"Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in
waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht
frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl
mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do
not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe. ceehiro."
Posted more than eight years ago (!) at Language Hat, and discussed at length there.
Via The Dish.
While reading that above I found that it only works with word we are familiar with. That ceehiro at the end was like a speed bump to my reading. I also wonder how it effects those who don't vocalize the words in their interior monologue.
ReplyDeleteI don't subvocalize when I read, and I have no problem reading that paragraph. For whatever reason, I recognized the last word.
DeleteAndrew Sullivan's blog on The Daily Beast has a post on this that includes another similar paragraph with bigger, less common words that were more thoroughly scrambled, and I had to pause on a number of those to figure them out. I also noticed, however, that word order played a role. There were two instances in that paragraph where the word order wasn't quite what I would have expected, and I stumbled over the words there as well.
--Swift Loris
Could you please include a link or URL for that paragraph on The Daily Beast. I would like to have a look at it.
DeleteHere you go -
Deletehttp://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/02/totes-cray-cray-abbrevs-ctd.html
It's very interesting and challenges how the written word has been thought to operate. I wonder if the same technique works with handwritten script?
ReplyDeleteIt works in Spanish, too.
ReplyDeleteWhile that is mostly a neat trick (with less common and longer words it does not work at all), it does make a good point: we *don't* actually read every letter of a word. We learn to recognize words as a whole. This is why english's irregular spelling isn't a problem once you've learned it. We read in words.
ReplyDeleteAs for subvocalizing words, I have the understanding that "speed reading" suppresses it, but I really can't imagine reading something without it. I'm honestly quite skeptical it's possible to read something without subvocalizing it- unless some people think in written words. I sure don't.
Randeig scuh stecnnees gvies smoe plopee (mseylf dicenlud) hdeeeahcs.
ReplyDeleteZ, you misspelled "dicenlud." (first and last letters supposed to be unchanged)
Delete:.)
p.s. - I really struggled with "stecnnees." Without the context of a sentence, a nine-letter anagram would be very difficult.
Looks like I failed on "hdeeeahcs", too, but I'll blame both on the hdaeahce ;)
DeleteTwdbikywi: Things we discovered because I knew you were interested
ReplyDelete:.)
Delete