{TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION L. 701 
_ Professor Schumann, of Zurich, mentions several instances of children, both 
feeble-minded and intelligent, who have learned to read more readily by the 
‘Look-and-Say’ than by the ‘Phonic’ method; in particular, the case of a 
normal child who ‘in three months, with half-an-hour’s teaching and _ half-an- 
hour’s homework per day, got through the whole of the first year’s work in 
reading.’ Many other instances could be cited. 
(d) Meaning is prominent from the first when the ‘Look-and-Say’ method is 
adopted. With the ‘Phonic’ method, however, the consideration of sounds must 
obscure everything else in the early stages. Moreover, the sounds in question 
(the powers of the letters) are most uncongenial material for children—if not for 
adults. With the ‘Look-and-Say’ method, therefore the true object of reading 
can be obtained in some degree in the earliest stages. A real interest in litera- 
ture can be cultivated from the first, whereas with the ‘ Phonic’ method there 
is a grave danger of killing this interest by the laborious preliminary work with 
meaningless elementary sounds. It is to be further noted that in fluent reading 
the meaning already gathered facilitates further reading. ‘The direction of the 
apperception proceeds in most cases from an anticipation of the meaning as 
determined by the context.’* In such cases we do not need to scrutinise every 
word. Now this facilitation of the reading process can begin much more early 
with ‘ Look-and-Say ’ children, who gather more meaning than ‘ Phonic’ children, 
and who may indeed be allowed to ‘ guess’ whenever they are in doubt. 
(e) Reading can be an occasional and pleasant variation of the school work 
during the early stages, when the ‘Look-and-Say’ method is adopted. 
(f) Zhe unphonetic character of English spelling renders the ‘ Phonic’ method 
much more difficult, and the ‘ Look-and-Say ’ method much more suitable, than is 
the case with a language like German. It is sometimes stated by ‘ Phonic’ 
enthusiasts that only about a quarter of our words are irregularly spelt. It 
would be nearer the truth to reverse the proportion, and admit that three- 
quarters of our words are more or less irregular in spelling. The test can easily 
be made. 
(2) Against. 
(a) The speech-training of the ‘Phonic’ method is lacking in the ‘ Look-and- 
Say’ method. To hear some ‘Phonic’ enthusiasts one would imagine that the 
child on arrival at school cannot speak at all. Good pronunciation is, of course, 
most necessary. But it is largely an affair of imitation by ear, and if it were 
attended to at all times, there would be no necessity to concentrate upon it in the 
reading lesson. It is all the more important to avoid this in the early stages, 
because the children require all their available attention for the difficulties of 
word recognition. One thing at a time! should be the motto with young children. 
(b) New words are said to present an insuperable difficulty to ‘Look-and- 
Say’ children. But experiments have shown that the power to attack new words 
develops very rapidly.. And even where in the early stages it is wanting, the 
teacher is there to help. 
(c) Guessing is said to be fostered by the ‘ Look-and-Say’ method. But this 
is not really ‘ guessing’ in the usual sense. It is what Meumann has described as 
“an anticipation of the meaning as determined by the context.’ And it is in itself 
a proof that real reading has been performed with the foregoing text. Errors 
will tend to correct themselves. But, once again, the teacher is there to help 
in the early stages. 
(d) Imperfect perception of words occurs with the ‘ Look-and-Say’ method. 
Words of similar appearance are often confused. In this difficulty the ‘Look- 
and-Say ’ method can borrow a trick from the opposed method. Careful analysis 
and synthesis may take place in these cases. To improve, however, the sharpness 
of perception of word-wholes, tachistoscopic exercises can be performed. I have 
myself devised a crude form of apparatus for this purpose. 
* ‘Psychologie des Lesens,’ Bericht tiber den I]. Kongress fiir experimentelte 
Psychologie (1906), p. 158. 
?Meumann, Vorlesungen, II., pp. 264-5. 
