-> The comments regarding a connection with how learning to speak was my
-> own analogy.  In my view, learning to read (and I believe linguists
-> would agree) has everything to do with language acquisition.
As a person with a degree in German with emphasis on Linguistics, I
think you are not using the term "language acquisition" in the term that
linguists generally mean. You have broadened it to mean much more than
is generally included under that term, when used by linguists, and in
your use of the term it includes functional literacy.
Language acquisition, as I generally understand it, relates more to the
neurological processes involved in learning a language. This has nothing
to do with reading, which is learning to decode symbols on a piece of
paper, or some other medium.
-> These articles were written by by people who are against Whole
-> Language.
I almost mentioned in a message to Chuck, but never got around to it,
that one must be careful about considering a search on the Web to be a
_thorough_ search. Often one will find that a particular topic is
represented on the Web in an imbalanced fashion, heavily on one side or
the other.
However, I don't see how you can make that claim about the article by
Jill Stewart. As a reporter, shouldn't she have been impartial?
-> The concepts contained in WL are research based.  One such concept is
-> the psycholinguistic view of the reading process.  I mentioned this
-> in my original post.
Yes, you did mention this before. However, Chuck has cited actual
studies and researchers in his articles which refute many of the claims
of Whole Language. Other than your generic statement that "Whole
Language is based on research", I've not seen you similarly cite any
research supporting Whole Language.
-> More later.......
Looking forward to it....
Sheila
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 10
---------------