Before the invention of the printing press, the handwritten manuscript was the main form of literate work in Europe. As much as it was a method of preserving and transferring information, in many ways it was also an art form. Care was taken to illuminate the manuscript. That is to say, the letters and words themselves were often elaborated on beyond the basic functional shape needed to imply meaning by adding colours and images.
One of the reasons the printing press was so successful was its ability to replicate the style of the chirographic work it was attempting to replace; however, this could only go so far. According to Clement (1997), it was time consuming to create the metal typeset that made the press so effective. Once a size, font, and format had been decided upon and the typeset created, it was too expensive to go back and change them. In fact, if the change had been made for each successive book printed, it would have defeated the concept of the press.
As Ong (1982) put it: “A press could print an ‘exactly repeatable visual statement’”. The creation of early typeset led to a more consistent printing, though that does not mean an error-free printing. The typeset also resulted in less unique, creative artistry from book to book. While this was an unfortunate side-effect, there were positive aspects as well.
Duran (2017) states that repetition in reading has a significant contribution to the reading of a student. Using the same typeset time and time again created a more consistent image of each letter of the alphabet. This helped improve symbol recognition due to repetition of shape, size, and spacing. Tinker (1963) found that line spacing, line length, type size, and typeface influenced each other and contributed to the readability of text. All of these led to improved word uptake and higher rates of literacy development. These higher rates were occurring due to the increased access of the written word to the public; however, the speed at which an individual learned to read would have increased as well specifically because of the printing consistency.
People are creatures of habit and like consistency. When something is unusual or out of order, it can cause frustration or confusion. When it comes to reading, the order that adjectives are used can slow the reader down if not used according to unspoken conventions. When provided with the phrases, “the big, black dog”, and “the black, big dog”, a native English speaker will rebel against the latter. If we look back to typeset, providing a reader with an unknown font results in more time needed for initial decoding of the symbols.
According to Wilkons et al. (2009), “The determination of the position of symbols within a symbol string is likely to be made more difficult if the shapes of the symbols are similar one to another, and this varies with typeface design”. This suggests that for new readers, written languages that have similar looking letters within them can be harder to interpret not only because of the commonality of the shape of the letters, but also the typeset used. If a new reader is constantly exposed to different typesets, this will slow the learning process.
References
Clement, R.W. (1997). Medieval and Renaissance Book Production: The Printed Book. In R. Clement (Ed.), Books and Universities. Retrieved, 2 July 2018, from: http://the-orb.arlima.net/encyclop/culture/books/medbook2.html
Duran, E. (2017). Case study on the effect of word repetition method supported by neurological affecting model on fluent reading. Reading Improvement, 54(4), 142-149.
Ong, W. (1982.) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.
Tinker, M. (1963). Legibility of print. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
Wilkins, A., Cleave, R., Grayson, N., & Wilson, L. (2009). Typography for children may be inappropriately designed. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(4), 402-412. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01402.
EdPawliw
July 4, 2018 — 12:37 pm
Hi Chris
Your post really got me thinking about the efficiencies of learning literacy for lack of a better turn of phrase. The mention of misplaced adjectives and print consistency brought to mind a quote from the Scroll to Codex reading. In it the writer waxes philosophically on the benefits of text and talk:
“with letters exalted, the flourishing corn-field of words yields the sweetest of harvests to the mind, as often as it meets the reader’s wish. It keeps a faithful witness of human deeds; it speaks of the past, and is the enemy of oblivion. For, even if our memory retains the content, it alters the words; but there discourse is stored in safety, to be heard for ever with consistency.”
Cassiodorus, Variae (XI.383-6) as taken from Scroll to Codex.
It isn’t so much the content of the message, but rather word flow as you mention. Taken from another generation (just before I was born), the sentence structure causes the reader pace for this to be greatly reduced as we have to synchronize with the style of the writer. This brought to mind several examples of when this was experienced. In school we studied Shakespeare where the vernacular, sentence structure, imagery, and even words used made the exercise multifaceted, one of deciphering or decoding while also discovering the plot being weaved. Even more challenging was the study of Beowulf. This old English story proved to be a major challenge, having few words recognized in the adaptation that we studied. There was no way the teacher would have been able to get a bunch of Podunk prairie pupils to decipher the original text. Another example of decoding that we probably have all seen is the scrambled letter paragraphs that mix up the spelling of words but we are still able to comprehend the message behind the mess:
“For emaxlpe, it deson’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod aepapr, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pcale. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit pobelrm.
S1M1L4RLY, Y0UR M1ND 15 R34D1NG 7H15 4U70M471C4LLY W17H0U7 3V3N 7H1NK1NG 4B0U7 17.” (Wolchover. 2012)
We can read this, even the last part where numbers are inserted to represent letters, but it is a much slower process than if it was written using correct spelling.
I think there is more to literacy than efficient uptake in language development. A consistent format will make it easier to increase the rate of literary development as you mention, but why then would we study the old works and use old passages to reinforce an argument we are attempting to make? Is learning the language the end game in itself? Unfortunately we are in an educational situation where we are pressed for results and limited to the time we have to get these results. So in a black and white world progress of the learner is objective number one.
Though I am not privy to why Granny Gordon (with apologies to Ms. Gordon my Grade 11 English teacher, she really was a sweet old lady) and Mr. Brown (Grade 12 English teacher) had us study Shakespeare and Beowulf, there was more to it now that I look back on the experience. I believe a large part of the exercise was not only exposing us to classic works, but also providing us with lessons in how to decode literary works. These strategies helped us to look beyond literacy and words to see the imagery, feel the emotion, and experience the context the writer is laying out for us through their choice of words and phrases.
Many times we are constrained to reading for content and don’t get the opportunity to read for context as well, such as in University classes. Using a particular font, media format (soft cover versus hard cover), or cover illustration all add to the experience for a specific literary work. For Stephen King fans, you may have noticed the novels The Colorado Kid and Joyland were first published in paperback and used cover art indicative of the style of pulp mystery novels of the 1930s to 1950s (spoiler alert, I got this tidbit from my documentary). This helps to evoke a certain emotion that the writer wants the reader to experience. So, is there a happy medium where we can support literacy while also exposing the learners to the intricacies of literary works with measurables that are hard to pin down in a results based society?
References:
“Beowulf.” Semiology // Semiotics, people.ucalgary.ca/~mmcgilli/ASPR/Beowfram.htm.
“Scroll and Codex.” LacusCurtius • Dionysius’ Roman Antiquities – Book I Chapters 72 90, penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/scroll/scrollcodex.html.
Wolchover, Natalie. “Breaking the Code: Why Yuor Barin Can Raed Tihs.” LiveScience, Purch, 9 Feb. 2012, http://www.livescience.com/18392-reading-jumbled-words.html.
wendyl
July 6, 2018 — 9:10 am
Hi Chris, your post got me thinking about the relationship between conformity and learning. We have changed the landscape of reading and writing and are in, as Bolter suggested 17 years ago, the late age of print. We are creatures of habit and do enjoy consistency which is precisely why old writing and reading modalities are mediated rather than replaced. I still feel that reading hypertext-ualized writing is a distracting, and slightly irritating, although I can appreciate the idea that the intertextuality of digital platforms is changing the way that we view originality. In this sense, the internet necessarily forces us to rethink our view of plagiarism. If text is being remediated to contain the “qualities of the computer (flexibility, interactivity, speed of distribution), rather than those of print (stability and authority)” (Bolter 11), then our rigid stance about what constitutes plagiarism right must also shift to a more fluid and flexible position. (btw, I rely entirely on spell check for getting plagiarism right :)). Is originality more important than learning? Today it is just as important to be a good information manager than it is to actually know something comprehensively, perhaps even more so. What it means to know something is a far different notion for my students than it is for me. I think a focus on the overt teaching of information management should take precedence over originality.
Our desire to conform is a powerful force. Way back a million years (or so) ago I took a sociology course on deviance where I learned that even the most deviant members of society conform to societal and cultural norms 99% of the time.
Jo
July 6, 2018 — 9:05 pm
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your post, it got me thinking about how best, we as educators, can use the resources of typesets and layout we have at our disposal to aid in the teaching and learning process. As a teacher, I am always seeking ways to create effective resources, and usually in the past have only mostly considered layout and visual aspects of resources I’ve made as an aside to the actual content, going no deeper than to think “Is this resource ascetically pleasing? Will my students be motivated as a result of reading/ working with it?”. After researching typeset in more detail, it has become clear that there are other obvious considerations we can make too. For example, in a fairly recent study (2013, Rella and Baeza-Yates) it was concluded that certain font types were better for students with dyslexia than others – Helvetica, Courier, Arial and Verdana being the top ones in their study. It was also found that sans serif, roman and monospaced font types increased the reading performance of participants, while italic fonts did the opposite. Lieberman (1968) defines the concept of “readability” as “the ease with which the eye can absorb the message and move along the line.” (p. 85) As mentioned already, readability is affected by not only the typeface used but also letter- and word-spacing, leading, measure, margins, quality of printing, the paper, and so on. When I consider all of this now, it all seems perfectly obvious, although I recognize it is an art to attain “perfect readability” and will for sure consider these when creating future educational resources.
References:
Burtt, H. E. (1949). Typography and readability. New York: National Society for the Prevention of Blindness.
Lieberman, B. J. (1968). Types of typefaces and how to recognize them. New York: Sterling Pub.
Rello, L., & Baeza-Yates, R. (2013). Good fonts for dyslexia. Proceedings of the 15th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility – ASSETS 13. doi:10.1145/2513383.2513447