Chapter 9: The relation of speech to reading and writing.
| Number | 841 |
|---|---|
| Year | 1992 |
| Drawer | 15 |
| Entry Date | 07/20/1998 |
| Authors | Liberman, Alvin M. |
| Contact | |
| Publication | Orthography, Phonology, Morphology, and Meaning, edited by R. Frost and L. Katz. Elsevier Science Publishers, B.V. 167-178. |
| url | http://www.haskins.yale.edu/Reprints/HL0841.pdf |
| Abstract | Theories of reading/writing and theories of speech typically have in common that neither takes proper account of an obvious fact about language that must, in any reckoning, be critically relevant to both: there is a vast difference in naturalness (hence ease of use) between its spoken and written forms. In my view, a theory of reading should begin with this fact, but only after a theory of speech has explained it. My aim, then, is to say how well the difference in naturalness is illuminated by each of two theories of speech - one conventional, the other less so - and then, in that light, to weigh the contribution that each of these can make to an understanding of reading and writing and the difficulties that attend them. More broadly, I aim to promote the notion that a theory of speech and a theory of reading/writing are inseparable, and that the validity of the one is measured, in no small part, by its fit to the other. |
| Notes |
Search Publications