In the act of reading we use the knowledge stored in our cortex to constantly reach out and predict the meanings of words in the sentences we are about to read.Three cueing systems provide the brain clues (or cues) as to what the words might be: (a) semantic, (b) syntactic, and (c) grapho-phonetic.
1. Semantic. The semantic cueing system is the most efficient of the three in terms of speed and space required in working memory to recognize words. Semantics refers to meaning.As you read, you use context and background knowledge to identify words and figure out what the next word might be.For example:
The monkey ate a _ _ _ _ _ _.
You most likely know what the next word is in the sentence above.As your brain read the sentence it focused on the word ‘monkey’ and ‘ate”.This narrowed the possibilities of the word to something monkeys eat.Based on your knowledge of monkey stereotypes, cartoons, and Tarzan movies you most likely inserted the word ‘banana’.If you did not immediately insert the word ‘banana’ your brain would have then used the first letter to figure it out.If the word ‘banana’ fit with what went before and after you would have continued.We use the knowledge in our head to predict meanings and confirm meanings or make revisions during the reading process.
The monkey ate a b _ _ _ _ _.
2.Syntactic. Syntax has to do with the grammatical structure of the language. As your brain reads you also use your knowledge of grammar, sentence structure, word order, tense and plurality, prefixes and suffixes, nouns and verbs, and function words (prepositions, pronouns, etc.) to identify words.This is the second most efficient cueing system.
For example, in the monkey sentence above you focused on the word ‘monkey’ (noun) and ‘ate’ (verb).Your brain knew the missing word had to be a noun of some sort.Using syntax together with semantics you were able to easily fill in the missing word.This is how reading works.Your brain works holistically to create meaning with print.
3.Grapho-phonetic. ‘Grapho’ refers to symbols, ‘phono’ refers to sounds. The grapho-phonetic cueing systems uses letter-sounds to predict what the next word might be.Of the three cueing systems, this one is the least efficient.Why? It focuses on individual letters and letter patterns instead of words and ideas.Your working memory has very limited capacity.You can try to stuff a few letters in there, a few words, or a few ideas.But which would be the most efficient in terms of creating meaning with print?Let me give you a hint: An idea is much bigger than a letter.There are far more things contained in an idea than in a letter.
THE RELATIVE UN-IMPORTANCE OF LETTERS
Letters are not nearly as important as you might think.The passage below contains a short email message that I sent to my studentsI kept the first and last letters the same, but scrambled up the inside ones.Are you able to create meaning?How is this possible?
Scrambled inside letters. I tnihk tihs is a wnuerdfol casls.You are gniog to be geart scapeil eatoucidn tahecres.You are all tlury aaingzmg hamun bgenis.You are aslo good ppoel.
Let me again demonstrate the relative un-importance of letters.The passage below is a short fairy tale.All the vowels except the initial vowels have been removed.Can you still create meaning with this text?How is this possible?
Text with all but the initial vowels removed. Onc upn a tm thr ws a hndsm prnc.H lvd in a cstle.On dy an evl wzrd cm and trnd h int a frg.Th princ crd ot, ‘hlp m!” A btfl prncss cm t th cstl.Sh kssd hm on th lps.H trnd bck int a prnc.Thy lvd hppl vr aftr.
Which are the more unimportant: vowels or consonants?I will let you be the judge.Compare the top sentence, which contains only vowels, with the bottom sentence, which contains only consonants in the passages below.They are both the same sentence.Which one enables you to best create meaning?Based on this, how much time should we spend on diagraphs, diphthongs, magic e syllables, vowel pairs, controlled r syllables, and the schwa sound?
Vowels only: E eea ae ae e e ooa ea i e.e ae a ea uaea.
Consonants only: ThGrnby Pckrs r th bst ftbll tm n th NFL.Thy hv a grt qrtrbck.
This is an excerpt from my book, 10 Essential Instructional Elements For Students With Reading Difficulties: A Brain-Friendly Approach, published by Corwin Press (2016).
RELATED MINI-LECTURES
Selected Research to Support the Three Cueing Systems in Reading
Alitto, H.J. & Usrey, W.M. (2003). Corticothalamic feedback and sensory processing.Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 13.440-445.
Anderson, R. (2013). Role of the reader’s schema in comprehension, learning, and memory. 476-488.In D. Alverman, N.J. Unrau, & R.B. Ruddell (Eds). Theoretical Models and Process of reading.Newark, DE: International Reading Association
Andersson, B.V. & Barnitz, A.G. (1984). Cross-cultural schema and reading comprehension instruction.Journal of Reading, 28 102-108.
Binder, K.S., Duffy, S. A., & Rayner, K. (2001). The effects of thematic fit and discourse context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 297-324.
Chernove, G.V.(1979. Semantic aspects of psycholinguistic research in simultaneous interpretation.Language and Speech, 22, 277-295
Clay, M.M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Destexhe, A. (2000). Modeling corticothalamic feedback and the gating of the thalamus by the cerebral corrects.Journal of Physiology, 94, 394-410
Engel, A.K., Fries, P., & Singer, W. (2001). Dynamic predictions: Oscillations and synchrony in top-down processing.Neuroscience, 2, 704-716
Fischer, K.W., Immordino-Yang, M.H., & Waber, D. (2007). Toward a grounded synthesis of mind, brain, and education for reading disorders: an introduction to the field and this book. 3-15.In K. Fischer, J.H. Bernstein, and M.H. Immordino-Yang (Eds.).Mind, Brain, and Education in Reading Disorders.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
Flegal, K.E., Marin-Gutierrex, A., Ragland, J.D., & Ranganath, C. (2014). Brain mechanisms of successful recognition through retrieval of semantic context.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26, 1694-1704.
Friederici, A.D., & Kotz, S.A. (2003). The brain basis of syntactic processes: Functional imaging and lesion studies: NeuroImage, 20, 8-17.
Friederici, A.D., & Weissenborn, J. (2007) Mapping sentence form onto meaning: The syntax-semantic interface.Brain Research, 1146, 50-58.
Gilbert, C.S. & Sigman, M. (2007). Brain states: Top-down influence in sensory processing.Neuron, 54, 667-696
Goswami, U. (2006). Neuroscience and education: From research to practice, Neuroscience, 7, 406-413
Guillery, R.W. & Sherman, S.M. (2002). Thalamic relay functions and their role in corticocortical communication: Generalizations from the visual system.Neuron, 33, 163-175
Hawkins, J. (2004). On intelligence.New York, NY: Henry Holt.
Hogoort, P. (2003). Interplay between syntax and semantics during sentence comprehension: ERP Effects of combining syntactic and semantic violations.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 883-899.
Hruby, G.G. (2009). Grounding reading comprehension in the neuroscience literatures. 189-223. In S. Israel & G. Duffy (Eds). Handbook of research on reading comprehension.New York, NY: Routledge
Hruby, G.G. & Goswami, U. (2013). Educational neuroscience for reading researchers.558-588.In D. Alverman, N.J. Unrau, & R.B. Ruddell (Eds). Theoretical Models and Process of reading.Newark, DE: International Reading Association
Immordino-Yang, M.H., & Deacon, T.W. (2007). An evolutionary perspective on reading and reading disorders. 16-29. In K. Fischer, J.H. Bernstein, and M.H. Immordino-Yang (Eds.).Mind, Brain, and Education in Reading Disorders.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
Isakson, R.L. & Miller, J.W. (1976). Sensitivity to syntactic and semantic cues in good and poor comprehenders.Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 787-792.
Just, M.A. & Carpenter, P.A. (2013). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension (748-782).In D. E. Alvermann, N.J. Unrau, & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.). Theoretical models and processes of Reading (6th ed.).Newark, DE: International Reading Association
Kennedy, D., & Weener, P. (1974). Visual and auditory training with the cloze procedure to improve reading and listening comprehension.Reading Research Quarterly, 8, 524-541
Kuperberg, G (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax.Brain Research, 1146, 23-49.
MacDonald, Maryellen C., Pearlmutter, Neal J., & Seidenberg, Mark S.1994. Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101; 676-703.
McVee, M.B., Dunsmore, K., & Gauelek, J. (2013). Schema theory revisited. 489-523..In D. Alverman, N.J. Unrau, & R.B. Ruddell (Eds). Theoretical Models and Process of reading.Newark, DE: International Reading Association
Münte, T., Heinze, H.,Mangun, G. (1993) Dissociation of Brain Activity Related to Syntactic and Semantic Aspects of Language. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience5, 335 – 344.
Osterhout, L. & Holcomb, P.J. (1992) Event-Related Brain Potentials Elicited by Syntactic Anomaly JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE 31, 785-806
Paulson, E.J., & Freeman A.E. (2003).Insight from the eyes: The science of effective reading instruction.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Poldrack, R.A., Wagner, A.d., Prull, M.W., Desmond, J.E., Glover, G.H., & Gabrieli, D.E. (1999). Functional specialization for semantic and phonological processing in the left inferior prefrontal cortex.NeuroImage, 10, 15-35.
Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457-1506.
Rayner, K., Liversedge, S.P., White, S.J., & Vergilino-Perez, D., (2003). Reading disappearing text: Cognitive control of eye movements. Psychological Science, 14, 385-388.
Rayner, K., Juhasz, B., & Pollatsek, A. (2007). Eye movements during reading (79-97).In M. Snowling and C. Hulme (Eds.). The science of reading: A handbook.Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Rayner, K. & Well, A.D. (1996). Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 504-509.
Rumelhart, D.E. (2013). Toward an interactive model of reading. 719-747.In D. E. Alvermann, N.J. Unrau, & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.). Theoretical models and processes of Reading (6th ed.).Newark, DE: International Reading Association
Sakai, K.L., Noguchi, Y., Takeuchi, T., & Watanabe, E. (2002) Selective priming of syntactic processing by event-related transcranial magnetic stimulation of Broca’s areas. Neuron, 35, 1177-1182
Schulz, E., Maurer, U., van der Mark, S., Bucher, K., Brem, S., Martain, E., & Brandeis, D., (2008). Imparied semantic processing during sentence reading in children with dyslexia: Combined fMRI aznd ERP evidence.NeuroImage, 41, 153-168.
Sherman, S.M., & Guillery, R.W. (2002).The role of the thalamus in the flow of information to the cortex.The Royal Society, 357, 1695-1708.DOI 10.1098/rstb.2002.1161
Sillito, A.M. & Jones, H.E. (2002). Corticothalamic interactions in the transfer of visual information.The Royal Society, 357, 1739-1752.DOI 10.1098/rstb.2002.1170
Straus, S.L. (2011). Neuroscience and syslexia (pp. 79-90). In A. McGill-Franzen & R.L. Allington (Eds.), handbook of reading disability research.New York, NY: Routledge.
Strauss, S.L., Goodman, K.S., & Paulson, E.J. (2009). Educational Research and Review, 4, 21-33
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K. & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33; 285-318.
Trueswell, J. C. 1996. The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 35; 566-585.
Van Berkum, J., Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. (1999) Semantic integration in sentences and discourse: Evidence from the N400.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 657-671.
Weaver, C. (2009). Reading process. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Weaver, P. (1979). Improving reading instruction: Effects of sentence organization instruction.Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 127-146.
Xu J., Kemeny, s., Park, G., Frattali, C., & Bran, A. (2005) Language in context: Emergent features of word, sentence, and narrative comprehension.Neuroimage, 25- 1002-1015
