Other 20th-century philosophers such as Gilbert Ryle and A.J. Ayer were critical of Husserl's concept of intentionality and his many layers of consciousness. Ryle insisted that perceiving is not a process, and Ayer that describing one's knowledge is not to describe mental processes. The effect of these positions is that consciousness is so fully intentional that the mental act has been emptied of all content, and that the idea of pure consciousness is that it is nothing. (Sartre also referred to "consciousness" as "nothing").


Platonist Roderick Chisholm has revived the Brentano thesis through linguistic analysis, distinguishing two parts to Brentano's concept, the ontological aspect and the psychological aspect. Chisholm's writings have attempted to summarize the suitable and unsuitable criteria of the concept since the Scholastics, arriving at a criterion of intentionality identified by the two aspects of Brentano's thesis and defined by the logical properties that distinguish language describing psychological phenomena from language describing non-psychological phenomena. Chisholm's criteria for the intentional use of sentences are: existence independence, truth-value indifference, and referential opacity.


In current artificial intelligence and philosophy of mind, intentionality is sometimes linked with questions of semantic inference, with both skeptical and supportive adherents. John Searle argued for this position with the Chinese room thought experiment, according to which no syntactic operations that occurred in a computer would provide it with semantic content. Others are more skeptical of the human ability to make such an assertion, arguing that the kind of intentionality that emerges from self-organizing networks of automata will always be undecidable because it will never be possible to make our subjective introspective experience of intentionality and decision making coincide with our objective observation of the behavior of a self-organizing machine.


A central issue for theories of intentionality has been the problem of intentional inexistence: to determine the ontological status of the entities which are the objects of intentional states. This is particularly relevant for cases involving objects that have no existence outside the mind, as in the case of mere fantasies or hallucinations.


For example, assume that Mary is thinking about Superman. On the one hand, it seems that this thought is intentional: Mary is "thinking about something". On the other hand, Superman "doesn't exist". This suggests that Mary is either "not thinking about something" or that Mary is "thinking about something that doesn't exist". Various theories have been proposed in order to reconcile these conflicting intuitions. These theories can roughly be divided into "eliminativism", "relationalism", and "adverbialism". Eliminativists deny that this kind of problematic mental state is possible. Relationalist try to solve the problem by interpreting intentional states as relations while adverbialists interpret them as properties.


Eliminativists deny that the example above is possible. It might seem to us and to Mary that she is thinking about something but she is not really thinking at all. Such a position could be motivated by a form of semantic externalism, the view that the meaning of a term, or in this example the content of a thought, is determined by factors external to the subject. If meaning depends on successful reference then failing to refer would result in a lack of meaning. The difficulty for such a position is to explain why it seems to Mary that she is thinking about something and how seeming to think is different from actual thinking.


Relationalists hold that having an intentional state involves standing in a relation to the intentional object. This is the most natural position for non-problematic cases. So if Mary perceives a tree, we might say that a perceptual relation holds between Mary, the subject of this relation, and the tree, the object of this relation. Relations are usually assumed to be existence-entailing: the instance of a relation entails the existence of its relata. This principle rules out that we can bear relations to non-existing entities. One way to solve the problem is to deny this principle and argue for a kind of "intentionality exceptionalism": that intentionality is different from all other relations in the sense that this principle doesn't apply to it.


Dennett's taxonomy of current theories about intentionality.


Daniel Dennett offers a taxonomy of the current theories about intentionality in Chapter 10 of his book "The Intentional Stance". Most, if not all, current theories on intentionality accept Brentano's thesis of the irreducibility of intentional idiom. From this thesis the following positions emerge:


Roderick Chisholm (1956), G.E.M. Anscombe (1957), Peter Geach (1957), and Charles Taylor (1964) all adhere to the former position, namely that intentional idiom is problematic and cannot be integrated with the natural sciences. Members of this category also maintain realism in regard to intentional objects, which may imply some kind of dualism (though this is debatable).


The latter position, which maintains the unity of intentionality with the natural sciences, is further divided into three standpoints:


Proponents of the "eliminative materialism", understand intentional idiom, such as "belief", "desire", and the like, to be replaceable either with behavioristic language (e.g. Quine) or with the language of neuroscience (e.g. Churchland).


Holders of "realism" argue that there is a deeper fact of the matter to both translation and belief attribution. In other words, manuals for translating one language into another cannot be set up in different yet behaviorally identical ways and ontologically there are intentional objects. Famously, Fodor has attempted to ground such realist claims about intentionality in a language of thought. Dennett comments on this issue, Fodor "attempt[s] to make these irreducible realities acceptable to the physical sciences by grounding them (somehow) in the 'syntax' of a system of physically realized mental representations" (Dennett 1987, 345).


They are further divided into two theses:


Advocates of the former, the Normative Principle, argue that attributions of intentional idioms to physical systems should be the propositional attitudes that the physical system ought to have in those circumstances (Dennett 1987, 342). However, exponents of this view are still further divided into those who make an "Assumption of Rationality" and those who adhere to the "Principle of Charity". Dennett (1969, 1971, 1975), Cherniak (1981, 1986), and the more recent work of Putnam (1983) recommend the Assumption of Rationality, which unsurprisingly assumes that the physical system in question is rational. Donald Davidson (1967, 1973, 1974, 1985) and Lewis (1974) defend the Principle of Charity.


The latter is advocated by Grandy (1973) and Stich (1980, 1981, 1983, 1984), who maintain that attributions of intentional idioms to any physical system (e.g. humans, artifacts, non-human animals, etc.) should be the propositional attitude (e.g. "belief", "desire", etc.) that one would suppose one would have in the same circumstances (Dennett 1987, 343).


Basic intentionality types according to Le Morvan.


Intentionalism is the thesis that all mental states are intentional, i.e. that they are about something: about their intentional object. This thesis has also been referred to as "representationalism". Intentionalism is entailed by Brentano's claim that intentionality is "the mark of the mental": if all and only mental states are intentional then it is surely the case that all mental states are intentional.


Discussions of intentionalism often focus on the intentionality of conscious states. One can distinguish in such states their phenomenal features, or what it is like for a subject to have such a state, from their intentional features, or what they are about. These two features seem to be closely related to each other, which is why intentionalists have proposed various theories in order to capture the exact form of this relatedness.


Critics of intentionalism, so-called anti-intentionalists, have proposed various apparent counterexamples to intentionalism: states that are considered mental but lack intentionality.


Some anti-intentionalist theories, such as that of Ned Block, are based on the argument that phenomenal conscious experience or qualia is also a vital component of consciousness, and that it is not intentional. (The latter claim is itself disputed by Michael Tye.)


Another form of anti-intentionalism associated with John Searle regards phenomenality itself as the "mark of the mental" and sidelines intentionality.


A further form argues that some unusual states of consciousness are non-intentional, although an individual might live a lifetime without experiencing them. Robert K.C. Forman argues that some of the unusual states of consciousness typical of mystical experience are "pure consciousness events" in which awareness exists, but has no object, is not awareness "of" anything.


Several authors have attempted to construct philosophical models describing how intentionality relates to the human capacity to be self-conscious. Cedric Evans contributed greatly to the discussion with his "The Subject of Self-Consciousness" in 1970. He centered his model on the idea that executive attention need not be propositional in form.


The auditory moving-window is a psycholinguistic paradigm developed at Michigan State University by Fernanda Ferreira and colleagues. Ferreira and colleagues built the paradigm in order to address the scarcity of (fluent) spoken-language comprehension literature versus the robustness of that for visual-word processing. Auditory moving-window can be used to assess indirectly the processing load of a sentence: this processing load is assessed by an analogue of reaction time within the paradigm (discussed below). Reaction times within the paradigm are sensitive to at least word frequency and garden path effects.


The paradigm has been used in the study of syntactic processing in the study of aphasic patients. One such study suggests that many aphasic patients retain their abilities to process syntactic structures on-line. Further, evidence suggests that Expressive aphasics have a degraded ability to process complex syntax on-line, whereas Receptive aphasics are impaired only after on-line comprehension concludes


The auditory moving-window paradigm, because of its similarity to the eye tracking paradigm, has a broad range of applications. It is at least sensitive enough to detect frequency effects on comprehension: low frequency words had a greater IRT and DT than high frequency words, suggesting a relative difficulty of lexical access. Further, it is sensitive to garden path effects


Because one of the aims of the auditory moving-window is to investigate fluent speech, the paradigm is several steps more complex than simple auditory word-by-word presentation:


The presentation of a prepared sample depends on what software is being used. What follows is an abstraction of the general strategy.


The auditory moving-window is roughly analogous to an eye tracking task presented in the auditory modality. The eye tracking variable of interest that is thought to be closest to the DT is that of fixation duration. They are held to be directly related: a greater DT is correspondent to a greater fixation duration. Several eye-tracking studies use fixation duration as an indirect measure of processing load: a greater fixation duration is correspondent to a greater processing load . The same applies to DTs.


Kenneth Goodman (December 23, 1927 - March 12, 2020) was Professor Emeritus, Language Reading and Culture, at the University of Arizona. He is best known for developing the theory underlying the literacy philosophy of whole language.


Goodman began teaching at Wayne State University in 1962. His research focused on reading in public schools. While at Wayne State University, Goodman developed miscue analysis, a process of assessing students' reading comprehension based on samples of oral reading. One of his research assistants in miscue analysis was Rudine Sims Bishop. Goodman taught at Wayne State University for 15 years before moving to the University of Arizona.


After publishing an influential book on the subject of whole language, Goodman began to create a psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic model of reading inspired by the work of Noam Chomsky. Goodman decided that the process of reading was similar to the process of learning a language as conceptualized by Chomsky, and that literacy developed naturally as a consequence of experiences with print, just as language ability developed naturally as a consequence of experiences with language. Goodman concluded that attempts to teach rules ("phonics") to children for decoding words were inappropriate and not likely to succeed.


After developing and researching the Whole Language model, Goodman presented his work to the American Educational Research Association (AERA) conference and published an article in the "Journal of the Reading Specialist," in which he famously wrote that reading is a "psycholinguistic guessing game." He retired from the University of Arizona in August 1998.


Goodman's concept of written language development views it as parallel to oral language development. Goodman's theory was a basis for the whole language movement, which was further developed by Yetta Goodman, Regie Routman, Frank Smith and others. His concept of reading as an analogue to language development has been studied by brain researchers such as Sally Shaywitz, who rejected the theory on the grounds that reading does not develop naturally in the absence of instruction. Despite this, the theory continues to receive support from some scholars. Goodman's theory and strong convictions made him an icon of the whole language movement and a lightning rod for criticism from those who disagree with it. His book "What's Whole in Whole Language" sold over 250,000 copies in six languages.


Goodman served in several important capacities, including as President of the International Reading Association, President of the National Conference on Research in Language and Literacy, and President of the Center for Expansion of Language and Thinking. He also worked extensively with the National Council of Teachers of English. He received a number of awards, including the James Squire award from NCTE for contributions to the profession and NCTE (2007). Goodman has published over 150 articles and book chapters as well as a number of books. In addition to "What's Whole in Whole Language", he also wrote "Ken Goodman on Reading" and "Phonics Phacts"; all were published by Heinemann. His book "Scientific Realism in Studies of Education", was published by Taylor and Francis in 2007.


His last book was "Reading- The Grand Illusion: How and Why People Make Sense of Print" with contributions from linguist, Peter H. Fries and neurologist, Steven L. Strauss and was published by Routledge in 2016.


Goodman was inducted into the Reading Hall of Fame in 1989.


1. "A Communicative Theory of the Reading Curriculum," Elementary English, Vol. 40:3, March 1963, pp. 290–298.


2. and Yetta M. Goodman, "Spelling Ability of a Self-Taught Reader," The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 64:3, December 1963, pp. 149–154.


3. "The Linguistics of Reading," The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 64:8, April 1964, pp. 355–361.


Also in Durr, (ed.), Readings on Reading, Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1968.


Also in Frost, (ed.), Issues and Innovations in the Teaching of Reading, Chicago: Scott, Foresman, 1967.


4. "A Linguistic Study of Cues and Miscues in Reading," Elementary English, Vol. 42:6, October 1965, pp. 639–643.


Also in Wilson and Geyer, (eds.), Reading for Diagnostic and Remedial Reading, Merrill, 1972, pp. 103– 110.


Also in Gentile, Kamil, and Blanchard, (eds.), Reading Research Revisited, Columbus: Charles Merrill, 1983, pp. 129–134.


Also in Singer and Ruddell, (eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 3rd Edition, Newark: IRA, 1985.


5. "Dialect barriers to reading comprehension," Elementary English, Vol. 42:8, pp. 852–60, December 1965. Also in Linguistics and Reading, NCTE, 1966.


Also in Dimensions of Dialect, NCTE, 1967.


Also in Kosinski, (ed.), Readings on Creativity and Imagination in Literature and Language, NCTE, 1969.


Also in Teaching Black Children to Read, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, 1969.


Also in Kise, Binter, and Dalabalto, (eds.), Readings on Reading, Int. Book Co., pp. 241–51.


Also in Caper, Green, Baker, Listening and Speaking in the English Classroom, Macmillan, 1971. Also in Shores, Contemporary English: Change and Variation, Lippincott, 1972.


Also in Ruddell, (ed.), Resources in Reading Language Instruction, Prentiss Hall, 1972.


Also in DeStefano, Editor, Language, Society and Education, Jones Co., Worthington, Ohio, 1973.


6. and Yetta Goodman, "References on Linguistics and the Teaching of Reading," Reading Teacher, Vol. 21:1, October, 1967, pp. 22–23.


7. "Word Perception: Linguistic Bases," Education, Vol. 87, May 1967, pp. 539–543.


8. "Reading: A Psycholinguistic Guessing Game," Journal of the Reading Specialist, Vol. 6:4, May 1967, pp. 126–135.


Also in Singer, H. and Ruddell, R.B., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, IRA, 1970, pp. 259–272.


Also in Gunderson, D., Language and Reading, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, 1970. Also in Harris, A.J. and Sipay, E.R., Readings on Reading Instruction, David McKay, 1972.


Also in Karlin, Robert, Perspectives on Elementary Reading, Harcourt.


Also in Comprehension and the Use of Context, Open University Press, London, pp. 30–41, 1973. Also in Johnson, Nancy, (ed.), Current Topics in Language, Winthrop, 1976, pp. 370–83


Also in Reading Development, Open University Press, London, 1977.


Also in The English Curriculum: Reading I, London: The English and Media Centre, 1990, pp. 21–24.


9. "Linguistic Insights Teachers May Apply," Education, Vol. 88:4, April–May 1968, pp. 313–316.


Also in What About Linguistics and the Teaching of Reading, Scott, Foresman, 1968.


10. "Reading Disability: A Challenge," The Michigan English Teacher, October–November, 1968.


11. "Linguistics in a Relevant Curriculum," Education, April–May, 1969, pp. 303–307.


Also in Savage, Linguistics For Teachers, SRA, 1973, pp. 92–97.


12. "Building on Children's Language," The Grade Teacher, March 1969, pp. 35–42.


13. "Let's Dump the Up-Tight Model in English," Elementary School Journal, October 1969, pp. 1–13.


Also in the Education Digest, December 1969, pp. 45–48.


Also in Linguistics for Teachers: Selected Readings, SRA.


Also in Burns, Elementary School Language Arts, Selected Readings, 2nd Edition, Rand McNally. Also in Harris, J., Handbook of Standard and Non-Standard Communication, Alabama Assistance Center, University of Alabama, 1976.


14. "Language and the Ethnocentric Researcher," SRIS Quarterly, Summer, 1969.


Also in The Reading Specialist, Spring, 1970.


15. "What's New In Curriculum: Reading," Nations Schools, 1969.


Also in Smith, Frank, Psycholinguistics and Reading, Holt, 1972, pp. 158–176.


Also in Emans and Fishbein, Competence in Reading, SRA, 1972.


German translation in Hofer, A., Lesenlernen: Theorie and Unterricht, Schwann: Dusseldorf, 1976, pp. 298-320.


Also in Current Comments, Vol. 21:6, February 6, 1989, p. 20. (Cited as "Classic Citation" in Social Science Abstracts)


17. "A Psycholinguistic Approach to Reading. Implications for the Mentally Retarded," The Slow Learning Child, (Australia), Summer 1969. Also in Simon and Schuster, Selected Academic Readings.


18. "On Valuing Diversity in Language: Overview," Childhood Education, 1969, pp. 123–126.


Also in Triplett and Funk, Language Arts in the Elementary School, Lippincott.


Dutch translation in Kleuterwereld as "Het Belag Van De Verscheidenbled in de Tall," April 1973, pp. 170–171.


Also in Harris, J., A Handbook of Standard and Non-Standard Communication, Alabama Assistance Center, 1976.


19. and Carolyn L. Burke, "When a Child Reads: A Psycholinguistic Analysis," Elementary English, January 1970, pp. 121–129.


Also in Harris and Smith, Individualizing Reading Instruction, Holt, 1972, pp. 231–243.


Also in Ruddell et al., Resources in Reading-Language Instruction, Prentiss Hall, 1973.


20. "Psycholinguistic Universals in the Reading Process," Journal of Typographic Research, Spring 1970, pp. 103–110.


Also in Pimslear and Quinn, (eds.), Papers on the Psychology of Second Language Learning, Cambridge University Press, 1971, pp. 135–42.


Also in Smith, F., Psycholinguistics and Reading, Holt, 1972, pp. 21–27.


21. "Dialect Rejection and Reading: A Response," Reading Research Quarterly, Summer 1970, pp. 600–603. Also in Selected Academic Readings, Simon and Schuster.


22. and Frank Smith, "On the Psycholinguistic Method of Teaching Reading," Elementary School Journal, January, 1971, pp. 177–181.


Also in Ekwell, Psychological Factors in the Teaching of Reading, Merrill, pp. 303–308.


Also in Fox and DeStefano, Language and the Language Arts, Little Brown, Boston, 1973, pp. 239–43.


Also in Smith, F., Psycholinguistics and Reading, Holt, 1973, pp. 177–182.


German translation in A. Hofer, Lesenlernen: Theorie und Unterricht, Schwann: Dusseldorf, 1976, pp. 232-237.


23. "Promises, Promises," The Reading Teacher, January, 1971, Vol. 24:4, pp. 356–367.


Also in Fox, Language and the Language Arts, Little Brown, 1972.


Also in Malberger et al., Learning, Shoestring Press, 1972.


24. "Who Gave Us The Right?," The English Record, April, 1971, Vol. xxi, 4, pp. 44–45.


25. and D. Menosky, "Reading Instruction: Let's Get It All Together," Instructor, March 1971, pp. 44–45.


26. "Decoding -- From Code to What?" Journal of Reading, April, 1971, Vol 14:7, pp. 455–462.


Also in Fox and DeStefano, Language and the Language Arts, Little Brown, 1973, pp. 230–236. Also in Berry, Barrett, and Powell, Editors, Elementary Reading Instruction Selected Materials II, Allen & Bacon, 1974, pp. 15–23.


27. "Oral Language Miscues," Viewpoints, Vol. 48:1, January, 1972, pp. 13–28.


28. "Reading: The Key Is in Children's Language," The Reading Teacher, Vol. 25, March 1972, pp. 505–508.


Also in Reid, Jesse, and Harry Donaldson, (eds.), Reading: Problems and Practices, 2nd edition, London: Ward Lock Educational Limited, 1977, pp. 358–362.


29. "Orthography in a Theory of Reading Instruction," Elementary English, December, 1972, Vol. 49:8, pp. 1254–1261.


30. "Up-Tight Ain't Right," School Library Journal, October, 1972, Vol. 19:2, pp. 82–84.


Also in Trends and Issues in Children's Literature, New York: Xerox, 1973.


31. "The 13th Easy Way to Make Learning to Read Difficult," A Reaction to Gleitman and Rozin, Reading Research Quarterly, Summer, 1973, VIII:4.


32. with Catherine Buck, "Dialect Barriers to Reading Comprehension Revisited," Reading Teacher, October 1973, Vol. 27:1, pp. 6–12.


Also in Mental Health Digest, December, 1973, Vol. 5:12, pp. 20–23.


Also in Johnson, Nancy, (ed.), Current Topics in Language, Winthrop, 1976, pp. 409–417.


Reprinted as classic article in The Reading Teacher, Volume 50, No. 6, March, 1997, pp. 454–459.


33. and Yetta M. Goodman and Carolyn L. Burke, "Language in Teacher Education," Journal of Research and Development in Education, Fall, 1973, Vol. 7:1, pp. 66–71.


34. "Military-Industrial Thinking Finally Captures the Schools," Educational Leadership, February, 1974, pp. 407–411.


35. "Effective Teachers of Reading Know Language and Children," Elementary English, September 1974, Vol. 51:6, pp. 823–828.


36. "Reading: You Can Get Back to Kansas Anytime You're Ready, Dorothy," English Journal, November, 1974, Vol. 63:8, pp. 62–64.


Also in Reading in Focus, NCTE Newsletter, Australia, October 1976.


37. "Do You Have to be Smart to Read? Do You Have to Read to be Smart?" Reading Teacher, April 1975, pp. 625–632.


Also in Education Digest, Sept., 1975, Vol. 41, pp. 41–44.


Also in ABH Reading Pacesetter, Manilla, Philippines, 1975.


Also Spanish translation in Enfoques Educacionales, Chile, No. 5, 1979, pp. 40–47.


38. "Influence of the Visual Peripheral Field in Reading," Research in Teaching of English, Fall 1975, Vol. 9:2, pp. 210–222.


39. "A Bicentenniel Revolution in Reading," Georgia Journal of Reading, Vol. 2:1, pp. 13–19, Fall 1976.


40. "From the Strawman to the Tin Woodman, A Response to Mosenthal," Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. XII:4, pp. 575–85.


41. "And a Principled View from the Bridge", Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. XII:4, p. 604.


42. and Yetta M. Goodman, "Lesenlernen - ein funktionaler Ansatz" in Die Grundschule, Vol. 9:6, June 1977, pp. 263–67.


43. and Y. Goodman, W. McGinnitie, Michio Namekawa, Eikkchi Kurasawa, Takashiko Sakamoto, "Tokubetsu Zadankai: Eizo Jidai ni okero Dokusho Shido" (Reading Instruction in the Era of Visual Imagery) Sogo Kyuiku Gijutso (Unified Educational Theory), Vol. 31.11, pp. 116–25, December 1976, Tokyo.


44. and Yetta M. Goodman, "Learning about Psycholinguistic Processes by Analyzing Oral Reading," Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 40:3, 1977, pp. 317–33.


Also in Constance McCullough, Editor, Inchworm, Inchworm Persistent Problems in Reading Education, IRA, 1980, pp. 179–201.


Also in Thought and Language/Language and Reading, (eds.), Harvard University Press, 1980.


45. "Acquiring Literacy is Natural: Who Skilled Cock Robin?," Theory Into Practice, December 1977, Vol. xvi:5, pp. 309–314.


Also in 25th Anniversary Issue, Theory Into Practice, December, 1987, pp. 368–373.


46. "And Good Luck to Your Boy," Arizona English Bulletin, October, 1977, Vol. 20, pp. 6–10.


47. "Open Letter to President Carter," SLATE, 3:2, March, 1978.


Condensed in Ohio Reading Teacher, January, 1979;


Also in Michigan English Teacher, May, 1978;


Also in Wisconsin Reading Teacher, May 1979; Wisconsin Administration Bulletin, May 1979.


48. "Minimum Competencies: A Moral View," in International Reading Association, Minimum Competency Standards, Three Points of View, 1978.


49. "What is Basic About Reading," in Eisner, Elliot W., (ed.), Reading, The Arts and the Creation of Meaning, National Art Education Association, 1978, pp. 55–70.


50. "Commentary: Breakthroughs and Lock-outs," Language Arts, November–December, 1978, Vol. 55:8, pp. 911–20. Also in Connecticut Council of Teachers of English Newsletter, XII:2, December 1978.


51. "The Know-More and Know-Nothing Movements in Reading: A Personal Response," Language Arts, September, 1979, Vol. 56:8, pp. 657–63.


Also in Georgia Journal of Reading, Vol. 5:2, Spring, 1980, pp. 5–12.


Translation in Danish in Laesepaedogogen 1981 and as Laese Rapport 4 under the title, "Laesning efter mening-eller laesning som teknik," undated.


52. and Yetta M. Goodman, "Learning to Read is Natural," in L.B. Resnick and P.A. Weaver, (eds.), Theory and Practice of Early Reading, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1979, pp. 137–55.


Translation in French in Apprentissage et Socialisation, Vol. 3:2, 1980, pp. 107–23.


Translation in Spanish in Enfoques Educasionales, Chile, 1980.


53. "Revisiting Research Revisited," Reading Psychology, Summer, 1980, pp. 195–97.


Also in Gentile, Kamil, and Blanchard, Editors, Reading Research Revisited, Columbus: Merrill, 1983.


54. "On The Ann Arbor Black English Case," English Journal, Vol. 69:6, September, 1980, p. 72.


55. and Frederick V. Gollasch, "Word Omissions: Deliberate and Non-Deliberate," Reading Research Quarterly, XVI:1, 1980, pp. 6–31. (See also occasional papers.)


56. with Yetta Goodman, "Twenty Questions about Teaching Language," Educational Leadership, March 1981, Vol. 38:6, pp. 437–42.


57. "A Declaration of Professional Conscience for Teachers" Childhood Education, March–April 1981, pp. 253–55.


Also in Learning from Children, by Edward Labinowicz, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1984.


Also in Goodman, K.S., Bird, L., and Goodman, Y., (eds.), The Whole Language Catalog, Santa Rosa, CA: American School Publishers, 1991, inside front cover.


Also in Kaufmann, F. A. (ed.), Council-Grams, Vol. 54:4, Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1991, p. 8.


Also in Society for Developmental Education News, Vol. 2:2, Fall, 1992, p. 6.


Also in Into Teachers' Hands, D. Sumner, (ed.)Peterborough, NH: Society for Developmental Education, 1992, inside front cover.


Also in Whole Teaching, Society for Developmental Education Sourcebook, 6th Edition, Peterborough, NH: Society for Developmental Education, 1993, inside front cover.


58. and Y.M. Goodman, "To Err is Human," NYU Education Quarterly, Summer, 1981, Vol. XII:4, pp. 14–19.


59. "Response to Stott," Reading-Canada-Lecture, April, 1981, Vol. I:2, pp. 18–120.


60. "Lukemisprosessi: monikielinen, kehityksellinen nakokulma" in Jasenlehti, No. 3, (Finland)1981, pp. 8–9.


61. "Revaluing readers and reading," Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, Vol. I:4, January 1982, pp. 87–93.


62. and Yetta Goodman, "Reading and Writing Relationships: Pragmatic Functions," Language Arts, May 1983, pp. 590–99.


Also in J. Jensen, (ed.), Composing and Comprehending, Urbana, IL: NCRE/ERIC, 1984, pp. 155–64.


63. "The Solution is the Risk: A Reply to the Report of the National Commission on Excellence in Education," SLATE, Vol. 9:1, September, 1983.


64. and L. bird, "On the Wording of Texts: A Study of Intra-text Word Frequency," Research in Teaching English, Vol. 18:2, May, 1984, pp. 119–45.


65. Growing into Literacy" Prospects, Education Quarterly of UNESCO, Vol. XV:I, 1985. (Also in French, Spanish, Arabic, and Russian translations).


66. Commentary: "On Being Literate in an Age of Information," Journal of Reading, Vol. 28:5, February 1985, pp. 388–92.


Also in Jean M. Eales, Language, Communication and Education, London: Open University and Croom Helm, November, 1986.


67. Introduction to: "A Glimpse At Reading Instruction In China" by Shanye Jiang, Bo Li, The Reading Teacher, Vol. 38:8, April, 1985, pp. 762–66.


68. "Commentary: Chicago Mastery Learning Reading: A Program with 3 Left Feet," Education Week, October 9, 1985, p. 20.


69. "Un programma olistico per l'apprendimento e lo sviloppo della lettura," Educazione e Scuola, (Italy) Vol.IV:15, September, 1985, pp. 11–24. (Also see Occasional Paper No. 1 below).


70. "Response to Becoming a Nation of Readers," Reading Today, October, 1985.


71. "Basal Readers: A Call for Action," Language Arts, April 1986.


72. and Mira Beer-Toker, "Questions about Children's Language and Literacy: an Interview with Kenneth S. Goodman," Mother Tongue Education Bulletin, (Quebec, Canada) Vol. l:2, Spring and Fall, 1986, pp. 19–22.


73. "You and the Basals: Taking Charge of Your Classroom," Learning 87, Vol. 16:2, September, 1987, pp. 62–65.


Also in Manning, G. and M., (eds.), Whole Language: Beliefs and Practices, K-8, NEA: Washington, D.C., 1989, pp. 217–19.


74. "Determiners in Reading: Miscues on a Few Little Words," Language and Education, Vol. 1:l, 1987, pp. 33–58.


75. "Who Can Be a Whole Language Teacher?," Teachers Networking, Vol.1:1, April, 1987, p. 1.


76. "To My Professional Friends in New Zealand," Reading Forum NZ, June, 1987.


77. "The Reading Process: Ken Goodman's Comments," ARA Today, August, 1987.


78. "Look What They've Done to Judy Blume!: The `Basalization' of Children's Literature," The New Advocate, Vol. I:1, 1988, pp. 29–41.


79. "Reflections: An Interview with Ken and Yetta Goodman," Reading - Canada - Lecture, Vol. 6:1, Spring, 1988, pp. 46–53.


80. On writing 'Reading Miscues - Windows on the Psycholinguistic Guessing Game'," Current Comments, Vol. 21:6, February 6, 1989, p. 20.


81. "Whole Language is Whole: A Response to Heymsfeld," Educational Leadership, Vol. 46:6, March, 1989, pp. 69–71.


82. "The Whole Language Approach: A Conversation with Kenneth Goodman," Writing Teacher, Vol. III:1, August–September, 1989, pp. 5–8.


83. "Access to Literacy: Basals and Other Barriers," Theory Into Practice, Guest Editors, Patrick Shannon and Kenneth S. Goodman, Vol. XXXVIIII:4, Autumn, 1989, pp. 300–306.


84. "Latin American Conference is Successful," Reading Today, Vol. 7:3, December, 1989.


85. and Ira E. Aaron, Jeanne S. Chall, Dolores Durkin, Dorothy S. Strickland, "The Past, Present, and Future of Literacy Education: Comments from a Panel of Educators, Part I," The Reading Teacher, Vol. 43:4, January, 1990, pp. 302–15.


86. "Whole Language Research: Foundations and Development," Elementary School Journal, Vol. 90:2, November 1989, pp. 207–21.


Japanese translation by Takashi Kuwabara in Journal of Language Teaching, Vol. XVII, pp. 99–116, 1990.


87. "Managing the Whole Language Classroom," Instructor, Vol. 99:6, February, 1990, pp. 26–29.


88. "A Rebuttal to Priscilla Vail," WLSIG Newsletter, Spring, 1990, p. 4.


89. "El Linguaje Integral: Un Camino Facil para el Desarrollo del Lenguaje," Lectura Y Vida, Vol. IX:2, June 1990, pp. 5–13.


90. and Dorothy F. King "Whole Language: Cherishing Learners and Their Language," LSHSS, Vol. 21:4, October, 1990.


91. "An Open Letter to President Bush," Whole Language Umbrella Newsletter, Summer, 1991, p. 1-4.


92. and Yetta M. Goodman, "About Whole Language," Japanese (First Language) Education Research Monthly, No. 233, October, 1991, pp. 64–71.


93. and Diane de Ford, Irene Fountas, Yetta Goodman, Vera Milz, and Sharon Murphy "Dialogue on Issues in Whole Language," Orbit, (Canada)Vol. 22:4, December, 1991, pp. 1–3.


94. and Richard J. Meyer, "Whole Language: Principles for Principals," SAANYS Journal, Vol. 22:3, Winter, 1991–92, pp. 7–10.


95. "Why Whole Language is Today's Agenda in Education," Language Arts, Vol. 69:5, September, 1992, pp. 354–363.


96. "I Didn't Found Whole Language," The Reading Teacher, Vol. 46:3, November, 1992, pp.


Also in The Education Digest, October, 1993, Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 64–67.


97. "Gurus, Professors, and the Politics of Phonics," Reading Today, December 1992/January 1993, pp. 8–10.


98. "Phonics Phacts," Nebraska Language Arts Bulletin, Vol. 5:2, January, 1993, pp. 1–5.


99. with Lisa Maras and Debbie Birdseye "Look! Look! Who Stole the Pictures From the Picture Book?," The New Advocate, Volume 7, No. 1, Winter 1994, pp. 1–24.


100. "Standards, Not!" Commentary, Education Week, September 7, 1994, pp. 39 & 41.


Also in The Council Chronicle, Volume 4, Number 2, November 1994, pp. back and 17.


101. "Deconstructing the rhetoric of Moorman, Blanton, and McLaughlin: A response," Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 4, Oct/Nov/Dec 1994, pp. 340–346.


102. "Is whole-language instruction the best way to teach reading?, CQ Researcher, May 19, 1995, Volume 5, No. 19, pp. 457-461.


103. "Forced Choices in a Non-Crisis, A Critique of the Report of the California Reading Task Force" Education Week, Vol. XV, Number 11, November, 1995, pp. 39 & 42.


104. with Elizabeth Noll "Using a Howitzer to Kill a Butterfly": Teaching Literature with Basals, The New Advocate, Volume 8, Number 4, Fall 1995, pp. 243–254.


105. with Yetta M. Goodman, Rev. of "Possible Lives: The Promise of Public Education in America,"Mike Rose, Rhetoric Review, Volume 14:2, Spring, 1996, pp. 420-424.


106. "An open letter to Richard Riley and Bill Clinton", Reading Today, Volume 13, No. 6, June/July, 1996, pp. 39.


107. "The Reading Derby: An Open Letter to Wisconsin Teachers" WSRA Journal, Volume 40, No. 3, Summer/Fall 1996, pp. 1–5.


108. "Educar, como se ense�a a vivir" Interview with Ken and Yetta Goodman, Para Ti, No. 3844, March 11, 1996, pp. 92–93.


109. "Ken and Yetta Goodman: Exploring the Roots of Whole Language" Interview with Ken and Yetta Goodman, by Jerome Harste and K. Short, Language Arts, Volume 73, Number 7, November, 1996, pp. 508–519.


111. "The Reading Process: Insights from Miscue Analysis" A Summary adapted from The 1996-97 Dean's Forum, The Advancement of Knowledge and Practice in Education Proceedings, University of Arizona, Tucson, January, 1997.


112. “California, Whole Language, and the NAEP” CLIPS, Volume 3, Number 1, Spring, 1997, pp. 53–56.


113. "Capturing 'America Reads' For a Larger Agenda?" Education Week, Volume XVII, Number 4, September, 1997, pp. 34–35.


114. “Putting Theory and Research in the Context of History” Language Arts, Volume 74, Number 8, December, 1997, pp. 595–599.


115. “Parental Choice bill requires a state-mandated curriculum” Guest Comment, Arizona Daily Star, February 20, 1998, Section A, p. 11.


116. “Good News from a Bad Test: Arizona, California and the National Assessment” Arizona Reading Journal, Vol XXV, No. 1 Spring/Summer, 1998, pp. 13–23.


117. “The Phing Points, Volume 11, Number 2, April/May, 2000, pp. 18-19.


126. “Teaching Amid the Rocket’s Red Glare” Minnesota English Journal, Fall, 2000, pp. 107–110.


127. “Defending Teachers and Learners from Mandates” Minnesota English Journal, Fall, 2000, pp. 111–114.


128. With Paulson, Eric J., “Influential Studies in Eye-Movement Research,” Reading Online, The International Reading Association's Electronic Journal. December, 1998. www.readingonline.org/research/eyemove.html


129. “On Reading” (6) The Science of Reading, Tokyo, Japan: The Japan Reading Association, Vol July, 2000, Japanese Translation, (Yokota,Rayco translator), pp. 73–82.


130. “On Reading” (7) The Science of Reading, Tokyo, Japan: The Japan Reading Association, Vol. 44, No. 3, October, 2000, Japanese Translation, (Yokota, Rayco translator), pp. 83–104.


131 “Aims” Tucson, AZ: Arizona Daily Star, Sunday, October 28, 2001 (Guest Opinion), p.B-11.


132. “On Reading” (8) The Science of Reading, Tokyo, Japan: The Japan Reading Association, Vol. 45, No. 3, October, 2001, Japanese Translation, (Yokota, Rayco translator), pp. 103–125.


133. “A Declaration of Professional Conscience for Teacher Educators” Practically Primary, Vol. 8, Number 3, October 2003, Australian Literacy Educators’ Association, pp. 5–6.


134. “Introduction,” Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, Special Issue on Literacy Processes, Number 6, Sept. 2004, p. 4-5.


135. “Perspectiva transaccional sociopsyicolinguistica de la lectura y la escritura,” Revista Lectura y Vida, Textos en Contexto, No. 2, Buenos Aires, Argentina: Asociacion Internacional de Lectura, December, 2004.


136. “Making Sense of Written Language: A liflong Journey”, Journal of Literacy Research Vol 37 No. 1 Spring 2005


1. with Hans Olsen, Cynthia Colvin, Louis Vanderlinde, Choosing Materials to Teach Readings, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1966. Second edition, 1973.


2. (ed.), The Psycholinguistic Nature of the Reading Process, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1968. Second Printing, 1973.


Lead article translation in German, A. Hofer, Lesenlernen: Theorie und Unterricht, Schwann: Dusseldorf, 1976, pp. 139-51.


3. and J. Fleming, (eds.), Psycholinguistics and the Teaching of Reading, Newark, International Reading Association, 1969.


4. and Olive Niles, Reading: Process and Program, Champaign, IL: NCTE, 1969, (monograph).


Excerpt in Reading: Today and Tomorrow, London: Open University, 1972.


Also in Singer and Ruddell, Theoretical Models and Processes in Reading, Second edition, Neward, DE: IRA, 1976.


Also in German edition of Theoretical Models, M. Angermaier.


5. with E. Brooks Smith, and Robert Meredith, Language and Thinking in the Elementary School, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.


Chapter reprinted in "Resources in Reading-Language Instruction," Ruddell, (ed.), Prentice Hall, 1973. 2nd edition of Language and Thinking in School, 1976.


3rd edition, with E. B. Smith, R. Meredith, and Y. Goodman, Language and Thinking in School, A Whole-Language Curriculum, New York: Richard C. Owen, 1987.


6. and Yetta M. Goodman, Annotated Bibliography on Linguistics, Psycholinguistics and the Teaching of Reading, Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 1972. 3rd edition, 1980.


7. editor, Miscue Analysis: Applications to Reading Instruction, NCTE-ERIC, 1973.


Excerpt in: Plackett, E. (ed.), The English Curriculum: Reading 2, Slow Readers, London: The English Centre, 1990, pp. 79–83.


8. Reading: A Conversation with Kenneth Goodman, Chicago: Scott, Foresman, 1976.


Digest in TSI Repeater-Cable, Telesensory Systems, Palo Alto, September, 1977.


9. with Yetta Goodman and Barbara Flores, Reading in the Bilingual Classroom: Literacy and Biliteracy, National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, Rosslyn, Virginia, 1979.


10. Reading and Readers, (The 1981 Catherine Molony Memorial Lecture), New York, City College School of Education, Workshop Center for Open Education, 1981.


11. Language and Literacy, The Selected Writings of Kenneth S. Goodman, Volume 1: Process, Theory, Research, (eds.), Frederick V. Gollasch, Boston & London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982.


12. Language and Literacy, The Selected Writings of Kenneth S. Goodman, Volume II: Reading, Language and the Classroom Teacher, (eds.), F.V. Gollasch, Boston and London Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982.


13. What's Whole in Whole Language, Richmond Hill, Toronto: Scholastic Lmtd., 1986, and Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational.


Spanish edition, Lenguaje Integral, Editorial Venezolana C.A., 1989;


French edition, Le Comment et Pourqois de la Language Integre, Scholastic, 1989;


Japanese edition Kyoku e no atarashi chosen: Eigo ken ni okeri zentai gengo kyoiku, Tokyo: Ozora Sha, 1990.


Spanish edition, El lenguaje integral, Aique Grupo Editor, S.A.: Libro De Edici�n Argentina, 1995.


Portuguese edition, Linguagem Integral, Traducao: Marcos A.G. Domingues, Porto Alegre: Artes Medicas, 1997.


14. with Patrick Shannon, Yvonne Freeman and Sharon Murphy, Report Card on Basal Readers, Katonah, NY: R.C. Owen, 1988.


15. with Yetta Goodman and Wendy Hood, The Whole Language Evaluation Book, Portsmouth, NH: Heineman, 1989.


16. with Yetta Goodman and Wendy Hood, Organizing for Whole Language, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1991.


17. with Lois Bird and Yetta Goodman, The Whole Language Catalog, American School Publishers, January, 1991.


18. Eminent Scholar Conversation #15 by Rudine Sims Bishop, Ohio State University: Martha L. King Language and Literacy Center, 1991, pp. 1–35.


19. with Lois B. Bird and Yetta Goodman, The Whole Language Catalog: Authentic Assessment Supplement, Santa Rosa, CA: American School Publishers, May 1992.


20. Ken Goodman Phonics Phacts, Richmond Hill, Ontario: Scholastic Canada, Ltd (Canada), and Heinemann (US) Portsmouth, NH, 1994.


21. with Lois Bird and Yetta Goodman, The Whole Language Catalog: Forms for Authentic Assessment, New York, NY: SRA Division McMillan/McGraw-Hill School Publishing Company, 1994.


22. with Patrick Shannon, Basal Readers, A Second Look, Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen, 1994


23. Ken Goodman On Reading, Richmond Hill, Ontario: Scholastic Canada, Ltd. (Canada), and Heinemann (US) Portsmouth, NH, 1996.


24. with Joel Brown and Ann M. Marek, Studies in Miscue Analysis: An Annotated bibliography, Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 1996.


25. In Defense of Good Teaching, Kenneth S. Goodman (ed.), York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers, 1998.


26. Reflections and Connections: Essays in Honor of Kenneth S. Goodman's Influence on Language Education, Marek, Ann M. & Carole Edelsky (eds.), Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc., 1998


27. On the Revolution of Reading, The Selected Writings of Kenneth S. Goodman (Alan D. Flurkey and Xu, Jingguo (Eds.), Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2003.


28. with. Shannon, P., Goodman, Y. and Rapoport, R. (eds.), Saving Our Schools, Berkeley, CA: RDR Books, 2004.


29 . Examining DIBELS, Vermont Society for the Study of Education in press


1. "A Psycholinguistic View of Reading Comprehension," New Frontiers in College-Adult Reading, 15th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, Milwaukee, 1966.


2. "Elementary Education," Foundations of Education, revised edition, George Kneller, (ed.), New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967, pp. 493–521.


3. "Is the Linguistic Approach an Improvement in Reading Instruction: Pro," Nila Banton Smith, (ed.), Current Issues in Reading, Newark, DE: IRA, 1969, pp. 268–276.


4. "Words and Morphemes in Reading," Psycholinguistics and the Teaching of Reading, Goodman and J. Fleming, (eds.), Newark, DE: IRA, 1969, pp. 25–33.


5. "The Interrelationships Between Language Development and Learning to Read," The Impact of Society on Learning to Read, Miriam Schleich, (ed.), Hofstra University, 1970.


6. "Comprehension-Centered Reading Instruction," Proceedings of the 1970 Claremont Reading Conference, pp. 125–135. Also in Ekwell, Psychological Factors in the Teaching of Reading, Merrill, 1972, pp. 292–302.


7. "Psycholinguistics in Reading," Innovations in the Elementary School: An IDEA, occasional paper, Melbourne, FL, 1970.


8. "Urban Dialects and Reading Instruction," Kender, J.P., (ed.), Teaching Reading—Not By Decoding Alone, Interstate: Danville, 1971, pp. 61–75.


9. "The Search Called Reading," Coordinating Reading Instruction, Helen Robinson, (ed.), Scott Foresman, Glenview, 1971, pp. 8–14.


10. "Children's Language and Experience: A Place to Begin," Coordinating Reading Instruction, Helen Robinson (ed.), Scott Foresman, Glenview, 1971, pp. 46–52.


11. "Linguistics and Reading," Encyclopedia of Education, Lee C. Deighton, (ed.), Macmillan, 1971.


12. "Psycholinguistics and Reading," Proceedings of the Maryland Reading Institute, 1971.


13. "The Reading Process: Theory and Practice," Language and Learning to Read: What Teachers Should Know About Language, Hodges and Rudorf, (eds.), Houghton-Mifflin, 1972, pp. 143–59.


14. "Testing in Reading: A General Critique" Accountability and Reading Instruction, Robert Ruddell, Editor, Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1973.


15. "Strategies for Increasing Comprehension in Reading," Improving Reading in the Intermediate Years, Robinson, H., (ed.), Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Co., 1973, pp. 59–71


Also available as a separate monograph, Scott Foresman, 1974.


16. "The Reading Process", Proceedings of the Sixth Western Symposium on Learning: Language and Reading, Bellingham, WA, 1975.


17. "Miscue Analysis: Theory and Reality in Reading," New Horizons in Reading, Proceedings of Fifth IRA World Congress on Reading, Merritt, John E., (ed.), Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 1976, pp. 15–26.


18. "Linguistically Sound Research in Reading," Improving Reading Research, Farr, Roger, Weintraub, and Tone, (eds.), Newark, DE: IRA, 1976, pp. 89–100.


19. "What's Universal About the Reading Process," Proceedings of 20th Annual Convention of the Japan Reading Association, Tokyo, 1976.


20. "Manifesto for a Reading Revolution," Malcolm Douglas, (ed.), 40th Yearbook Claremont Reading Conference, 1976, pp. 16–28.


21. "What We Know About Reading," Allen, P.D. and Watson, D., (eds.), Findings of Research in Miscue Analysis: Classroom Implications, ERIC-NCTE, 1976, pp. 57–69.


22. "The Goodman Taxonomy of Reading Miscues," Allen, P.D. and Watson, D., (eds.), Findings of Research in Miscue Analysis: Classroom Implications, ERIC-NCTE, 1976, pp. 157–244.


23. and Yetta M. Goodman, "Reading and Reading Instruction: Insights from Miscue Analysis," Watson, K.D. and Eagleson, R.D., (eds.), English in Secondary Schools: Today & Tomorrow, Sydney: English Teachers Association of New South Wales, 1977, pp. 254–59.


24. and Carolyn Burke, "Reading for Life: The Psycholinguistic Base" Conference Proceedings Reading: Curriculum Demands-Towards Implementing the Bullock Report, London, England: Ward Lock Educational, 1977.


25. "Bridging the Gaps in Reading: Respect and Communication," Harste, J. and R. Carey, (eds.), New Perspectives on Comprehension, Bloomington, Indiana University, October, 1979.


26. with Yetta M. Goodman and Barbara Flores, "Reading in the Bilingual Classroom: Literacy and Biliteracy," Rosslyn, VA: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 1979.


27. "Needed for the '80's: Schools that Start Where Learners Are," Needs of Elementary and Secondary Education in the 1980s; Sub-committee on Elementary Secondary and Vocational Education House of Representatives, 96th Congress, Washington: GPO January 1980.


28. "El proceso lector en ninos normales," Bravo Valdiviesco, Luis, (ed.), El Nino con Dificultades para Aprender, Santiago de Chile: UNICEF/Pontificia Universidad Catolica, 1980.


29. "Linguistic Diversity, Teacher Preparation and Professional Development," G. Smitherman, Editor, Black English and the Education of Black Children Youth, Center for Black Studies, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, 1981, pp. 171–89.


30. "Miscue Analysis and Future Research Directions," Huddleson, Sarah, (ed.), Learning to Read in Different Languages, Linguistics and Literacy, Series: 1, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, 1981.


31. "Language Development: Issues, Insights, and Implementation" Goodman, Haussler, and Strickland, (eds.), Oral and Written Language Development Research: Impact on the Schools, NCTE & IRA, 1982.


32. "El proceso de lectura: consideraciones a traves de las lenguas y del desarrollo," E. Ferreiro and M. Gomez Palacio, (eds.), Nuevas Perspectivas Sobre Los Procesos de Lectura y Escritura, Mexico Editorial Siglo XXI, 1982, pp. 13–28.


33. "The Reading Process, A Multi-Lingual Developmental Perspective," K. Tuunainen and A. Chiaroni, (eds.), Full Participation, Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Reading, Joensuu Finland, 1982.


34. and Yetta M. Goodman "A Whole-Language Comprehension-Centered View of Reading Development," L. Reed and S. Ward, (eds.), Basic Skills: Issues and Choices, Vol. 2, St. Louis: Cemrel, 1982, pp. 125–134.


35. "On Research and the Improvement of Reading," M. Douglas, (ed.), Forty-seventh Yearbook of the Claremont Reading Conference, Claremont Graduate School, 1983, pp. 28–36.


36. "A Conversation with Kenneth Goodman," L. Rainsberry, (ed.), and Producer, Out of the Shadows, guide accompanying three program video series of the same name, Toronto: TV Ontario, 1983, pp. 17–20.


37. and Y. Goodman "Everything You Wanted to Know But Didn't Have the Opportunity to Ask," L. Rainsberry, (ed.), and Producer, Out of the Shadows, guide accompanying three program video series of the same name, Toronto: TV Ontario, 1983, pp. 28–44.


38. "Unity in Reading," Olives Niles and Alan Purves, (eds.), Becoming Readers in a Complex Society, 83rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 1984.


Also in Singer and Ruddell, Theoretical Models & Processes of Reading, 3rd Edition, Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 1985.


Also in Portuguese as "Unidad na Leitura," in Letras de Hoje, 12/1991, No. 86, pp. 9–44.


Also in German as “Lesen - ein transaktionaler ProzeB,” Konstruktionen der verstandigung, Luneburg: Universitat Luneburg, 1997, pp. 103–132.


39. "Literacy: for Whom and for What," Makhan L. Tickoo, (ed.), Language in Learning, Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, 1986.


40. "A Holistic Model of Reading," Trondhjem, Editor, Aspects in Reading Processes, 12th Danavox Symposium, Klarskovgard, Denmark, 1986.


41. "Foreward" Making Connections with Writing, Mary and Chisato Kitagawa, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1987.


42. "Teachers Detechnologizing Reading," Dorothy J. Watson, (ed.), Ideas and Insights, Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1987, pp. x-xi.


43. "Reading for Life: the Psycholinguistic Base," Reading Concerns: Selected Papers from UKRA Conferences 1972–1980, London: UKRA, 1988.


44. "Language and Learning: Toward a social-Personal View," Proceedings of the Brisbane Conference on Language and Learning, July, 1988.


45. "Afterword," Jane L. Davidson, (ed.), Counterpoint and Beyond, Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1988, pp. 105–108.


46. "Language Development: Issues, Insights and Implementation," G. Pinnell and M. Matlin, (eds.), Teachers and Research: Language Learning in the Classroom, IRA, 1989, pp. 130–141.


47. with Yetta Goodman "Vygotsky in a Whole Language Perspective," Vygotsky and Education, Luis Moll, (ed.), Cambridge University Press, 1990, pp. 223–250.


48. "The Whole Language Curriculum," Hydrick, J, and N. Wildermuth, (eds.), Whole Language: Empowerment at the Chalk Face, New York: Scholastic, 1990, pp. 191–211.


49. with Yetta M. Goodman "Our Ten Best Ideas for Reading Teachers," Fry, E., (ed.), 10 Best Ideas for Reading Teachers, Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley, 1991, pp. 60–64.


50. "Whole Language: What Makes it Whole," Power, B. and R. Hubbard, Literacy in Process, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1991.


51. "The Teacher Interview" Toby Kahn Curry and Debra Goodman, An interview by Yetta Goodman, Commentary by Ken Goodman, Atwell, N., (ed.), Workshop 3: The Politics of Process, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1991, pp. 81–93.


52. with Yetta M. Goodman "Whole Language: A Whole Educational Reform," Schools of Thought, Pathways to Educational Reform, Cleveland, OH: North American Montessori Teachers' Association, Vol. 16:2, Spring, 1991, pp. 59–70.


53. "Whole Language Research: Foundations and Development," Samuels, S. Jay and A. Farstrup, (eds.), What Research Has To Say About Reading Instruction, 2nd edition, Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 1992.


Also in Japanese: Horu Rangegi, (ed. & translated) by Takashi Kuwabara, Tokyo: Kokudo sha, 1992, pp. 112–157.


54. "A Question About the Future," Questions & Answers About Whole Language, Orin Cochrine, (ed.), Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen, 1992, pp. 137–40.


55. "Forward," Whitin, David J. and Sandra Wilde, Read Any Good Math Lately? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1992, pp. xi-xii.


56. with D. Freeman "What's Simple in Simplified Language?," Simplification: Theory and Application, M.L. Tickoo (ed.), Singapore:SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, 1993, pp. 69–81.


57. "Ponencias Primero Conferencia", Memorias Del Primer Congreso de las Americas sobre Lectoescritura, Maracaibo, Venezuela: Universidad de Los Andes, 1993, pp. 4–15.


58. "El Lenguaje Integral Como Filosofia Educativa", Memorias Del Primer Congreso de las Americas sobre Lectoescritura, Maracaibo, Venezuela: Universidad de Los Andes, 1993, pp. 16–29.


59. with Yetta M. Goodman "Vygotsky desde la perspective del lenguaje total (whole-language)" Vygotsky Y La Educaci�n, Luis Moll (ed.), M�ndez de And�s: Aique Grupo Editor S.A., 1993, pp. 263–292. Spanish translation of "Vygotsky in a Whole Language Perspective" in Vygotsky and Education.


60. with Yetta M. Goodman "To Err Is Human: Learning about Language Processes by Analyzing Miscues," Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 4th Edition, Robert B. Ruddell, Ruddell, M.R., & Singer, H. (eds.), Neward, DE: International Reading Association, 1994.


61. "Reading, Writing and Written Texts: A Transactional Scociopsycholoinguistic View," Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 4th Edition, Robert B. Ruddell, Ruddell, M.R., & Singer, H. (eds.), Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 1994.


62. "Universals in Reading: A Transactional Socio-Psychoinguistic Model of Reading, Writing and Texts," A summary by Patrick Gallo, Singapore: Report of the Regional Seminar on Reading and Writing Research: Implications for Language Education, 1994, p. 6.


63. "Forward: Lots of Changes, But Little Gained" Basal Readers: A Second Look, Patrick Shannon & Goodman, K.S. (eds)., Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen Publishers, 1994.


64. with Lisa Maras and Debbie Birdseye "Look! Look! Who Stole the Pictures From the Picture Book?," Basal Readers: A Second Look, Patrick Shannon & Goodman, K.S. (eds.), Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen Publishers, 1994.


65. with Yetta M. Goodman "Preface," Leadership in Whole Language, The Principal's Role, York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers, 1995, pp.ix-xi.


66. with Kathryn F. Whitmore "Practicing What We Teach: The Principles That Guide Us," Whole Language Voices In Teacher Education, Kathryn F. Whitmore & Yetta M. Goodman (eds.), York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers, 1996, pp. 1–16.


67. with Richard Meyer and Yetta M. Goodman "Continuous Evaluation in a Whole Language Preservice Program" Whole Language Voices In Teacher Education, York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers, 1996, pp. 256–267.


68. "Lines of Print," Whole Language Voices In Teacher Education, York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers, 1996, pp. 134–135.


69. "The Boat in the Basement," Whole Language Voices In Teacher Education, York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers, 1996, pp. 136–137.


70. "Nonsense Texts to Illustrate the Three Cue Systems: "A Mardsan Giberter for Farfie," "Gloopy and Blit," and "The Marlup," Whole Language Voices In Teacher Education, York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers, 1996, pp. 138–140.


71. "Real Texts to Illustrate the Three Cue Systems: Downhole Heave Compensator," Whole Language Voices In Teacher Education, York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers, 1996, pp. 141–143.


72. "Real Texts to Illustrate the Three Cue Systems: Poison," Whole Language Voices In Teacher Education, York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers, 1996, pp. 144–145.


73. "Principles of Revaluing" Retrospective Miscue Analysis, Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen, 1996, pp. 13–20.


74. with Yetta M. Goodman "Vygotsky em uma perspectiva da "linguagem integral" Vygotsky e an educa��ao, Luis Moll (ed.), Porto Alegre RS, Brazil: Artes M�dicas, 1996, pp. 219–224. Portuguese translation of "Vygotsky in a Whole Language Perspective" in Vygotsky and Education.


75. "Preface" Studies in Miscue Analysis An Annotated Bibliography, Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 1996, pp.iv-x.


76. "Oral and Written Language: Functions and Purposes" Many Families, Many Literacies An International Declaration of Principles, Denny Taylor (ed.), Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1997, pp. 43–46.


77. With Yetta Goodman, “Forward” multiple voices, multiple texts, Dornan, R., Rosen, L, and Wilson, M. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers Heineman, 1997, pp. ix-xi.


78. �Por qu� es importante el lenguaje? Una Historia Sin Fin. Crear Y Recrear Texto, Gabriela Yncl�n (ed.), M�xico, D.F., 1997, pp. 15–17.


79. With Yetta M. Goodman, “To Err Is Human: Learning about Language Processes by Analyzing Miscues,”Reconsidering a Balanced Approach to Reading, Constance Weaver (ed.), Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1998, pp. 101-123.


80. “California, Whole Language, and National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),” Reconsidering a Balanced Approach to Reading, Constance Weaver (ed.), Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1998, pp. 467–491.


81. “The Phonics Scam: The Pedagogy of the Absurd,” Perspectives on Reading Instruction, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1998, pp. 27–31.


82. “The Reading Process,” Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Volume 2, Viv Edwards and Corson, David (eds.), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997, pp. 1–7.


83. With Catherine Buck, “Dialect Barriers to Reading Comprehension Revisited,” Literacy Instruction for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Student, Newark: DE: International Reading Association, 1998, pp. 139–145.


84. “I Didn't Found Whole Language,” Distinguished Educators on Reading, Nancy Padak. . . (et al.), (eds.), Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 2000, pp. 2–19.


85. “Update: Forward 8 Years and Back a Century,” Distinguished Educators on Reading, Nancy Padak. . . (et al.), (eds.), Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 2000, pp. 20–27.


86. With Yetta Goodman and Prisca Martens, “Text Matters: Readers Who Learn with Decodable Texts” 51st Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, Oak Creek, Wisconsin: National Reading Conference, Inc., 2002, pp. 186–203.


87. “Whole Language and Whole-Language Assessment” Literacy in America An Encyclopedia of History, Theory, and Practice, Vol. 2 N-Z, Barbara Guzetti, (ed.), Santa Barbara, CA: ABC Clio, 2002, pp. 673–677.


88. With Yetta M. Goodman, “To Err Is Human: Learning About Language Processes by Analyzing Miscues” Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 5th Edition, Robert B. Ruddell and Unrau, Norman J. (Eds.), Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 2004, pp 620–639.


1. The Psychology of Language Thought and Instruction, Readings by DeCecco in Journal of Reading, Vol. 11:8, May 1968, pp. 648–50.


2. "Research Critique: Oral Language of Kindergarten Children," Elementary English, Vol. 43:8, December, 1966, pp. 897–900.


3. Buros, "Reading Tests and Reviews," American Educational Research Journal, January, 1971, pp. 169–71.


4. Linguistics in Language Arts and Reading, Journal of Reading, November, 1972.


5. Williams, Hopper, and Natalicio, The Sounds of Children, Reading Teacher, Vol. 31:5, February, 1978, pp. 578–80.


Co-author, Scott Foresman Reading Systems: Scott Foresman, Levels 1-21 (Grades K-6), 1971–73. Levels 22–27, 1974. Revised Edition, Chicago: Reading Unlimited, Levels 1-27, 1976.


1. A Study of Children's Behavior While Reading Orally, Final Report, Project No. S-425, Contract No. OE-6-10-136, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Bureau of Research.


2. A Study of Oral Reading Miscues that Result in Grammatical Re-Transformations, Final Report, Project No. 7-E-219, Contract No. OEG-O-8-070219-2806 (010), U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Bureau of Research.


3. Theoretically Based Studies of Patterns of Miscues in Oral Reading Performance, Final Report, Project No. 9-0775, Grant No. OEG-0-9-320375-4269, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Bureau of Research, May, 1973. Abstracted in ERIC.


4. with William Page, Reading Comprehension Programs: Theoretical Bases of Reading Comprehension Instruction in the Middle Grades, Contract No. NIE C-74-0140, National Institute of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, August, 1976.


5. Reading of American Children Whose Reading is a Stable, Rural Dialect of English or Language Other Than English, Grant No. NIE-C-00-3-0087, National Institute of Education, U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, August, 1978.


6. with Suzanne Gespass, Analysis of Text Structures as They Relate to Patterns of Oral Reading Miscues, Project NIE-G-80-0057, National Institute of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, February, 1982.


with Janet Emig and Yetta M. Goodman, Interrelationships of Reading and Writing, NCTE No. 7250R.


with Barbara Bonder and Jean Malmstram, Psycholinguistics and Reading, NCTE No. 73276R.


and Yetta M. Goodman, Reading for Meaning: The Goodman Model, Sydney: Film Australia, 1977,


with DeWayne Triplett and Frank Greene, The Right Not To Read, NCTE No. 71311R.


with Yetta M. Goodman, Watching Children Reading, BBC, London, 1986.


What's Whole in Whole Language?, ASCD, Alexandria, Virginia, 1992.


with Constance Kamii, Constructivism & Whole Language, ASCD, Alexandria, Virginia, 1993.


No. 1 with Yetta Goodman, A Whole-Language Comprehension Centered View of Reading Development, February, 1981.


No. 2 with F.V. Gollasch, Word Omissions in Reading Deliberate and Non-Deliberate: Implications and Applications, March, 1981.


No. 3 with Bess Altwerger, Studying Text Difficulty Through Miscue Analysis, June, 1981.


No. 6 with Lois Bridges Bird, On the Wording of Texts: A Study of Intra-Text Word Frequency, March, 1982.


No. 7 with Suzanne Gespass, Text Features as they Relate to Miscues: Pronouns, March, 1983.


No. 8 Text Features as they Relate to Miscues: Determiners, July, 1983.


No. 15 with G. Williams and J. David, Revaluing Troubled Readers, February, 1986.


No. 16 with Brown, J. and Marek, A. Annotated Chronological Miscue Analysis Bibliography, August, 1994.


The critical period hypothesis is the subject of a long-standing debate in linguistics and language acquisition over the extent to which the ability to acquire language is biologically linked to age. The hypothesis claims that there is an ideal time window to acquire language in a linguistically rich environment, after which further language acquisition becomes much more difficult and effortful. The critical period hypothesis was first proposed by Montreal neurologist Wilder Penfield and co-author Lamar Roberts in their 1959 book "Speech and Brain Mechanisms", and was popularized by Eric Lenneberg in 1967 with "Biological Foundations of Language."


The critical period hypothesis states that the first few years of life is the crucial time in which an individual can acquire a first language if presented with adequate stimuli, and that first-language acquisition relies on neuroplasticity. If language input does not occur until after this time, the individual will never achieve a full command of language. There is much debate over the timing of the critical period with respect to SLA, with estimates ranging between 2 and 13 years of age.


The critical period hypothesis is derived from the concept of a critical period in the biological sciences, which refers to a set period in which an organism must acquire a skill or ability, or said organism will not be able to acquire it later in life. Strictly speaking, the experimentally verified critical period relates to a time span during which "damage" to the development of the visual system can occur, for example if animals are deprived of the necessary binocular input for developing stereopsis.


The discussion of language critical period is complicated by the subjectivity of determining native-like competence in language, which includes things like pronunciation, prosody, syllable stress, timing and articulatory setting. Some aspects of language, such as phoneme tuning, grammar processing, articulation control, and vocabulary acquisition have weak critical periods and can be significantly improved by training at any age. Other aspects of language, such as prefrontal synthesis, have strong critical periods and cannot be acquired after the end of the critical period.


The theory has often been extended to a critical period for second-language acquisition (SLA), although this is much less widely accepted. David Singleton states that in learning a second language, "younger = better in the long run", but points out that there are many exceptions, noting that five percent of adult bilinguals master a second language even though they begin learning it when they are well into adulthood—long after any critical period has presumably come to a close. Jane H. Hill posited that much research into SLA has focused on monolingual communities, whereas multilingual communities are more of a global norm, and this impacts the standard of competence that the SLA speaker is judged by.


The critical period hypothesis in SLA follows a "use it then lose it" approach, which dictates that as a person ages, excess neural circuitry used during L1 learning is essentially broken down. If these neural structures remained intact they would cost unnecessary metabolic energy to maintain. The structures necessary for L1 use are kept. On the other hand, a second "use it or lose it" approach dictates that if an L2 user begins to learn at an early age and continues on through their life, then their language-learning circuitry should remain active. This approach is also called the "exercise hypothesis".


There is much debate over the timing of the critical period with respect to SLA, with estimates ranging between 2 and 13 years of age. However, some studies have shown that "even very young L2 beginners diverge at the level of fine linguistic detail from native speakers."


Some writers have argued that the critical period hypothesis does not apply to SLA, and that second-language proficiency is determined by the time and effort put into the learning process, and not the learner's age. observed that factors other than age may be even more significant in successful second-language learning, such as personal motivation, anxiety, input and output skills, and the learning environment. A combination of these factors often leads to individual variation in second-language acquisition experiences.


On reviewing the published material, Bialystok and Hakuta (1994) conclude that second-language learning is not necessarily subject to biological critical periods, but "on average, there is a continuous decline in ability [to learn] with age."


Other work has challenged the biological approach; Krashen (1975) re-analysed clinical data used as evidence and concluded cerebral specialisation occurs much earlier than Lenneberg calculated. Therefore, if a CP exists, it does not coincide with lateralisation. Despite concerns with Lenneberg's original evidence and the dissociation of lateralisation from the language CP idea, however, the concept of a CP remains a viable hypothesis, which later work has better explained and substantiated.


Contrary to biological views, behavioural approaches assert that languages are learned as any other behaviour, through conditioning. Skinner (1957) details how operant conditioning forms connections with the environment through interaction and, alongside O. Hobart Mowrer (1960), applies the ideas to language acquisition. Mowrer hypothesises that languages are acquired through rewarded imitation of ‘language models’; the model must have an emotional link to the learner (e.g. parent, spouse), as imitation then brings pleasant feelings which function as positive reinforcement. Because new connections between behaviour and the environment are formed and reformed throughout life, it is possible to gain new skills, including language(s), at any age.


asserts that environmental factors must be relatively unimportant for language emergence, as so many different factors surround children acquiring L1. Instead, Chomsky claims language learners possess innate principles building a 'language acquisition device' (LAD) in the brain. These principles denote restricted possibilities for variation within the language, and enable learners to construct a grammar out of 'raw input' collected from the environment. Input alone cannot explain language acquisition because it is degenerated by characteristic features such as stutters, and lacks corrections from which learners discover incorrect variations.


Singleton and Newport (2004) demonstrate the function of UG in their study of 'Simon'. Simon learned ASL as his L1 from parents who had learned it as an L2 after puberty and provided him with imperfect models. Results showed Simon learned normal and logical rules and was able to construct an organised linguistic system, despite being exposed to inconsistent input. Chomsky developed UG to explain L1 acquisition data, but maintains it also applies to L2 learners who achieve near-native fluency not attributable solely to input and interaction .


Although it does not describe an optimal age for SLA, the theory implies that younger children can learn languages more easily than older learners, as adults must reactivate principles developed during L1 learning and forge an SLA path: children can learn several languages simultaneously as long as the principles are still active and they are exposed to sufficient language samples (Pinker, 1995). The parents of Singleton and Newport's (2004) patient also had linguistic abilities in line with these age-related predictions; they learned ASL after puberty and never reached complete fluency.


Problems within UG theory for L2 acquisition.


This suggests that L2 may be qualitatively different from L1 due to its dissociation from the 'normal' language brain regions, thus the extrapolation of L1 studies and theories to SLA is placed in question. A further disadvantage of UG is that supporting empirical data are taken from a limited sample of syntactic phenomena: a general theory of language acquisition should cover a larger range of phenomena. Despite these problems, several other theorists have based their own models of language learning on it. These ideas are supported by empirical evidence, which consequently supports Chomsky's ideas. Due to this support and its descriptive and explanatory strength, many theorists regard UG as the best explanation of language, and particularly grammar, acquisition.


A key question about the relationship of UG and SLA is: is the language acquisition device posited by Chomsky and his followers still accessible to learners of a second language? The critical period hypothesis suggests that it becomes inaccessible at a certain age, and learners increasingly depended on explicit teaching. In other words, although all of language may be governed by UG, older learners might have great difficulty in gaining access to the target language's underlying rules from positive input alone.


Although Krashen (1975) also criticises this theory, he does not deny the importance of age for second-language acquisition. Krashen (1975) proposed theories for the close of the CP for L2 at puberty, based on Piaget's cognitive stage of formal operations beginning at puberty, as the ‘ability of the formal operational thinker to construct abstract hypotheses to explain phenomena’ inhibits the individual's natural ability for language learning.


The term "language acquisition" became commonly used after Stephen Krashen contrasted it with formal and non-constructive "learning." Today, most scholars use "language learning" and "language acquisition" interchangeably, unless they are directly addressing Krashen's work. However, "second-language acquisition" or "SLA" has become established as the preferred term for this academic discipline.


Though SLA is often viewed as part of applied linguistics, it is typically concerned with the language system and learning processes themselves, whereas applied linguistics may focus more on the experiences of the learner, particularly in the classroom. Additionally, SLA has mostly examined "naturalistic" acquisition, where learners acquire a language with little formal training or teaching.


Virtually all research findings on SLA to date build on data from literate learners. find significantly different results when replicating standard SLA studies with low literate L2 learners. Specifically, learners with lower alphabetic literacy levels are significantly less likely to notice corrective feedback on form or to perform elicited imitation tasks accurately. These findings are consistent with research in cognitive psychology showing significant differences in phonological awareness between literate and illiterate adults . An important direction for SLA research must therefore involve the exploration of the impact of alphabetic literacy on cognitive processing in second-language acquisition.


Empirical research has attempted to account for variables detailed by SLA theories and provide an insight into L2 learning processes, which can be applied in educational environments. Recent SLA investigations have followed two main directions: one focuses on pairings of L1 and L2 that render L2 acquisition particularly difficult, and the other investigates certain aspects of language that may be maturationally constrained. looked at bilingual dominance to evaluate two explanations of L2 performance differences between bilinguals and monolingual-L2 speakers, i.e. a maturationally defined CP or interlingual interference.


investigated whether the age at which participants learned English affected dominance in Italian-English bilinguals, and found the early bilinguals were English (L2) dominant and the late bilinguals Italian (L1) dominant. Further analysis showed that dominant Italian bilinguals had detectable foreign accents when speaking English, but early bilinguals (English dominant) had no accents in either language. This suggests that, though interlingual interference effects are not inevitable, their emergence, and bilingual dominance, may be related to a CP.


also studied bilinguals and highlight the importance of early language exposure. They looked at vocabulary processing and representation in Spanish-Catalan bilinguals exposed to both languages simultaneously from birth in comparison to those who had learned L2 later and were either Spanish- or Catalan-dominant. Findings showed 'from birth bilinguals' had significantly more difficulty distinguishing Catalan words from non-words differing in specific vowels than Catalan-dominants did (measured by reaction time).


These difficulties are attributed to a phase around age eight months where bilingual infants are insensitive to vowel contrasts, despite the language they hear most. This affects how words are later represented in their lexicons, highlighting this as a decisive period in language acquisition and showing that initial language exposure shapes linguistic processing for life. also indicate the significance of phonology for L2 learning; they believe learning an L2 once the L1 phonology is already internalised can reduce individuals’ abilities to distinguish new sounds that appear in the L2.


Most studies into age effects on specific aspects of SLA have focused on grammar, with the common conclusion that it is highly constrained by age, more so than semantic functioning. compared attainment of French learners in early and late immersion programs. She reports that after 1000 exposure hours, late learners had better control of French verb systems and syntax. However, comparing early immersion students (average age 6.917 years) with age-matched native speakers identified common problem areas, including third person plurals and polite ‘vous’ forms. This suggests grammar (in L1 or L2) is generally acquired later, possibly because it requires abstract cognition and reasoning.


B. Harley also measured eventual attainment and found the two age groups made similar mistakes in syntax and lexical selection, often confusing French with the L1. The general conclusion from these investigations is that different aged learners acquire the various aspects of language with varying difficulty. Some variation in grammatical performance is attributed to maturation, however, all participants began immersion programs before puberty and so were too young for a strong critical period hypothesis to be directly tested.


This corresponds to Noam Chomsky’s UG theory, which states that while language acquisition principles are still active, it is easy to learn a language, and the principles developed through L1 acquisition are vital for learning an L2.


also suggest learning some syntactic processing functions and lexical access may be limited by maturation, whereas semantic functions are relatively unaffected by age. They studied the effect of late SLA on speech comprehension by German immigrants to the US and American immigrants to Germany. They found that native-English speakers who learned German as adults were disadvantaged on certain grammatical tasks but performed at near-native levels on lexical tasks.


It is commonly believed that children are better suited to learning a second language than are adults. However, general second-language research has failed to support the critical period hypothesis in its strong form (i.e., the claim that full language acquisition is impossible beyond a certain age).


Another aspect worth considering is that bilingual children are often doing code switching, which does not mean that the child is not able to separate the languages. The reason for code switching is the child's lack of vocabulary in a certain situation. The acquisition of a second language in early childhood broadens children's minds and enriches them more than it harms them. Thus they are not only able to speak two languages in spite of being very young but they also acquire knowledge about the different cultures and environments. It is possible for one language to dominate. This depends on how much time is spent on learning each language.


In order to provide evidence for the evolutionary functionality of the critical period in language acquisition, generated a computer simulation of plausible conditions of evolving generations, based on three central assumptions:


According to Hurford's evolutionary model, language acquisition is an adaptation that has survival value for humans, and that knowing a language correlates positively with an individual's reproductive advantage. This finding is in line with views of other researchers such as Chomsky and . For example, Steven Pinker and Paul Bloom argue that because a language is a complex design that serves a specific function that cannot be replaced by any other existing capacity, the trait of language acquisition can be attributed to natural selection.


However, while arguing that language itself is adaptive and "did not 'just happen'" (p. 172), Hurford suggests that the critical period is not an adaptation, but rather a constraint on language that emerged due to a lack of selection pressures that reinforce acquiring more than one language. In other words, Hurford explains the existence of a critical period with genetic drift, the idea that when there are no selection pressures on multiple alleles acting on the same trait, one of the alleles will gradually diminish through evolution. Because the simulation reveals no evolutionary advantage of acquiring more than one language, Hurford suggests that the critical period evolved simply as a result of a lack of selection pressure.


supported Hurford's model, yet pointed out that it was limited in the sense that it did not take into account the costs of learning a language. Therefore, they created their own algorithmic model, with the following assumptions:


Age of acquisition (AOA or AoA), is a psycholinguistic variable referring to the age at which a word is typically learned. For example, the word 'penguin' is typically learned at a younger age than the word 'albatross'. Studies in psycholinguistics suggest that age of acquisition has an effect on the speed of reading words both simple and complex. It is a particularly strong variable in predicting the speed of picture naming. It has been generally found that words that are more frequent, shorter, more familiar and refer to concrete concepts are learned earlier than more complex words.


Sets of normative values for age of acquisition for large sets of words have been developed.


It has been disputed whether age of acquisition has an effect on word tasks on its own or by virtue of its covariance with other variables such as word frequency. Alternatively, it has been suggested that the age of acquisition is related to the fact that an earlier learned word has been encountered more often. These issues were partially resolved in an article by Ghyselinck, Lewis and Brysbaert.


Alternatively there have been discussions of the effect that the age of acquisition has on learning a second language.


The Modular Online Growth and Use of Language


The Modular Online Growth and Use of Language (MOGUL) project is the cover term name for any research on language carried out using the Modular Cognition Framework Cognition Framework (MCF).


The word chain can be displayed using the following abbreviations always using 'S' for '


Processing works in both directions depending where the initial input comes from and then after that going in "both" directions in principle until the overall best-fit is found. In other words, processing is parallel, incremental and bidirectional.


Linguists may note that what is conventionally thought of as the scope of "phonetics" is expressed here as the domain of auditory structure. Similarly, what is conventionally thought of as the scope of "semantics" and "'pragmatics" falls within the scope of conceptual structure. None of these linguistic areas are treated here as the domain of one or other of the two linguistic systems: the term "linguistic" is reserved for the two above-mentioned systems that process and store linguistic structure.


As we match various types of cognitive structure available to us in order to find the best fit for unfamiliar input from the environment new connections are developed, initially with the relevant structures possessing a low resting level of activation. This means they will have a relatively poor chance of selection for future instances of the same input. However, the more they are selected the more they will show up in the observable behaviour of the individual concerned.


The cognitive systems involved in language comprehension work in two directions. Production involves a physical response to internal events, the creation of a message to be conveyed. This requires articulation of different parts of the body, following the commands of motor structures. As mentioned earlier, meanings in the conceptual processor are matched with syntactic structures which in turn are matched with phonological structures; this structural chain continues to be built following different routes according to the selected mode of articulation. The required motor structures that drive the articulation of speech will be different from those involved in writing or signing.


To take a simple example, the word "horse" can be discussed or pondered; all that is needed for this is an auditory structure (the sound of the word) and its visual structure (representing its orthographic, written form), both of which are matched up with its meaning. consisting of metalinguistic concepts such as "word, syllable, noun, definition" and the like. These concepts are required for any analytic thinking about language and may vary widely in degree and complexity, depending on an individual's metalinguistic sophistication. In any case, the linguistic systems are not directly implicated in any explicit discussion (or explicit thinking) about what is actually a linguistic form. They are simply activated at lower levels to support the ongoing thought processes (Sharwood Smith, 2020).


In psychology, the transposed letter effect is a test of how a word is processed when two letters within the word are switched.


Priming is an effect of implicit memory where exposure to a certain stimulus, event, or experience affects responding to a different stimulus. Typically, the event causes the stimulus to become more salient. The transposed letter effect can be used as a form of priming.


With any priming task the purpose is to test the initial stages of processing in order to better understand more complex processing. Psychologists use transposed-letter priming to test how people comprehend word meanings. From these findings, people can begin to understand how people learn, develop and understand language. Transposed-letter priming is used in a wide array of experiments and the reasons for using this method can depend on the particular hypothesis.


Switching the position of adjacent letters in the base word is a close transposition. This type of transposition creates the greatest priming effect. For example, an effective prime for the word "computer" would be the TL non-word "".


Forming a prime word by switching the position of nonadjacent letters in the base word is a distant transposition. There is significantly less priming effect in a distant transposition than a close transposition, no matter how distant the two letters are from each other.


The first study to test the transposed-letter effects was Burner and O’Dowd (1958). However, their experiment did not use priming. They showed participants a word that had a two letter switched either at the beginning, in the middle or at the end of the word and they had to determine what the English word was. They measured their response time. Bruner and O’Dowd found that the error at the beginning created the slowest response time, the end was the next slowest and the middle was the fastest. The conclusion to this data was that the beginning and the end were more important for word recognition than the middle. From there, the transposition letter effect was used to test how people process and recognize words using many tasks.


Theories challenged by effects of transposed-letter priming.


There are a number of theories that have been challenged by the effects shown with transposition-letter priming. These theories mainly have to do with how letters are used to process words.


The parallel distributed processing model proposed by Seidenberg and McClelland (1989) also uses a portion of words but instead of letters they are a small group of letters in the same order as in the word. For example, the word “judge” would have these groupings: . This predicts that if part of two words match there will be some priming, but this model still depends on the position of the letters to some extent, so it is not compatible with results from transposed-letter priming.


Theories supported by effect of transposed-letter priming.


There are a number of theories that are supported by the results shown by the transposed-letter effect.


The SERIOL model (sequential encoding regulated by inputs to oscillations within letter units) described by Whitney (2001) explains processing of words as five levels, or nodes: retinal level, feature level, letter level, bigram level and word level. In the bigram level, the letters detected are turned into a number of pairs. For example, the word “cart” has the bigrams ca, ar, rt, ar, at and ct. The bigrams that more closely represent the location of letters in the words are given more weight. The pairs are then used to form the word. Within this model, letter location is still a factor but is not a defining feature of word processing, so the transposed-letter effect is consistent with this model.


In the SOLAR model (self-organizing lexical acquisition and recognition) described by Davis (1999) each letter is associated with its own level of activation. The first letter in the word has the highest level of activation and so on until the last word has the lowest level of activation. In this model, position does describe the level of activation for that particular letter but because the activation is successive, two letters beside each other would have a similar activation level. The SOLAR model is consistent with the results of the transposed-letter effect priming because with this effect experiments have shown priming when two adjacent letters are switched but not when two letters farther apart in the word are switched.


Transposed-letter priming was used by Christianson, Johnson and Rayner (2005) on compound words to test the role of morphemes in word processing. They switched the letters either within the morphemes (for example, snowball to snowblal) or between morphemes (for example, snowball to snobwall) in the primes and found a greater priming effect within the morphemes than between. This supported the theory that morphemes are used during the processing of compound words because the priming effect was only reduced when the letters were switched over the morpheme boundary and were unable to separate into their separate parts.


The classic version of the model focused on competition during sentence processing, crosslinguistic competition in bilingualism, and the role of competition in language acquisition.


The Competition Model was initially proposed as a theory of cross-linguistic sentence processing. The model suggests that people interpret the meaning of a sentence by taking into account various linguistic cues contained in the sentence context, such as word order, morphology, and semantic characteristics (e.g., animacy), to compute a probabilistic value for each interpretation, eventually choosing the interpretation with the highest likelihood. According to the model, cue weights are learned inductively on the basis of the extent to which the cues are available and reliable guides to meanings in comprehension and to forms in production.


The model holds that cues both compete and coooperate during processing. Sometimes cues cooperate or converge by pointing to the same interpretation or production. Sometimes, cues compete by pointing to conflicting interpretations or productions.


The application of the model to child language acquisition focuses on the role that cue availability and reliability play in determining the order of acquisition of grammatical structures. The basic finding is that children first learn the most available cue(s) in their language. If the most available cue is not also the most reliable, then children slowly shift from depending on the available cue to depending on the more reliable cue.


The classic Competition Model accounts well for many of the basic features of sentence processing and cue learning. It relies on a small set of assumptions regarding cues, validity, reliability, competition, transfer, and strength—each of which could be investigated directly.  However, the model is limited in several important ways.


·       Brain Structure: The classic model makes no contact with what we now know about the organization of language in the brain. As a result, it provides only incomplete understanding of patterns of language disorder and loss.


·       Critical Period: The classic model fails to come to grips with the idea that there is a biologically-determined critical period for language acquisition.


·       Motivation: The classic model provides no role for social and motivational factors governing language learning, preference, code-switching, and attrition.


·       Mental Models: The classic model fails to include a role for mental model construction during comprehension and formulation during production.


·       Microgenesis: The classic model does not provide a microgenetic account for the course of item acquisition, fluency development, and cue strength learning.


Extending the classic model to deal with these challenges involves borrowing insights from related theories. The resultant broader theory is called the Unified Competition Model or UCM, because it seeks to unify a variety of independent theoretical frameworks into a single overall model. The transition from the classic version of the model to the unified version worked to bring the model into fuller accord with the theory of emergentism, as developed in the biological (West-Eberhard, 2003), social (Kontopoulos, 1993) and physical sciences (von Bertalanffy, 1968).


Unifying the L1 and L2 Learning Models.


A major challenge facing an emergentist, functionalist, non-nativist model such as the UCM involves dealing with age-related changes in the outcome of second language (L2) acquisition.  It is widely accepted that children end up acquiring a second language more completely than adults. One account proposes that this "fundamental difference" (Bley-Vroman, 2009) between child and adult L2 learning arises from the expiration of a biologically-based critical period for natural language learning. In contrast, the framework of the Competition Model emphasizes that all forms of language acquisition make use of the same set of cognitive and social processes, although they differ in the relative reliance on specific processes and the extent to which these processes interact with other learning.


Specifically, the UCM holds that adults are more challenged than children by a set of four risk factors that can impede L2 acquisition.


Adults can counterbalance these four risk factors through an emphasis on four protective or preventive factors.


All of these processes can impact both children and adults. What differs across age is the relative social status of the person and the degree to which they have already consolidated L1.


Structural linguistic analysis (Harris, 1951) distinguishes the levels of input phonology, output phonology, lexicon, semantics, morphology, syntax, mental models, and interaction. Processing on these levels can be analyzed in terms of the related theories of statistical learning (input phonology), gating and fluency (output phonology), embodied cognition and hub-and-spoke theory (semantics), DevLex (lexicon), item-based patterns (syntax), perspective theory (mental models), and CA theory (interaction). The theories for lexicon, syntax, and mental models have been elaborated in specific ways that help unify the approach. These elaborations include specifically the theory of item-based patterns and the theory of perspective shifting.


The levels distinguished by structural analysis are richly interconnected. This means that, although they are partially decomposable (Simon, 1962), they are not modular in the sense of Fodor (1983), but rather interactive in the sense of Rumelhart and McClelland (1987). In order to achieve gating and activation, processing levels must be interconnected in a way that permits smooth coordination. The UCM assumes that these interconnections rely on methods for topological, i.e. tonotopic (Wessinger, Buonocore, Kussmaul, & Mangun, 1997) or somatotopic (Hauk, Johnsrude, & Pulvermuller, 2004), organization that are used throughout the cortex.


Structural analysis has many important consequences for our understanding of relations between first and second language learning. Age-related first language entrenchment operates in very different ways in different cortical areas (Werker & Hensch, 2014). In second language production, contrasts and timing relations between the levels of conceptualization, formulation, and articulation (Levelt, 1989) produce marked effects on language performance (Skehan, 2009), although similar effects can be found also in first language acquisition (Snow, 1999). The details of this analysis can be found in MacWhinney (2017).


The classic version of the Competition Model emphasized the ways in which cue reliability shaped cue strength. These effects were measured in highly structured sentence processing experiments. To address certain limitations of this research, the Unified Competition Model sought to account in greater detail for age-related facts in the comparison between child and adult second language learning. Within the classic model, the only mechanism that could account for these effects was competition between L1 and L2 patterns, as expressed through negative transfer.  Although transfer plays a major role as a risk factor for difficulties in adult L2 learning, it is not the only risk factor.


Looking more closely at the variety of L2 learning outcomes across structural levels and timeframes, it became evident that we needed to construct a more complex account for variable outcomes in L2 learning. This account required a deeper integration of emergentist theory into the UCM framework. The resultant account is now able to address each of the limitations of the classic model mentioned earlier. Specifically,


·       by linking linguistic structures to particular brain regions, the model is increasingly grounded neurolinguistically (MacWhinney, 2019),


·       by delineating a set of risk and protective factors, the model deals more accurately with age-related patterns in L2 learning,


·       by providing a time/process frames account of social and motivational factors, the model accounts better for variation in L2 outcome by social groups, work environments, as well as providing accounts for patterns of code-switching and language attrition,


·       by linking in the theory of perspective-switching, we have a fuller understanding of online sentence processing, and