More Abstract Words

I’ve heard from a few ltRRtl readers with requests for documentation of the previous post. The concreteness effect (readers process and remember concrete words with more facility than they do abstract words) was discussed as early as the 1970s. The reference list in Sadoski and Paivio (2013) contains breadcrumbs. If anyone is interested, I can link to some of the earlier studies. Let me know.

The role of concrete vs. abstract words is still unclear in 2023, a focus of ongoing research from lots of angles which needs a thorough airing before we write more laws outlawing picture walks and putting a crown on phonics. For one thing, concreteness vs abstraction is not simply binary or even amenable to a number line, but complex in a continuum or waves. Is ‘glove’ more or less concrete than ‘baseball’? Theoretically, the affordances of the brain have shaped language and language behavior using available body equipment within cultural communities to help human beings communicate—and the affordances of language have expanded and reshaped the wires of the brain. I’ve always had problems wrapping my mind around the assertion that reading is not a natural process. That’s like saying cultural production and reproduction is not natural for humans. Phonics first and alone is a problematic solution which may actually turn out to be counterproductive.

I’ve edited yesterday’s post to include two theoretical pieces. One piece includes David Pearson, who we will get a chance to hear from in a podcast on ltRRtl later this month. The 2021 article in the link may raise a question or two you’d like to hear David speak about. I’d like to make this access to David as useful to you as I can. Your questions will help me accomplish this goal.

As always, thank you for reading. Without you I would be watching the legacy of the Whole Language years disintegrate by myself. It’s very difficult to watch without trying to help. There are no innocent bystanders.