Another Take on Reading: the Case of Japanese

My recent trip to Japan challenged me in an entirely new way.  As a proficient reader and writer of English, I take alphabetic writing for granted and am comfortable with Roman letters in the languages that use them. Russian and Greek also seem close enough that I believe I could fairly easily learn what the letters represent in the spoken language.

Then there's Japanese. In two weeks, I never knew which of their three linked writing systems I was seeing. I did not learn to recognize a single character in Kanji, Hiragana, or Katakana. So today I turned to Google to find out a little more.

It turns out that the orthography used for beginning reading, Hiragana, has "only" 46 characters. Each Hiragana character is formed with at least three strokes, with seven strokes being the maximum. While there are no reverse letters like b and d, p and q, there are many characters of six and seven strokes that closely resemble one another to an inexperienced reader. And these strokes can curve all over the place and cross each other. Unlike most Western alphabetic orthographies, Hiragana characters represent syllables rather than phonemes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiragana#Table_of_hiragana

Holy cow! Japanese children can read most or all of the Hiragana (syllabic) characters by the end of kindergarten. Dyslexia is rare.

We have often attributed superior academic achievement of Japanese children to cultural or structural elements of their schooling. I started thinking about the more micro level of the connections among developmental factors (visual vs. auditory cortex of the brain), informal and formal preparation for reading, and the instructional strategies that are used.

Japanese children are introduced to and expected to learn written language content that is very much more visually challenging than the English alphabet. At the same time, the characters represent syllables, a pattern of sound that is more cognitively and acoustically authentic than the more abstract phonemic segments that correspond to English letters.

It makes me wonder if our emphasis on a fairly primitive version of "phonics," based on the artificial segmentation of speech sounds, makes life more difficult for our young readers. The Hiragana system, with its greater load on visual processing and lighter load on auditory perception than English "phonics," raises a question about brain development. Are humans at ages 4 and 5 more "ready" to deal with concrete graphic distinctions than with the much more ephemeral and artificial auditory segments emphasized in English literacy?

We have tended to work preschool children's auditory processing much harder than their visual in our pre-literacy teaching efforts. Is it possible that we are wasting some of their visual learning potential by not looking for more ways to stimulate and challenge a readiness for graphic analysis that may be superior to their auditory discrimination? Or is it possible that we are wasting auditory learning potential by teaching a phonemic level of analysis rather than one based on the more natural acoustic unit of the syllable?

I've always been skeptical of systems that fail to develop areas of strength while over-working areas of weakness. I've opposed so-called phonemic segmentation practice for kindergartners as backwards to the natural sequence of learning, a time-waster for kids under a certain age who may be quite ready to deal with graphic material. Why couldn't they be doing fun and interesting activities (art? science?) that build on a readiness in visual discrimination and analysis rather than forcing them through cognitive tasks more appropriate to where their brains will be at age 7?

I could be all wet. I imagine there's a body of research on all of this, and right now I have way more questions than answers.