ABSTRACT
Proponents of direct, intensive, and early phonics training for teaching reading partly justify their peculiar instructional beliefs by asserting that, unlike learning spoken language, learning to read is not “natural,” and that reading itself is an unnatural activity. I take a contrary position. To clear the ground for my arguments, I must deal with several matters that in my view contribute to profound confusions or misconceptions about the nature of reading. They concern (1) the alphabet, (2) language, (3) the brain. I raise these issues now because to some extent they contradict what often seems obvious, and there is no point in making an analysis of reading instruction without first examining critically what many people may take for granted.
