Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
First Language
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bialystok, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Making concepts of print symbolic: understanding how writing represents language

Ellen Bialystok

York University

Preschool children were given an opportunity to produce pseudocursive scribbles and then assessed for their concepts of print. Prereading children who could identify letters and print their own names participated in four tasks examining their beliefs about what made written material readable. The tasks evaluated children's perceptual distinctions between writing and non-writing as well as more subtle distinctions between printed and cursive forms of writing. Children were first placed in situations that might result in their producing pseudocursive writing and then were asked questions about whether it could be read and who could read it. Following this, they solved three tasks in which they were asked to make judgements about what kinds of material could be read, who could read it, and what letters were represented in a sample of cursive writing. The tasks were progressively more difficult but showed that the children knew a lot about the forms of writing. In spite of this, virtually all the children produced pseudocursive scribbles and believed they could be read. The interpretation is that the knowledge these children have of the forms of writing does not include understanding the symbolic function by which these forms represent language.

First Language, Vol. 15, No. 45, 317-338 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/014272379501504504


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JSLHRHome page
A. S. McGinty and L. M. Justice
Predictors of Print Knowledge in Children With Specific Language Impairment: Experiential and Developmental Factors
J Speech Lang Hear Res, February 1, 2009; 52(1): 81 - 97.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
LSHSSHome page
S. Q. Cabell, L. M. Justice, T. A. Zucker, and A. S. McGinty
Emergent Name-Writing Abilities of Preschool-Age Children With Language Impairment
Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch, January 1, 2009; 40(1): 53 - 66.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]