[MUSIC] At this stage of inquiry, it is not possible to implement a comprehensive test of our hypothesis that once written text is made available during the first years of life, reading will be learned inductively and emerge naturally. We will show, however, that children had the hardware and software to acquire written language once it is made available. The lack of direct evidence does not make this discussion premature because a presentation of this kind is necessary to overcome the inertia shown by researchers and educators with regard to early reading. Early in life is when the brain is highly plastic, which is known as an important factor in learning a new skill, it takes 5 or 10 thousand hours of practice to become an expert in many different domains that have been studied, ranging from programming to playing a musical instrument. Children simply don't get this type of focused experience with written language until schooling begins, and many years after they have been practicing speech. To summarize, the proposition being considered is that reading can also be acquired inductively in the same manner as speech understanding, emerge naturally, and with no significant negative consequences. My hypothesis is that the acquisition of reading only requires that infants, toddlers, and preschool children be consistently exposed to an appropriate form of written text coupled with their meaningful experience. This situation has not yet occurred, but with technological development, such as mobile displays, intelligent watches, and heads up displays, it is becoming more and more feasible. During our travelogue, we will study a variety of research on language acquisition while considering the question whether the sensory, perceptual, cognitive, and learning processes responsible for language acquisition via spoken language or sign language generalized to other domains such as reading written language, or whether they are unique. Noam Chomsky, a well known linguist and political activist, claims that language is not linked solely to the auditory modality and uses sign language and Tadoma as examples. It is not known whether he would be open to reading as another possible language domain. My proposition, putting reading on an equal par with speech, is in sharp contrast to the consensus in the field. One linguist told me blatantly that reading isn't language. Notwithstanding this extreme view, language is usually aligned with speech and not reading. And the consensus in the field is that speech is somehow unique and reading is artificial. As observed by Harvard professor, Steven Pinker, in his engaging and thoughtful manifesto for nativism, The Blank Slate, children acquire spoken language instinctively but written language only by the sweat of their brow. Because spoken language has been a feature of human life for tens or hundreds of millennia, whereas written language is a recent and slow spreading invention. The research we explore uses the scientific method to explore this question. As described by Robert Pirsig, in his book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, the real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure nature hasn't misled you into thinking you know something you actually don't know. We should keep in mind that the endeavor of psychological inquiry is unique among all sciences in one important respect. The behavioral scientist hopes to understand phenomena which themselves are critically involved in the process of understanding. Ultimately, the subject matter of the psychologist is the psychologist. MC Escher's Drawing Hands sums up our dilemma more vividly than might any verbal description. The scientific process isn't easy, and there are number of barriers to behavioral inquiry. One of the consequences of playing the role of both scientist and subject is that our intuition is too often clouded by our experience, which too often misleads us into believing what is not so. Behavioral science continues to document the fallibility of our perceptions and memories. But this evidence seldom outweighs the influence of these experiences on our beliefs about ourselves. Our direct experience often determines our beliefs and actions more than does being schooled on empirical research and theoretical finding. To illustrate how misleading our experience can be, and to illustrate a fundamental law about language perception, meet our computer animated talking head, Baldi. Not withstanding his cyber looks, Baldi was programmed to convey accurate speech and emotion. Baldi will say a sequence of syllables, like ga, va, da, ba, da and so on. Simply watch him and listen and keep track of what you perceive. Here is a sequence of four syllables. Write down the sequence you understood. >> Most likely your answers changed across the sequence of four syllables. In fact, the auditory syllable aligned with Baldi’s mouth was always ba. However, Baldi’s mouth was articulating ba, va, tha, and da. Thus Baldi’s facial movements were influencing what you heard. If you don't believe me, you can close your eyes and I'll play the sequence again, or you can watch and listen again and learn that knowing what is being presented is unlikely to change your perception. >> An important caveat is necessary for non-English native speakers. You might not have experience the illusion. This most likely would occur if your native language doesn't have the va or tha segments. In this case, a comparable demonstration in your native language can be made by opposing face and voice speech segments in a similar manner. The important psychological principle illustrated by this demonstration is that perceivers are expert at using multiple sources of information for understanding. In this case, the face and the voice. We will encounter many more similar phenomena illustrating the importance of multiple sources of information in both spoken and written language. [MUSIC]
