Page 156 - Literacy in the New Media Age

READING AS SEMIOSIS 145

Figure 9.2 ‘Early’ child writing in an alphabetic writing culture
which is performed on the elements and the structure of the original, carried out
in line with the interests of the reader.
In this instance the sign that was produced outwardly had followed quickly on
the reading of the initial sign. I make the assumption that the ‘inner’ sign
produced by the child had strong similarities to this outwardly produced sign,
and from that I feel able to deduce some ideas about how she has read.
These would include the assumption that she paid very close attention to the
characteristics of the structure that she had read, that she read these in terms of
principles which she already held, or ‘had’, so that the transformed sign was the
product of the original sign transformed in line with the interested action of the
child. Such an approach promises an insight into the child’s actions and, beyond
that, an insight into the processes of reading much more generally.
My second example (Figure 9.2) is much like the first, and I give it here as
support of this approach. It concerns what is sometimes called ‘emergent
writing’, produced by the same child, growing up in an alphabetic writing
culture, in England.
There is a temptation to treat this as ‘scribble’, as the (3-year-old) child’s
(unprincipled) attempt at imitating the appearance of writing, and of course, to
some extent that is right. But the contrast with Figure 9.3 shows that there is
much more to this than the dismissive term ‘scribble’ would lead us to imagine:
Figure 9.3 is the ‘emergent writing’ of another 3-year-old child growing up in a
ideographic writing culture, in Taiwan.
The comparison of the two examples shows that each of the two children has
applied principles to their rendering of the script system of their respective
cultures. We can attempt to read off – using the notion of the motivated sign –
what each of the two regards as the underlying logic of each script. The first
child’s ‘sign’ suggests that she sees writing as consisting of linking of simple
elements, which do not differ much from each other; which are repeated, in
sequence, conjoined; and which are arranged in lines. The second child’s ‘sign’
suggests that she sees writing as consisting of complex elements, not linked; each
element distinct in shape from the others, not repeated; in a sequence, each
discrete, and arranged in lines.
When we see each example by itself, in isolation, it is difficult to see the
transformative work done by the children, to see the meaningful signs made by
them in their reading. The contrast and the comparison reveal what is otherwise
not so clearly apparent, namely the semiotic work that is done here. Each of the