Trong thực tế, nó thậm chí còn rộng lớn hơn là họ dường như để tưởng tượng, vì họ rõ ràng bỏ qua từ các nghiên cứu xem xét về các chủ đề trích dẫn Lier tai, cụ thể là, miscue phân tích, ngôn ngữ học văn bản, in cao nhận thức, lý thuyết hành động lời nói áp dụng cho ngôn ngữ viết, ảnh hưởng đọc đánh giá về phát triển răng miệng lan | ACADEMIC IMPERIALISM 179 there were insufficient data to draw any conclusions about the effects of phonics instruction with normal developing readers above first grade NRP Report cited in Garan 2002 p. 57 . As noted earlier numerous discrepancies of this sort between the NRP s full report and its short summary report have been documented in Garan s important work. Rayner et al. 2002 referred to a vast research in linguistics and psychology p. 91 . In fact it is even more vast than they seem to imagine because they clearly omitted from consideration studies on topics cited earlier namely miscue analysis text linguistics print awareness speech act theory as applied to written language the influence of reading on oral language development and classroom ethnography. In general these studies have not been very friendly to intensive phonics. But by whose definitions do they not also count as linguistic and psychological studies that bear on reading Only an overly narrow view of what constitutes linguistics and psychology could justify dismissing the vast research in linguistics and psychology that supports meaning-centered reading pedagogy and opposes intensive phonics. Yet this seems to be precisely the position that Rayner et al. took. For example Rayner et al. 2002 approvingly referred to a 1995 letter addressed to the Massachusetts Commissioner of Education and signed by 40 Massachusetts linguists and psychologists including Rayner and Pesetsky themselves in which the signers expressed their concern over the state s proposed draft curriculum on education in the support it gave to wholelanguage principles and in its rejection of certain aspects of phonics. Rayner et al. failed to mention that Noam Chomsky refused to sign their letter. The letter was distributed by conservative education personality Samuel L. Blumenfeld in his November 1995 Blumenfeld Education Letter. Blumenfeld also printed a cover letter and a follow-up letter to the Massachusetts Commissioner of .
