CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,022Reading and Literacy DevelopmentSecond Language Acquisition and LearningPhonetics and Phonology Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 437 of the 439 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

On the anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography.

Share, David L.·2008·Psychological Bulletin
DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.584
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this critique of current reading research and practice, the author contends that the extreme ambiguity of English spelling-sound correspondence has confined reading science to an insular, Anglocentric research agenda addressing theoretical and applied issues with limited relevance for a universal science of reading. The unique problems posed by this "outlier" orthography, the author argues, have focused disproportionate attention on oral reading accuracy at the expense of silent reading, meaning access, and fluency, and have significantly distorted theorizing with regard to many issues-including phonological awareness, early reading instruction, the architecture of stage models of reading development, the definition and remediation of reading disability, and the role of lexical-semantic and supralexical information in word recognition. The dominant theoretical paradigm in contemporary (word) reading research--the Coltheart/Baron dual-route model (see, e.g., J. Baron, 1977; M. Coltheart, 1978) and, in large measure, its connectionist rivals--arose largely in response to English spelling-sound obtuseness. The model accounts for a range of English-language findings, but it is ill-equipped to serve the interests of a universal science of reading chiefly because it overlooks a fundamental unfamiliar-to-familiar/novice-to-expert dualism applicable to all words and readers in all orthographies.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.584

Cites

437 of 437 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 439 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,022

Related

Metadata

Authors
Share, D. L.
Affiliations
University of Haifa (IL)
Corresponding author
Share, David L.
ORCID
Share, David L.
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2008-07
Volume
134
Issue
4
Pages
584-615
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
DOI
10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.584
OpenAlex
W2040035146
Cited by
1,022
References
439
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 77 · 2020: 86 · 2019: 51 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 71 · 2016: 55 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 51 · 2013: 66 · 2012: 64
FWCI
69.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
Keywords
orthography, science of reading, dual-route model, word recognition, silent reading, reading fluency, phonological awareness, early reading instruction, reading disorders, reading development
MeSH terms
Child, Child Development, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Humans, Language, Linguistics, Reading, Research Design, Verbal Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review