But reading stands in a direct relation with writing. Here there are no sounds to be heard or pronounced. The individual, all by himself, can put himself into communication not only with human beings actually alive on the earth, but also with those who lived centuries and centuries ago down to the dawn of history. Such communication is made possible not by sound but by the written symbol. The mind takes in these symbols in silence. Books are mute, as far as sound is concerned.
It follows that reading aloud is a combination of two distinct operations, of two "languages." It is something far more complex than speaking and reading taken separately by themselves. In reading aloud the child speaks not to express his own thoughts, but thoughts revealed by the written symbol. The "word" in this case no longer has that natural stimulus from within which creation gives it. In fact, it is something forced and monotonous, something like the language of the deaf-mute. Words which are the product of the interpretation of individual alphabetical symbols come with effort, and the meaning which comes from the interpretation of the entire sentence, as the eye reads word by word, and translates into sound, is apprehended and reduced to expression with great difficulty. To give a fairly intelligible expression to the meaning, the eyes have been obliged rapidly to traverse the sentence as a whole, while the tongue has been laboriously and monotonously pronouncing one word after another. Just imagine adding to such a complex problem for the child of the primary schools the additional task of correcting his pronunciation! It is no wonder that reading is one of the rocks on which the rudderless ship of elementary education inevitably runs aground.
Interpreted reading: "Take off your hat and make a low bow." (A Montessori School in Italy.)
| Composition of words | writing | mechanical grammatical (controlled by translation into action) narration and description | ||
| reading | mechanical interpretative expressed (aloud) | grammatical (translations into action)[5] declamatory (elocution) |
The experiments we have succeeded in conducting on the subject of reading are perhaps among the most complete we have made. We found the key to the problem when we discovered that the child passed from the mental reading of the words written on the cards directly to interpretation in action. This interpretation, ready and facile, as all the acts of children are, reveals to us what the child has understood and accordingly what he is capable of understanding. We have thus been able to obtain an experimental graduation of passages for reading, which on being gathered together, show the nature of the difficulties which successively present themselves to the child. The children have made for themselves specimen clauses and sentences which an expert grammarian could not have devised better for facilitating the study of language. As we went on with this work, we became more and more convinced that the study of grammar may be made a help in the up-building of the child's language and that it makes its influence felt in reading and in the written composition. The table ([p. 175]) may be useful in showing the successive steps actually traversed by the child in the phenomena of reading.
The fundamental point to realize is that interpretation alone constitutes true reading. Reading aloud, on the other hand, is a combination of reading and articulate expression, in other words, a combination involving the two great mechanisms of the spoken language and the written language. Reading aloud permits an audience to take part in the reading communicated to it by means of articulate speech. Even here, the mental effort required to listen to the voice of a man passionately interested in the narration of things which he himself has experienced is not the same as that demanded in listening to a reading of the same things by a person who has not experienced them, and who, to narrate them, must perform the rapid and intense effort of interpretation. In this reading, so to speak, by "transmission," the most serious difficulties are encountered. We all know by experience how difficult it is to endure a reading, and how rare an endowment the "gift of reading" is. However, the person who is thus gifted can get a hearing almost as well as the person who speaks. The teaching of reading, then, in this sense, is not merely the teaching of the interpretation of the meaning,—all that would be necessary, if the sole function of reading were to gain new ideas for the reader. Reading, thus conceived, represents really the addition of an art of expression to simple reading, and since this expressive art is purely dramatic, the teaching of reading involves the development of dramatic art. Only through dramatic art can the transmission of reading to a group of people be made possible.
It is clear that the oftener the exercise of identifying oneself with what is read is repeated and perfected, the greater the possibility of expression becomes. It follows that in the perfection of this art we should be less concerned with timbre, with tone of voice and gestures, all extrinsic aspects of this art, than with intense vivid interpretation which brings the child to an identification of himself with what he reads. And this interpretation will realize its objects if it is practised as a habit and as a form of reading.
The proof of correct interpretation was the child's ability to reproduce in action what was described in the words he read. Similarly, the proof of the interpretation in reading aloud is the repetition of the things heard by means of the spoken language. That is, the children, in order to prove to us that they have understood something read aloud, should be able to repeat in narrative form what they have heard.
The practical results of our efforts in this direction were very interesting to watch. Some children can say nothing. Others offer to tell the whole story. Their story is not clear or perhaps it is defective in some respect. Immediately other children are ready to correct the ones telling the story: "No, no, that's not what happened, that's not what happened," or, "Wait, you have forgotten something," and so on. In fact, to understand and to be able to narrate what has been understood is not the same thing. In telling a story there is a successive unfolding of very complex mental activities which are based on and added to the primal activity of "having understood." It is a question again of the three different stages noted by us in the first lessons given to children: