--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, Michael Everson
<everson@...> wrote:

> At 22:05 +0000 2005-08-30, suzmccarth wrote:
> >--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, Michael Everson
> ><everson@...> wrote:
> >
> > >Bugger the research.
> >
> >I always had the impresssion that you put great stock in
> >academic qualifications?
>
> Academic research has its place. When a theory suggests

something

> which flies in the face of reality, however, well, bugger it.
>
> I never said anything about academic qualifications.

I have heard you say that you "know the structure of the world's
writing systems." However, at this point you have placed yourself
in a position of disagreement to Peter Daniels, Richard Sproat,
Alice Faber and many cognitive psychologists, whom I won't
mention unless asked, and my own practical experience.

These people may disagree in terms of which labels to use
when but they all agree that segmenting the syllable is a script
specific task. Yet, you have not refered to any research which
supports your position other than your own 'reality'.

Cognitive psychologists in the western world have two basic
theories on reading acquisition. One is that children recognize
chunks of visual information, and the other is that they learn to
segment the syllable and become aware of discrete phonemes.
However, producing materials and instruction on how to *teach*
phonemic awareness is a multimillion dollar industry right now.

According to you, people can keyboard without either any visual
information relating to their script being present, and without
being taught how to segment the syllable, (which would be of
dubious success to those who became literate in the traditional
way.)

>
> The roadsigns are a fact.

The roadsigns probably exist for the benefit of those who would
actually need them and use them.

Suzanne