Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T04:32:01.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Are there universals of reading? We don't believe so

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2012

Max Coltheart
Affiliation:
Centre for Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia. [email protected]://www.maccs.mq.edu.au/~max/[email protected]://www.ccd.edu.au/people/profile.html?memberID=55
Stephen Crain
Affiliation:
Centre for Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia. [email protected]://www.maccs.mq.edu.au/~max/[email protected]://www.ccd.edu.au/people/profile.html?memberID=55

Abstract

There are universals of language; but is it also true, as the target article claims, that there are universals of reading? We believe there are no such universals, and invite others to refute our claim by providing a list of some universals of reading. If there are no universals of reading, there cannot be a universal model of reading.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Crain, S. & Nakayama, M. (1987) Structure dependence in grammar formation. Language 63(3):522–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, C. & Schreiber, P. (1982) Why short subjects are harder to find than long ones. In: Language acquisition: The state of the art, ed. Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L., pp. 78101. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, N. V. & Tsimpli, I.-M. (1995) The mind of a savant: Language learning and modularity. Blackwell.Google Scholar