Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Interpreting Text?

This is topic Interpreting Text? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002485

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-14-2003, 04:17 AM:

I'm not yet 100% convinced about this, but it is interesting:

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Perhaps this is just an excuse for the moron teenagers who spell this way naturally to be accepted into society? [Smile]

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 09-14-2003, 04:46 AM:

-t -s -ls- p-ssbl- t- r--d t-xt w-th--t v-w-ls. w- -ll kn-w w- r--d w-rds l-k- - s-mb-l. b-t s-me n--d t- m-k- th-s th- s-bj-ct -f - sc--nt-f-c st-d-, f-nn-.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-14-2003, 05:19 AM:

I definitely had a more difficult time reading Michael's post. I actually had to slow down and think. Myb f h ddn't typ dshs, t wld hv bn mr smpl t rd.

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 09-14-2003, 10:40 AM:

Hebrew and Yiddish are usually written without vowels, although a couple of consonants can double as vowels, and for beginners, diacritical marks can be added below as pronunciation guides. But for readers who know the languages, the vowels are not needed, which must save the publishers of newspapers and books much in the way of newsprint and ink.

Traveling in Yugoslavia around Capodistria (Koper) many years ago I noticed that the street and highway signs, in the Latin alphabet, were written entirely in consonants.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 09-14-2003, 12:45 PM:

That's cool, I didn't even realize that what I was reading was misspeled untill about halfway through Joe's post.

Mike: - d-ss-gr--. - h-d - v-ry h-rd t-m- r--d-ng y--r p-st.

Posted by Jannette McQueen (Member # 1885) on 09-14-2003, 11:57 PM:

;_; .... brain cells .... dying ....

Posted by Oscar Neundorfer (Member # 458) on 09-15-2003, 07:54 AM:

I just started reading Joe's funny text, and I was also about halfway through before I realized something was not quite right. What is REALLY bad is that I am the resident proofreader here at work, and I catch even VERY minor things without too much trouble. So why did it take me so long to realize the absolutley ATROCIOUS problems with this text?

I think I will surrender my proofreader's license. [Frown]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-15-2003, 11:41 AM:

Oscar, given your job, I hope you'll tell us that your spelling of "absolutely" above was done for humorous effect. [Smile]

Posted by Steve Anderson (Member # 364) on 09-15-2003, 11:50 AM:

Joe you have too much time on your hands....and brain.

Posted by Oscar Neundorfer (Member # 458) on 09-15-2003, 12:03 PM:

Mike,

"Yes of course it was for humorous effect", (he says as he slinks off into hiding).

Now I KNOW I have to turn in my proofreader's license. Fortunately it is not my primary job.

Actually it is Joe's fault!! His screwy text has done permanent damage to me. Maybe I should sue!! There should be a warning on this topic.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-15-2003, 05:53 PM:

Hey Steve I wasn't the one who did the study! If I did have that much time on my hands, I'd do a long study of why large sums of money make me happy. This needs to be researched.

Sorry for frying your brain, Oscar. [Smile]

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-18-2003, 02:09 PM:

I disagree with the conclusion that the study proves that we process words as wholes. Of course, I'm taking it for granted that (a) the study actually took place and (b) that was really the conclusion drawn.

Just because I can interpret Joe's initial post does not mean that I "see" words instead of "reading" them. It certainly proves that simply jumbling the letters will not inhibit my ability to interpret the text.

I think that we do, in fact, attempt read the letters in sequence during our first pass. Very familiar words -- especially short ones -- are probably taken as whole units, or else they are processed so quickly as to make it difficult to say whether we "read" or "see" the word.

If the letters get jumbled -- or a typographical error is introduced -- then the reader resorts to a different mode of interpretation. This is probably the part of the brain that helps us solve certain kinds of word puzzles.

Another thing that helps is context. I wonder how much more difficult it would be to read completely jumbled words that did not conform to the usual syntax.

Really, I think that reading is simply a decoding process. If the usual process doesn't produce expected results then we resort to other means of decoding the text until we arrive at a method that works. Joe's initial post wasn't heavily encoded; all the letters were there. Michael's code took all the vowels away and that made things a little more difficult. The more layers of complexity, the further away from normal written representation, the harder it will be to decode. As the difficulty level increases, the odds of someone being able to decode it decrease.

Whatever the method, one's ability to process the text quickly will improve with practice, provided that the code is cracked in the first place.

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 09-18-2003, 02:38 PM:

So, does this theory prove the dyslexia doesn't exist?

I noticed pretty early on that the text in Joe's post was "off" however what supprised me was how easy it was to acutally read.

Took me a while to adjust to Michael's method, but eventually I could read it too. Bizarre.