Cover not available
Part of
All Things Morphology: Its independence and its interfaces
Edited by Sedigheh Moradi, Marcia Haag, Janie Rees-Miller and Andrija Petrovic
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 353] 2021
► pp. 415–430

Chapter 22
A primer for linguists on the reading wars

| Southern Oregon University

As linguists and teachers, we may be asked our opinions on contentious issues of reading instruction such as phonics versus whole language. This chapter reviews debates about reading instruction in the United States, introducing the relevant concepts, issues, research, and personalities to linguists. The chapter begins with a look at pre-nineteenth century views on reading and nineteenth and early twentieth century practices. The mid-twentieth century publication of Why Johnny Can’t Read led to renewed interest in phonics and in linguistics-based reading materials. At the same time, another linguistically-inspired approach, whole language, was being proposed. Today, we have a politically fraught landscape of what are often described as ‘reading wars.’ The chapter ends with a set of recommendations for navigating this landscape.

Keywords: reading, phonics, whole language, whole word, linguistics and education, literacy
Article outline
  • 1.Teaching reading in the nineteenth century (and before)
  • 2.See Dick run
  • 3.Rudolph Flesch and Doctor Seuss: The Fish and the cat
  • 4.From “Let’s Read” to Project Literacy
  • 5.Whole language
  • 6.Who’s right?: Research and meta-studies
  • 7.Politics as usual, and conspiracies too
  • 8.How to read the reading wars: Beyond name calling
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 25 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.353.22bat
References
Adams, Marilyn Jager
1990 Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Association of Masters of the Boston Public Schools
1844 Remarks on the seventh annual report of the Hon. Horace Mann, Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education. Association of Masters of the Boston Public Schools. Boston: C. C. Little and J. Brown.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1942 Linguistics and reading. The Elementary English Review 19(4). 125–130 & 19(5). 183–186.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard & Clarence L. Barnhart
1961 Let’s read: A linguistic approach. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Blumenfeld, Samuel L.
1996 The whole language/OBE fraud: The shocking story of how America is being dumbed down by its own education system. Boise, ID: Paradigm Publishing.Google Scholar
Bond, Guy & Robert Dykstra
1967 The cooperative research program in first-grade reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly 2(4). 5–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinkley, Ellen & Constance Weaver
2005 Phonics, literalism and futuristic fiction: Religious fundamentalism and education policy. In Leslie Poynor & Paula Wolfe (eds.), Marketing fear in America’s public schools: The real war on literacy, 93–110. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Carlinsky, Dan
1981 A story (it’s true) of a Geisel with a view. Arizona 14(June). 48–53.Google Scholar
Chall, Jeanne
1967 Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
1989 The role of phonics in the teaching of reading: A position paper prepared for the Secretary of Education. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. ERIC ED328899.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1970 Phonology and reading. In Levin & Williams, 3–18.Google Scholar
Elson, William H. & William S. Gray
1930 Elson-Gray basic reader pre-primer. The Philippine Islands, Scott Foresman & Co.Google Scholar
Flesch, Rudolph
1943 Marks of readable style; a study in adult education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
1955 Why Johnny can’t read, and what you can do about it, New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
1981 Why Johnny still can’t read: A new look at the scandal of our schools. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Fries, Charles. C.
1963 Linguistics and reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Fries, Charles. C., Agnes C. Fries, Rosemary G. Wilson & Mildred K. Rudolph
1966 Merrill linguistic reading series. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
Geisel, Theodore
1957 The cat in the hat. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Goodman, Kenneth
1967 Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist 6(4). 126–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1982 Language, literacy and learning. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Gray, William. S.
1953 Preliminary survey of methods of teaching reading and writing. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
Gray, William S.
1955 Phonics versus other methods of teaching reading The Reading Teacher 9(2). 102–106.Google Scholar
Gray, William. S., May Hill Arbuthnot, Eleanor Campbell & Keith Ward
1940 Fun with Dick and Jane. Chicago: Scott, Foresman & Co.Google Scholar
Hanford, Emily
2018 Hard words: Why aren’t kids being taught to read? APMReports. Online: [URL] (12 December 2019.)
Hart, John
1570 A methode or comfortable beginning for all vnlearned, whereby they may be taught to read English: In a very short time, vvith pleasure: So profitable as straunge, put in light, London: I. H. Chester Heralt.Google Scholar
Hersey, John
1954 Why do students bog down on first R? Life 36(21). 136–150.Google Scholar
Huey, Edmund. B.
1908 The psychology and pedagogy of reading: with a review of the history of reading and writing and of methods, texts, and hygiene in reading. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
International Reading Association
1997 The role of phonics in reading instruction. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
Labov, William
1970 The reading of the –ed suffix. In Levin & Williams, 222–245.Google Scholar
Lamkin, F. Duane
1955 An analysis of propaganda techniques used in “Why Johnny Can’t Read”. The Reading Teacher 9(2), 107–117.Google Scholar
Lemann, Nicholas
1997 The reading wars. Atlantic Monthly 280(5). 128–133.Google Scholar
Levin, Harry & Joanna R. Williams
(eds.) 1970 Basic studies on reading, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Mann, Horace
1841 Lecture on the mode of preparing and using spelling books. Boston: William D. Ticknor.Google Scholar
1844 Seventh annual report of the Secretary of the Board. Massachusetts Board of Education. Seventh annual report of the Board of Education. Boston: Dutton & Wentworth.Google Scholar
Matthews, Sharon
2005 Who gets to play? How and why reading researchers were left out of the No Child Left Behind Act. In Leslie Poynor & Paula Wolfe (eds.), Marketing fear in America’s public schools: The real war on literacy, 51–61. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McGuffey, William. H.
1879 First eclectic reader (revised edition). Cincinnati: Van Antwerp, Bragg & Co.Google Scholar
Morgan, Judith & Neil Morgan
1995 Dr. Seuss & Mr. Geisel: A biography. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
National Early Literacy Panel
2008 Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.Google Scholar
National Reading Panel
2000 Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.Google Scholar
Nel, Philip
2007 The annotated cat: Under the hats of Seuss and his cats. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Rayner, Keith, Barbara R. Foorman, Charles A. Perfetti, David Pesetsky & Mark S. Seidenberg
2001 How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 2(2). 31–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Frank
1971 Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
2004 Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Snow, Catherine E., M. Susan Burns & Peg Griffin
(eds.) 1998 Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Strauss, Steven L.
2005 The linguistics, neurology and politics of phonics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Venezky, Richard
1970 Regularity in reading and spelling. In Levin & Williams, 30–42.Google Scholar
Witty, Paul A. & Robert A. Sizemore
1955 Phonics in the reading program: A review and an evaluation. Elementary English 32(6). 355–371Google Scholar
Yatvin, Joanne
2005 Making whole language disappear: How the National Reading Panel worked its magic. In Leslie Poynor & Paula Wolfe (eds.), Marketing fear in America’s public schools: The real war on literacy, 81–91. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar