Learning Words Using Traditional Orthography and the Symbols of Rebus, Bliss, and Carrier

Abstract

This study compared the learning of words represented in traditional orthography (T.O.) and in the logographic symbols of Rebus, Bliss, and Carrier. Subjects, 36 preschool children ages 4.3 to 5.4, were presented a short task requiring the learning of 15 words in one of the four graphic conditions, Rebus, Bliss, Carrier, to T.O. The results showed that the logographic symbols as a group were significantly easier to learn than T.O., the partially iconic systems of Rebus and Bliss were significantly easier to learn than the Carrier symbols, and Rebus symbols were significantly easier to learn than Bliss symbols. Implications for the instructional use of logographic systems are discussed.

Selecting graphic symbols for an initial request lexicon: integrative review

“…Augment Altern Commun Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Nanyang Technological University on 08/25/15 Chiwetalu, 1992), multiple disabilities (Hurlbut, Iwata, & Green, 1982), autism (Kozleski, 1991b), and receptive language delays (Burroughs, Albritton, Eaton, & Montague, 1990). In addition, the iconicity hypothesis is supported for persons without disabilities (Clark, 1981;Ecklund & Reichle, 1987;Fuller, 1997;Hayes, 1996;Luftig & Bersani, 1985a, b;Mizuko, 1987;Shalit, 1991;Yovetich & Young, 1988) (Table 1). Table 1 reveals that studies in support of iconicity have generally focused on nouns; if a few words of other parts of speech were included, they were not analyzed separately.…”

Exploring visual-graphic symbol acquisition by pre-school age children with developmental and language delays

“…It is unclear what specific factors may have influenced the outcomes. Perhaps the structure of the task in Clark's (1981) and Mizuko's (1987) studies favored the learning of the iconic over arbitrary symbol sets. The participants were required to comprehend the referents in order to map the spoken label of the referent to the symbol.…”

“…Rebus symbols were the highest mean number of symbols learned (14.44), and the traditional orthography group had the lowest mean number of symbols learned (3.44). Clark (1981) suggested that the ease of acquisition of highly iconic symbols should be considered when developing a symbol vocabulary for children with intellectual disabilities who do not speak. Clark (1981) and Mizuko (1987) reported that children without disabilities above the age of 3 more readily learned iconic visual-graphic symbols than arbitrary ones, while Namy et al (2004) found that, for 4-year-olds, the iconicity of symbolic gestures did not influence the ease of learning symbol-referent relationships; however, for 26-month-olds it did.…”

“…In these studies, the participants were not first shown the referent prior to visually mapping the symbol, whereas in Namy et al's (2004) study, the participants were shown the object referent while learning the symbol for it. Since a greater emphasis was placed on auditory memory in the Clark (1981) and Mizuko (1987) studies, this required the visual stimuli to be stored for shortterm retrieval. It may have been easier to remember the iconic symbols over the arbitrary ones because their perceptual features resembled their already comprehended referents.…”

“…Three trials were administered to teach each of the 45 vocabulary items. Clark (1981) investigated the ease of learning logographic symbols that varied in iconicity (Carrier Non-SLIP, Blissymbols, and Rebus) versus traditional orthography, by 36 children between the ages of 4:3 and 5:4. The children were randomly divided into four treatment groups of eight children each.…”