The dynamics of written language acquisition.

dc.creator	Uppstad, P.H.
dc.date	2006-05-01T00:00:00Z
dc.date.accessioned	2015-07-20T22:12:35Z
dc.date.available	2015-07-20T22:12:35Z
dc.identifier	1567-6617
dc.identifier	1573-1731
dc.identifier	https://doaj.org/article/da0e17c20aa743ed872c8bb917d7b2f9
dc.identifier.uri	http://evidence.thinkportal.org/handle/123456789/15347
dc.description	Written language skills are dynamic, they develop differently in individuals and are acquired in multiple ways and contexts. Paradoxically, mainstream research on and teaching of these skills is based on a linguistic philosophy that has always valued highly systematic – and static – descriptions. The problem of static perspectives is that they describe only a proficiency related to structures at a given point in time, without any flexible model of reading and writing behaviour. In the present article I claim the so- called 'alphabetical principle' to be an unfortunate product of static perspectives, and which has a very limited relevance when we want to seize the dynamics of written language acquisition. A consequence of my position is that it does not make sense to polemicize whether one should teach 'phonics' or 'whole language'. Before we search for a narrow perspective – a teaching method – we must assure that the basic assumptions we choose to lean on are the best possible. After doing so, we may end up with a narrow perspective that may involve some aspects of what we today know as both 'phonics' or 'whole language'. But the most important goal is that such perspective should make teachers and researchers capable of seizing the dynamics of written language acquisition. In the present article, an alternative approach is suggested in order to maintain dynamic perspectives on written-language acquisition. This approach degrades the role of traditional linguistic description, such as the 'phoneme', focusing instead on a psychological model of ‘skill’ in which linguistic structures in spoken language play a role as possible cues in the acquisition of written language. It is claimed that this model also carries greater potential for explanation than do static approaches.
dc.language	English
dc.publisher	Springer
dc.relation	http://l1.publication-archive.com/next?cont=ZKADrSzymJ4=
dc.relation	https://doaj.org/toc/1567-6617
dc.relation	https://doaj.org/toc/1573-1731
dc.rights	CC BY-NC-ND
dc.source	L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature, Vol 6, Iss 1, Pp 63-83 (2006)
dc.subject	acquisition
dc.subject	alphabetical principle
dc.subject	connectionism
dc.subject	phonology
dc.subject	skill
dc.subject	Philology. Linguistics
dc.subject	P1-1091
dc.subject	Language and Literature
dc.subject	P
dc.subject	DOAJ:Linguistics
dc.subject	DOAJ:Languages and Literatures
dc.subject	Theory and practice of education
dc.subject	LB5-3640
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	DOAJ:Education
dc.subject	DOAJ:Social Sciences
dc.subject	Philology. Linguistics
dc.subject	P1-1091
dc.subject	Language and Literature
dc.subject	P
dc.subject	DOAJ:Linguistics
dc.subject	DOAJ:Languages and Literatures
dc.subject	Theory and practice of education
dc.subject	LB5-3640
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	DOAJ:Education
dc.subject	DOAJ:Social Sciences
dc.subject	Philology. Linguistics
dc.subject	P1-1091
dc.subject	Language and Literature
dc.subject	P
dc.subject	Theory and practice of education
dc.subject	LB5-3640
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	Philology. Linguistics
dc.subject	P1-1091
dc.subject	Language and Literature
dc.subject	P
dc.subject	Theory and practice of education
dc.subject	LB5-3640
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	Philology. Linguistics
dc.subject	P1-1091
dc.subject	Language and Literature
dc.subject	P
dc.subject	Theory and practice of education
dc.subject	LB5-3640
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.title	The dynamics of written language acquisition.
dc.type	article