From "cracking the orthographic code" to "playing with language": Toward a usage-based foundation of the reading process

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

Authors

The empirical study of reading dates back more than 125 years. But despite this long tradition, the scientific understanding of reading has made rather heterogeneous progress: many factors that influence the process of text reading have been uncovered, but theoretical explanations remain fragmented; no general theory pulls together the diverse findings. A handful of scholars have noted that properties thought to be at the core of the reading process do not actually generalize across different languages or from situations single-word reading to connected text reading. Such observations cast doubt on many of the traditional conceptions about reading. In this article, I suggest that the observed heterogeneity in the research is due to misguided conceptions about the reading process. Particularly problematic are the unrefined notions about meaning which undergird many reading theories: most psychological theories of reading implicitly assume a kind of elemental token semantics, where words serve as stable units of meaning in a text. This conception of meaning creates major conceptual problems. As an alternative, I argue that reading shoud be rather understood as a form of language use, which circumvents many of the conceptual problems and connects reading to a wider range of linguistic communication. Finally, drawing from Wittgenstein, the concept of "language games" is outlined as an approach to language use that can be operationalized scientifically to provide a new foundation for reading research.

Original languageEnglish
Article number891
JournalFrontiers in Psychology
Volume5
Issue numberAUG
Number of pages14
ISSN1664-1078
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 22.08.2014
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

FP7: 264828

    Research areas

  • Psychology - Language games, Language use, Meaning, Natural reading, Reading research

DOI