‘Transformational grammar, developed in e Chomsioan trediton, ' @ expensive term describing grammars (almost ‘excsively those of natural anguanes), The tem s usually Synonymous wth the sgt mare speciic transformational. (generative grammar | | Inthe 1950s end 1960s, Noam Chomsky developed the idea “that each sentence ina language has twe levels of | representation - a geen structure and a surface structure. The oop structure was a direct representation ofthe semantics of sentence, Transformational generative grammar “Transformational grammar isa bos tem describing grammars | | (limes exclusively hose of natural languages) which have bon ‘developed ina Chorslass tation. The tem sully Synonymous wah the slightly more specie ranformatona- senerane grammar ‘sma amore echnical one Although was wll understood {hat linguist processes are nse sense “cretve” the chal ‘devices for expesinga system of ecurnive ross wete simply not avallsble ntl mach more rece. I at a eal understanding ‘ofhow a language cn (in unbolds worde) make infinite ue of Fite mean has developed only within he at thy year, he ‘Souseof stich foundations of mahemates (Aspects of he Bate mena nf ene ornon | | Development of basic concepts Though transformations conus o be npr in Chomsky’ Charen toons, be hs ow abandoned the pina nasion of Deep Structure and Surace Sucre Inially, two atonal eels of representation wee iniodced (LF — Logical Form, and PE ‘Phonetic Form) an hen nthe 19%05]Chomsky sketch out a new rogram ofeach now a Mma sete relevant Section {ihsarle) mwhich Deep Sct and Surface Sucre red and PF and UF remained the only Feves of pit the understanding ofthe development of Chomsy's the pee meanings of Deep Strutt nd Surice ture have changed ver me bythe 1970s, the two Were owmaly eed to simply a D-Swucure and Strocare and: Structure bore ineasngy es resemblance tthe Deep State tthe 1860 Inport, th ata the meaning of sentence ‘tar determined by Hs Dep Streture was doped when LF tokhuman ability to speak and understand, One of the most of Chom’ ideas is that most ofthis knowledge is | ‘ate, and that al languages conform to ase of pings, while | ‘fering oly in the values of cerain "parameter andofeourse | raw vocabulary) Therefore, a baby can have a age namb of ‘especttons abou the stature of languag: in genera, and eed | only deduce the values ofthe various params fr the lnguags) | is learning. Chomsky was na he iat person to suggest tal Janguaes had certain fundamental things in common (he ates philosophers writing several entines ago who had these bc ea), bt he helped to make the inateness theory fashionbe ae. ‘period dominated by more bakers atts towards language Perhaps more significanly, he made concrete and technically sophisticated proposals abou the trcture of language, an made important dectsons about how the quality of any sven thy of ‘grammar shouldbe valuatod Chomsky anes ofaras to suggest hata baby need not ar any cual "rules" specifi toa parca language ata nse. al languages are presumed to foo the same set of ules, Bur he effects of hese rls an the interacts stent a Ty ‘really depending onthe values of certain universal linguistic peramter. Ths isa ery song assumption, and is one ofthe more Sule ways in which Chomsky current they of language differs fo motors Grammar theories | Inthe 19605, Chomsky introduced two central ideas evant 0 the onsetion nd evaluation of theres of grammar. The st Was the distinction beeen competence and performance’ Chomsky ‘ote the obvious fact that peopl, when speaking nthe ral world, ‘fen make linguist eos (e starting asetence and then bandoning it may through) He argued that hese ron in Tingistie performance were elvan tothe study of igus competence (the knowledge whichallows people to consi and ‘understand grammatical sentences) according 1 ths argument. the | ety ect 0 Le evaluation of hooris oF grammar. Chomsky made a dtinction between grammars which achieved deseriptiveadequey” and those sshich went rhe and achieved "explanatory adequacy”. ‘eseripively adequate grammar fora particular langue fines the Cite) sto grmmatial setenees in that anguge, wheres 2 tgammar which achieves explanatory adequacy gives aim into the universal properties af language whichTiga str inthe Hunan wind Therefore, fa grammars Cxplratory ae, mist beable texan te varou {Pammatical ances of te langnges ofthe wer a ltvely ‘inorvanations nthe unveralpter of ha | CChomsy redhat even hough igus wera og ay ‘Sim of acer sion oud ony come tinge hd of desetve ely come if ings ‘rplansorysdeguiy ae goa Inet words el phn the stereo ddl angiges could ony be aed gh | tscomparave study ofa wieange of imguges Inthe 1980s, Chomsky proposed a distinction between "Language | and "E-Language’ silat not identical tthe ‘ompetenclperformancedistintion -Langaags taken tobe the best of study in syntactic theory isthe mentally represented gust knowledge which a mative speaker of language fas, and ‘stherfore a mental object — rm his perspective, most of Linguistics branch of Pssholoe. E-Language compasses ll tater ratios of what languages, for example that i body of | Knowledge or ichaviurl habits shared bya community. Chomsky | artes tat such atone of langage ate nt useful inthe sty of “ate inguisic Knowledge, re competence, even hough the) may | ‘com sensible and nuts, and are uf in oter ates of ty CCompetene, he agus, can nly be stuied languages re eed | | asmentl objec. | ["Grammaticalness P anges an F-Laneage Chomsky went against the posing viewpoint amongst inguin the tat half he 3h Conary by sngpeing tha he nos *pamintical” and “ungrammaticl could be defined a tmeaningll and seul way An exteme behavior linguist would ave that language can ony be stud top recoding © tranripone of etal speech, terol ofthe linguist being lok for pattern in sach observed speech, But ot hypethesie about ny suc patterns goss, orto lbs parla eteraees as iter "rammatial” oF "ungrammail™ ‘Chomsky argued that the inition fa natiespaher is enough o Asin the pamaticalnes of sent, hat, particular Sting of English words cts double tke, Fok oF wromgnsss Ina native English peers can e said that the ting wots Unglammatical Tht sen distin om the question of whether 2 etcnce meaning or ante undestad Is posible fora Sentence tobe bth rama ed meaningless, a in Chomsky’ | amous example “colourless proen eas hep fri)” Such | sSoences are ansensial i a ery deen wat frm meaning but ungrammatial ro sentenes ike "man the bit ‘Snduich the, the meaning of which s fy clear, bat Which m0 | pve sale would accept as being wel Formed The ase of such inttveadgement feed symtactcians from Sting language though gous of observed spect sie they‘were now able to study the grammatical popes of conived Sentences. Without this change in philosophy, the eonsrtion of snertve grammars would have ben mos mponibl, sins is ‘oflen the relatively obscure and rarely wed features ofa langage “which give linguists los shout te struct, and is yey ait ‘ond yod examples of such features i everyday speach. ‘Minimalism ‘Mach curentrescarc invansrmationl garmin Chomsys Minimal Progr otinedin book The Minas Progra (198) The ne search ton involves th fuer development of dsr moving conomy of Sarton" {nd coon a epee whch aed coe Snifcant in ther 1980 were tl er peri act of TGG theory. Economy of derivation is wince gating at ‘Rovemens(e-tamfomain) ny ecu noe fo mach “teeta ets” th unmonrenble tures An carple ofan ner etre he pl inom ls Eg oh nouns "dog's. The word "Spc ony be ne eet sever ops oie og. oh nfo coe 0 teanne. akin Wet: Engh ves anced ‘cording othe tummal ne tes (ep “Dogs bie ve" doy bes) bun most serene hs etn jos | Ganon tentomaton abot umber tthe set ean tend hs, and sth "untrctabe Economy of Teresertation the pcp th grata sce mst xt forapuupos Lethe sce of saci shoul bem ge or | moe crm thn mequred tsa) consans on ‘Bammatcaes oth hs doesnt al ut cope sentences fn pecal ony sense wich have superfine na ‘etrow state sma) Both ose Sse ee “mena api andmdes the pee omalton fhe Principe major sea of conmoveny mcuren serch An sr of mma ought the x a he derton Stymact acre sl eat ts nl fe pated apting arbre porns i eran, bt isa app tugiout devas Fortis aon, Dep Sacre an Sure Stree pst Mima theo of sya Minas mie see dsb Rtas 0 Piilosphica association wah Minimal, he rts nd cll Mathematieal representation Resuming to the more general mathematical notion of gram ‘important festre of al ansformatinal grammars tha hey are ‘more powerfil han contest fee arammars. This idea Was formalize by Chomsky ithe Chomsky hist: Itis pow sneraly accepted hat its imposible to desenbe the ttre of tural languages using context re grammars (atleast those When tanstormatonal rules are applied o 8 sentence, ot the sttucture itsef changes, but merly the form of | Insufficient models of grammar: sting of pears: ‘remmar to describe the Universal ‘Grammar inherited, nthe mind of ‘Speakers) Generative Grammar according to Chomsky: Generative Grammar according to Chomsky A grammar should Generate all and ony the Stemmatcal sentences ofa language . Should not concern itself with te psychological cess of sentence production Should be able to account for Superficaly similar structures whch carry diferent meaning, ‘Should be able to account for Superficial citferent structures whch cary the same meaning, Inauficont models of grammar ‘tng of pears String of pearls icdel The pig ate a sanawnicn ‘Tho pg stud himself Does not ware because words often depend ‘nother words some distance avay. Insufficient models of grammar: Phvase structure Insutciént models of grammar Prase structure Phrate structure ‘grammar languages have several basic sentence patterns, each with a umber of slots which can be ‘@oanded, The man smashed the ‘computer NP VP D NV NP DN ‘The man smashed the computer Revit nies S NP VP VP V (NP) NPDN Insufficient models of grammar Phrase structureTepresentation, ‘© Inthe tree structure the DS is sil shown by the marker of stave Insufficient models of grammar Phrase structure Phrase structure ‘grammar seems a reasonably ‘900d model at fst sight but. We equi an enormous numberof (© Transformational ules map the Deep Structure onto tues n order to generate al Surface Structure representations ‘sentences. The systom groups Sentences which are semantically ‘© What's i good for? dissimilar, and separates Beater. lbh a orpe ranean tee " oe alone ee ie eae Se Teme” abieeibentdoif: (© Humbolat: Show how language can make infrite use | The transformational model The of finte terms." gis ready fo eat surface Deep structure 1: The pig be +PRES to | © From Structures ‘eat ready. Deep structure 2:For to Unwversal Grammar Somecne to eat the pg be +PRES. fea, The pigs ready to eat (© Chomsky: Deep Structures of aiferent languages | something The pigs ready to be show considerable similares eaten by somenne, (© This indicates properties common to al anguages. m9v28°°, The transformational mode! ‘© These are concealed by the aiferent Surface | Structures | Tre wanstormatonal mode ‘Surface 1: ale the pig yesterday. ‘Surface 2: Yesterday Tate the pa, oop stvcure | eat » PAST the (© 3.1, The General Concept of US ig yesterday (© 8. Universal Grammar the system of principles, conditions, and ules that are | elements or properties ofall human languages... the ‘The transformational model: essence of human language” ‘The transformational model Basic (Chomsky, 1976) promise: Every sentence nas two levels of structure. one which is (© 9.4.The General Concept of UG ‘biious onthe surace . nd ‘another which s deep ded abstract (© Alluman beings share par oftheir knowledge of language (© Speaker knows ast of “Transformations: ‘rnp thet aopy oa languages, at ‘© parameters that vary within early dened mits | WBS Nol encugh fo show a every from one language to archer Structure. He lo ted te nk the 6 o Geep structure tothe surtace © UGisanatiemotto integrate grammar, mind and | CORP Sune es see language transformations . These were rues fochow the possibly Uingrammatos| deep structure ‘could be changed o grammatical © 3.2Aims of Linguistics00 0000000 < knowledge acquired? (© How is such knowledge put to use? '® What are the physical mechanisms that serve as. ‘the material basis for this system of knowisdge and forts use? (© 39An Example ofa Principle Structure- dependency ‘A pincple common tal anguages Asserts that knowledge of language relies onthe ‘structural relationships in the sentence rather then on the sequence of words 3.3 An example of Principle Example “The man who tals J. Is the man who stall John? “Is he man who tal is John? 34. Parameters Languages diet ‘© One way in which they aris in tems othe words they use © Otner ditferences between languages also have to be acauied Parameters sect among possible variants © Comparable o switches 3.4 Parameters Example: Word order Most anguages use ‘Subject Veo Object (SVO} 9 English ‘© Subject Object Vero (SOV): 9. Turkish 1 Verb Subject Object (VSO) 9. rsh ‘Something Bike this. 1. Find the ‘object noun phrese inthe sentence. Hes boing carats. 2 Replace the noun phrase with “what”. >He s boiing what 3 Move what tothe Beginning of the sentence, >What he i boing, 4. The auxlary verb BE moves 10 positon preceding subject NP >What is he boing? (see Finegan pot60.2) Slide 12: | ‘There are several T-ules ccounting for many grammatical problem areas such as the formation ofthe imperative, wh- | questions, there insertion ete | But. they dont always work. x ‘ADV ADV:X (Tranformation rule for adverb reposing (X=any sentence) Probleme with the Standard reser % Problems wit the Standard “Theory One ofthe most impertant principles ofthe Standard Theory ‘and Transformational Grammar ‘vas thatthe Tues should not change the meaning of the sentence. Unfortunately this was ot always the case, and this led 19 | a search fo its (constraints) on, | the transformational rules. Eventually, his led to a drastic reorganisation of TG and ‘eventually its abandonment, | ‘Some examples of problems: Some examples of problems: Problem 1: T-passive These two | sentences do not mean the seme _Fidgen by many cowboys "6 Object Ves Bubjoct (OVE) ‘Some examples of problems: “tera kes About Language Some examples of problems Be hee ee ‘Problem 2: T-conjunction reduction © Chomsky distinguishes betwoen Neither do hese two sercnoes inean the same ting The Eenquage {ransfoemation hes agin changed oe ‘the meaning. Few people are nich © ims: ocolect samples of data and then | and few people are famous. T- describe th propery Senonctonecueton aes) Few ‘people are rich and famous. © Constructs a grammar to describe the regularites ‘The overall result: © tanguage ‘The overallesut Onlyone (© Concerned wih what a speskerkrows —vanstormaton was toms can bout language and where this be moved" (admit win tit knowedge comes from ‘constants fc how ts wast ake place) The overal result was that © 5. Genera ideas About Language {he various incisal rules of | \ranstormationl grammar hag ‘2 particular navi nepies' of language. | language isa system represented inthe mindlbrain of tured ino a few basic general (Chomsky, 1988) ‘So what happened to (© Chomshy’s frst goat discover wnat consttutes-is an | Chomsky?” | Hanguage aim | ‘Sonat happened to Chomsky? ‘© 5, General ideas about Language “Answer: he did nat give up! He concerned himself wih: The (© Chomsty distinguishes between: encanta | Government and Binding Theta ‘© Competence: speaker's! heare's knowedge of | theory The Minmalct Program his language «Performance: actual use oflanguege in conte | sarnability | siustons | Leamabity One central question | © UGispar ofthe competence of a lnauage | fachhos oosares Chemely speakers how chron can sequre langvage society without apparent © Synlan's More than Meaning ‘even rng, They simply seem fo ‘Soak up the language (© Walformed sentence without meaning: \ olorless green ideas sleep furiously | cee (tap: (© Syntax as well as meaning deprived of inner logi: | | i aes 190 | Lao the only sense we can make |and the sithy ves ‘is gyre and gimble in the wabe; ‘All mimsy were the borogoves. ‘And the mome raths cutgrabe, "Beware the Jabberwock, my son! “The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjb bird, and shun | The frumious Bandersnatch!™ © Jabberwocky Revised version not following English syntax “Toves sithy the and brig twas abe the in gimble and gyce i © Uabbenvocky Twas brilig, and the sithy toves Did gyre and gimbie in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, ‘And the mome raths outgrabe, Grammatical words, @ . and, the, Lexical words (with nonsense’ stems), e.:fove, gyre gimble, wabe, © vabberwocky ‘Twas billig, and the sithy toves Did gyre and gimble inthe wabe, Al mimsy were the borogoves, ‘And the mome ratns outgrabe. sithy (© syntactic poston for an adjective (rt Adj N) ‘© morph -y, a common marker of a dervatonal process ering adjectives from nouns (cf. sime: slimy, grime: grimy, and 50 on) (© Creating 2 Grammar How many sentences? ofthe process of language learning ito assume that chidren fare born with a LAD (Language ‘Acquistion Device) his LAD f= genetically transmited it contains ‘rnate knowledge of the principles ‘of universal grammar the chia is Predisposed to use the LAD when analysing the utterances i hears. Principles and Parameters: Principles and Parameters Chomsky Sees LAD realised in “niversal Grammar (UG), whichis ‘common forall languages. This grammar consiss of few basic | brincipies that alanguages share, In adeton there is @ set of Darameters which vary fom language to language. An ‘xample’ all anguages have some | form ofa wort order structure where the positon of words partly | 2 faly date the clausalfncton | Inthe sentence. (a principle). SVO, | VSO, SOV etc = parameters Some | ‘example of parameters: Word ‘order, neadietvheas-ght languages; ro-dropinon-pro-drop languages. Principles and Parameters: Principles and Parameters ‘Accorsing to Chomsky chidren set the clitfrent parameters as they are exposed to a particular language. Ths process happens early nite, Government and Binding: Government and Binding During the eighties Chomsky was also ‘concerned with the idea of [command in sentences. The ‘notion that a certain constituent of | a pirese, the head, governs the fest ofthe phrase was essential The idea of eadedness' is also essential in he principles of binging which show how difeent ‘components can be connected° (© the shit of focus from the dubious concept ofan E- language tothe significant notion of |- language was @ ‘crucial step in early generative grammar (Chomsky, | The thematic relations between abot) diferent components have also bean of concern to Chomsky ‘© Chomshy’s theories ike UG aim at exploring the mind | (thetatheory): rather than the environment. ‘and Discussion ‘though they oscur at diferent) paves in a eontence “The themate relations between (© The generative approach offers a simple method to _ diferent components have also Mrecceescscnct: |ecameee i ra a fee ee Bec legccsem, Eee eae rete ene scien au mache isa the ee ‘© Camie, Andrew (2002): Syntex- A Generative ‘srrashed Lisa in the head. Semcmame ta Beer meee | fan inbuor: e armnesty © honky, Noam 857) Sytacte Sinctes Ben, ough hina ent pares Now Yor baton de Grner tractor Lov snaaied Len ihe fond win farmer Thee ae | © Cook, Vian and Newson, Mark (1886): Chomstys | he most common hema es Universal Grammer An invoduedon Oxo ana ‘Du; ere are cers (Sepp 207 ‘Cambedge. Blackwell Pubishing (© Gardner, Thomas (1973): Heuptsromungen der -Modemen Lingustk. Gotingen: Vandennoek & Ruprecht Final The ver latest Chomskyan © Ouneta, tml (100): IredigTraatrmasonas | neni fe Myra Program Grammar. London: Arnos approach, where the tion of ‘deep and surtace structure have Finally (ce. wikipedia oravskiNoam Chomsky, tst visited Begn apandonea. Only one (07.01.2007, 1425. transtormational rue remains “move anything anywhere’ 10 ° ‘which principles of economy, such asthe ‘Shores! Move" have been added. The ably ofthe theory to. Predict grammaticalty seems to have been abandoned, “Transformational & Generative Grammar ‘52220 The Writing Mactine Maren 8, 2005 + Linda La ‘What grammar? Grammars the dead descritions ofa particular language (Ca 2005), ‘To develop a theory of language structure, one mus st stusy a parteular grammar ‘What's grammar? Grammar covers morphoiogy sternal structure of words stor how words are combined to frm phases and sentences= Whats grammar? Descriptive rules Vs Prescriptive rules ‘aR ERADARI Ve AEE Modern linguists (since the 1970s) is purely descriptive, {eit doesn't tol us whether s sentence i Founded by Noam Chomsky inte late 1950s. ‘Language sa rule-governed system {ea resticied set af principles (a grammar) can account for 8 ‘wide range of concrete language practices, Generative grammar stucles concentrate on sentence grammar. Te principles that astinuish possible English sentences from Impossibe ones. > Whats Grammar? {Chomsky’s Generative Grammar “ERB” ‘Competence = infite rule governed creativity Not only about knowledge of familiar sentences, but aso for those we have never heard of before | ie the ably to produce comprehensible new sentences. | IChomskys mertaist view | Grammars about ‘competence + performance [Speakerfnearers knowledge ofthe language) [actual use of language in rea sivations) Whats Grammar? {chomsky’s mentalist view] (Grammars about, nce * performance [Speakerneorer's knowledge of the language factual use of language neal stuations) [competence] well formed sentences Vsi-formed sentences} ‘3) My uncle realizes that Im a busy cook 5) My cat realises that Im a lousy cook ©} My goldfish realises that Im a lousy cook 4) My pet amoeba realises that Im a lousy Cook ©) My fying pan reazes that Im a lousy cook 4) My smcerty realises that Im a lousy cook {) My bith reaises that Im a lousy cook. | ‘The oddly” of some ofthese sentences is pragmatic, NOT linguistic What s Grammar? | |Chomsky's mentais vie)36a with a communication ug example (1956, "a child's earning + More examples ofthe generative capac of grammar (1) This boy must seem eres stupid to hs git (2) This boy must seem inereaiby supe to that gr (2) That boy must seem incredibly stupid to that gr (4) That boy must seem incroaibly stupid to this gt (5) This boy must seem incredbiy stupid o ths boy. (6) This boy must seem incredibly stupid otha boy. (7) That boy must seem inrecbly stupid to that boy (@) That boy must seem increcbly sup to the boy. (G) This grt must soem increciblystupd to this gt. (10) This gt mast seom inereay stupid o that ge (11) That git must seem incredibly stupd to hat get (12) That gi must seem incredibly stupid to thes gr (13) Ths gr must som incredibly stupid otis Boy (14) Ths gr must soom incredibly stupid otha boy. (15) That gr must seem incredibly stupid to that toy. (36)___Thal gi must seem increcibly stupid to ts Boy Generative Grammar the Xba hoary “bar theory ie about prvase structure Ieassumes that al syitactic constituents are organized ‘around a head, X X can be any word of morpheme category X's expandad by the addition of a complement to frm a larger unt (bar) Constants of les some rues have tobe banned. “Rested dstioution™ a word caritjust tum up anywhere, e9 (2) Pgs ove trates. (2) Humans tove to | (@) Peters pigs | (The type of sentence frames" decides the mode of restiion | of dsinution | igs. “bar theory + constraints Consider the word "very" English (or |)" in Chinese) (1) He is very slow [very + Adjective 1% il] | (2) Me walks very slowly [very + Adverd fil | (@) "Very gins ove to have fun [very + Noun 4) | (4) He very adores her very + Ver il] {8 thapenad vr arte pay ey repeson ima (Note algo other retietions in dtibution) —‘ulane; and Guéron, Jacqueline, ‘Jacqueline, 1988: English Perspective. Blackwell Pubishing. Jomsiein, Norbert, 2001: Move! A Minimalist Theory of Cons lacked Pubisting 4 Radford, Andrew, 1988: Transformational Grammar, Course. Cambridge Univerty Press. Ul ‘Strategies that Support Emergent Dr. Debra J. Bae: and Dr- Ace F Snyder Reflections of the Past ‘Quickwrite—hat do you remember about your iteracy ‘experiences (feading and wring) duang your “Presnergartenyoors? *Krergerten fst grade years? “Second thes rade year? _ You: Predictions | Wat would you consider he top thes predictors of early Success eacing? > How would you rank the top te factors of eary sucess i reading for young enicren? Sociocultural Considerations in Literacy Development Piaget Drinfant's schemata developed by responding to hie ‘environment (sensory) and those around rim children create own knowledge by forming and reforming concepts in their minds. > chiles view ofthe word changes ands eterent ‘tom adults thus, their concepts about reading and writing are oferent rom adults concepts about them OS w concepis of readinghwrting are shaped by what they | learned in previous developmental stages, not nevessarly by Imitating aduts ‘Socieeuitural Considerations Vygotsky © Learning takes place ina socal context = Language comes out ofa need to communicate with others 5 Language and cognition emerge atthe same time 5 Leaming is mater of ntarnalzing language and factions of others | Family, social, and cultural contexts support learning | to read, speak, and write i;| Stages relate to now 2 child's concepts about writen and language develop aver me ‘9Ne Us a sense of what readers have accomplished, hal they can do now, whal ey can potently do and wrat ‘we can do to plan for ther needs at any given me ‘Generally speaking, each siage"charctenzes the averaat hid at that pont ‘Siages” arent dscrete—readers may move back and forth |Trom stage’ to'stage’ occasionally reaching «pistes, | saying awhile, and moving aheae. Emergent (Birth to 5-8 yrs) Logographic (Ei, 1981" Jue, 1981) Econ; sensory carat fs agape wt based on May “rec signs, abes when associated wih the obec, tut Tot when salted in grit (McDonalds, Lucky Chane) Emergont Birth to 56 yr8). Logograpie E1091 Jue, 1991) ‘ery youns may have experenced books 8. wrtng mates tut dont ra meaning in pits symbols on he own May serbble ang mate atr‘ike forms on paper wihout Intention to communicate a message {ater uses mosty information fom pictures tree" _ Emergent (Bin to 5-6 yrs). | [ogogranie (Er 1094 Joe. 1991) | Bags to name & wrte some eters Becomes aware tht pinta tents convey messages | Whites for purpose of communicating meaning, but reads & lentes in unconventonal ways [Resocatos word(s) wih peur ves {ites myme,repetion, alteration, magic and prsoneton lites to hear hefavorte stores repeated many times Early Reading (Ke, 7 ys) ‘Aphabei (En 196. Jue 1991) | eae that meaning mapped onto pintinsystemate ways | Use soe eter souna carespondences | Later alpnabate readers dope eadina(Secodng | Alpnabetic (Ere, 1991, Jue, 1991) Realzes that laters reprasent sounds so that | > words may be read by saying the sounds | ‘represented by the letters | '> words may be speled by witing the letters that ‘eresent re sounds 1 a word [aka. The Alphabetic Principle) |mote y Road Soe 4, $7 yra), by aseenses chid sabi fo erty letter sound relationships. Basic High Frequency Word Recognition Test assesses chid s abit to recognize the frst 25 Fry hgh frequency words inisolaton ‘Stages of Wntng Development Blackburn-Cramp Developmental Writing Seale > stages’ are no discrete © Love's do no! represent grade or age levels > Chisren can demonstrate caractenstcs from more than one ‘stage ot 8 time These are tendencesidescrptos Stages of Speling Development Gentry Developmental Speling Test > Resessas a id's understanding and knowledge about eter sound correspondences itis nota speling Ios to determine what words @ ‘chs can oF anne spel correct Strategy Instruction Five Exsenta’ Elements of Reading “Phonemic AwarenessiPhonological Awareness 2 Phones 3. Fluency 4% Vocabulary 5. Comprehension ‘Components of Phonemic Awareness Instruction Identfving Sounds in Words Gategorzng Sounds in Words Sbsttuting Sounds to Make New Words Blending Sounds to Form Words Segmenting @ Word info Sounds “not related to pit Strategy Activites1 "ICan Hear’—"This she Grinch | can hear the fe? ‘art in grinch. -and can er he foc parte, finch Then teacher goes ono read How the Groh Stole ‘> Word Play Books—speciaty designed to highight Heath § 8 (1983) Ways wah words Language. te and work n communtes and classrooms Camendge, MA Caméndge Unversiy Press Heath SB (1991) The sense of beng iterate Mstoncal and ‘cross-cultural features In PD Poavson Bar ML Karn! {8 P. Mosentna (E38), Handbook of reading eseorch (VO! 2) (903-28) New York Longman Morrow LM (Ed) (1995) Famiy strecy. Connectons Reading Asscoaton inc Paget J. &innelder, 8 (1969) The psychology of the chs New York Basic Books. Inc Sinckiang. DS. & Taylor (1989) Family storyoook reading Impicatons for dren taméies. ana cumculm Ia DS Sinckiana BUM Morow (Eds) Emergen tracy "Young chidran learning 10 read ad wre (pp 27-34) Newark DE International Racing Assocation Teale WH (1982), Toward a theory of Mow chien earn 10 read and wnte naturally. Language Ars, 50, 555.570 Vygotsny LS (1986), Thought and language Cambnoge Ma MIT ress, Thank you!