’m one) see a wide range of improvements, including memory, that then lead to better reading, writing and spelling.
This is still a very controversial area of dyslexia research. Check out my blog http://www.Myomancy.com. Here is a good starting point for more on Dyslexia: http://www.myomancy.com/dyslexia/index.html