Relevant knowledge helps comprehension, and tested content-rich programmes can build it and improve understanding of related texts. Hirsch’s case for a limited common entitlement also rests on unequal access and the value of equal public participation. That is a serious educational argument; it does not determine one national topic list or who should choose it.
Two schools might teach demanding knowledge through different topic sequences. Some shared topics could help pupils move between schools or understand public discussion. Choosing which topics to share still needs a reason for their educational value; shared topics need not mean identical books or teaching methods.
Provisional editorial selection from D1, D2 and D4; not human-signed. Source access and inference limits appear with each selected source. The selection is bounded; references to other records are citations, not additional supplied evidence.
What the case does establish
D1:C1 · Matched-topic effect
Claim
Relevant topic knowledge materially changes comprehension of a text that depends on that knowledge.
Status
strongly_supported
Scope note
Bounded to texts and outcomes for which the reader's knowledge is relevant.
Not established
That knowledge always outweighs reading ability or generalises equally across texts.
D2:C1 · Taught-content acquisition
Claim
A sustained content-rich curriculum can produce substantial learning of the vocabulary and knowledge it explicitly teaches.
Status
established_in_tested_settings
Scope note
Most secure for curriculum-aligned vocabulary and content measures under supported implementation.
Not established
Broad reading transfer, durable gap change or one required content list.
D2:C2 · Transfer
Claim
Taught content can improve comprehension of related texts; distant transfer is smaller and inconsistent.
Status
supported_but_distance_bounded
Scope note
The strongest positive trial shows near and mid transfer, with far transfer close to zero in the first follow-up.
Not established
Large, immediate transfer to unrelated texts or a general reading skill gain across programmes.
D4:C2 · Equal public access
Claim
Universal access to enabling public knowledge is a defensible educational entitlement when unequal home access otherwise restricts participation.
Status
normatively_defensible_empirically_constrained
Scope note
The entitlement is strongest as a capability and anti-exclusion argument, not as proof that commonality uniquely closes gaps.
Not established
That equal access requires identical content, sequence, treatment or materials.
D4:C3 · Common floor, not unique list
Claim
The strongest Hirsch argument supports a limited, transparent common entitlement more readily than one nationally enumerated list.
Coordination, mobility and anti-concealment provide real reasons for common specification, but do not uniquely determine its grain or geography.
Not established
That required overlap must be national, itemized or identical across schools.
Which teaching deserves the next hour?
D1:C6 · Strategy efficacy and unknown dose
Claim
A small repertoire of comprehension strategies is worth teaching explicitly; the assembled evidence does not identify how quickly further generic practice reaches diminishing returns.
Status
strategy_efficacy_supported_dose_underdetermined
Scope note
Two propositions must remain separate: brief strategy instruction can help; whether continuing generic practice has sharply diminishing returns is a dose question.
Not established
Any causal dose-response curve, equality of ten and fifty sessions, or a plateau at exactly six or ten sessions.
D1:A6 · No domain-general comprehension process
Claim
There is no general reading-comprehension process independent of specific topic knowledge.
Status
not_established
Representative occurrence
sk:ch12_C21
Hirsch passage
Id
sk:ch12_C21
Book year
SK 2023
Quote
In sum: there is no such thing as a general reading skill independent of specific unstated topic knowledge shared between writer and reader.
Book title
Shared Knowledge
D1:A7 · Strategy instruction helps; its dose curve is unknown
Claim
A small comprehension-strategy repertoire can be taught explicitly; a rapid plateau from further generic practice remains unestablished.
Status
strategy_efficacy_supported_dose_underdetermined
Representative occurrence
wkm:ch1_C73
Hirsch passage
Id
wkm:ch1_C73
Book year
WKM 2016
Quote
Lessons in reading strategies offer an initial score boost for test taking, but are quickly learned; they plateau fast, and they don't have to be practiced.
Instructional time is substitutable and the marginal comprehension return to knowledge building exceeds the returns to strategy instruction and fluency.
Decisive evidence
D1:S0362
D1:S0020
D1:S0161 (cited; record outside this selection)
D1:A8 · Cumulative common curriculum is the policy response
Claim
Schools should reallocate time toward cumulative knowledge and coordinate what a class learns.
Status
conditional
Representative occurrence
sk:ch12_C24
Hirsch passage
Id
sk:ch12_C24
Book year
SK 2023
Quote
shared topic knowledge is not an educationally useful characteristic—unless and until specific and predictable topic knowledge has been taught and learned by all the readers in the class.
Book title
Shared Knowledge
D1:C4 · Marginal instructional allocation
Claim
Knowledge building yields more comprehension than strategy or fluency per marginal instructional hour.
Status
underdetermined
Scope note
The D1 ledger and searches did not identify a well-powered equal-time comparison with matched and unfamiliar outcomes.
Not established
The relative return per instructional hour.
D1:C7 · Common curriculum bridge
Claim
The knowledge effect supports a cumulative common curriculum as the school's efficient response.
Status
conditional_policy_bridge
Scope note
Requires transfer, time-substitution, coordination and curricular-authority premises.
Not established
Which knowledge should be common, who should select it, or whether commonality is the best organisational form.
D1:S0362 · Rosenshine and Meister 1994
Source
Citation
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479-530.
Url
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ500529
Design
Quantitative research review of 16 studies, published and unpublished. (The registry title 'A Review of Nineteen Experimental Studies' is the earlier Technical Report No. 574 — do not conflate.)
Sample
16 studies
Effect
The 1994 journal abstract reports median effects of .32 on standardized tests and .88 on experimenter-developed tests. The full 1993 author report and tables were read; it covers 19 studies, whereas the 1994 abstract reports 16. The study-pool crosswalk remains unchecked.
Limits
Full 1993 author report and 1994 journal abstract read; full final 1994 journal article not read. Heterogeneous study-level session counts and significance categories do not identify a causal dose curve.
Full 1993 author technical report reviewing 19 studies, including effect-size and session tables; 1994 journal abstract reviewing 16 studies
Independence
primary_independent
Can establish
Reciprocal-teaching results were strongly measurement-sensitive, and a study-level comparison covering six to 100 sessions found no association between more sessions and statistically significant results.
Cannot establish
A causal within-program dose plateau at six or ten sessions, that ten sessions equal fifty under controlled conditions, or knowledge's superior return per hour.
Open limitation
The full 1994 journal article was not read and its study pool differs from the 19-study technical report; the session analysis compares heterogeneous studies and significance categories rather than experimentally manipulating dose.
D1:S0020 · Willingham and Lovette 2014
Source
Citation
Willingham, D. T., & Lovette, G. (2014, September 26). Can reading comprehension be taught? Teachers College Record, content ID 17701. With Willingham, D. T. (2006). How knowledge helps. American Educator, Spring 2006.
Commentary synthesizing eight prior quantitative reviews of reading-comprehension-strategy instruction; not a primary experiment or formal meta-analysis. Its saturation claim is an interpretation, not an experimentally identified dose curve.
Sample
n/a (secondary synthesis of 8 reviews)
Effect
Verbatim: 'none of these reviews show that more practice with a strategy provides an advantage'; 'Ten sessions yield the same benefit as fifty sessions'; 'RCS instruction should be explicit and brief'; 'Far from a let-down, this strikes us as wonderful news'; 'strategy instruction may have an upper limit, but building background knowledge does not'.
Limits
Opinion/commentary, not peer-reviewed. The dose claim rests on reviews that did not manipulate dosage — no dose-response RCT is cited, so it inherits the same weakness as Rosenshine & Meister. Teachers College Record volume/page numbers unverified.
Access
Open
Yes
State
full_commentary
Review
State
primary_text_read
Checked
Full commentary and companion article
Independence
primary_independent
Independence note
The commentary was not commissioned as Hirsch evidence, but Willingham later served on the Core Knowledge Foundation board and coauthored a CKF-affiliated study; the timing and relevance of that tie are not fully audited.
Can establish
The commentary recommends explicit brief strategy teaching and reports a saturation interpretation of prior reviews; it is not an experimental dose comparison.
Cannot establish
A causal dose plateau or a head-to-head knowledge advantage.
Open limitation
The underlying reviews did not manipulate dosage, and Willingham's later CKF role requires chain-level disclosure.
D1:X4 · Marginal instructional allocation
Question
What does an additional equal hour of knowledge building, strategy instruction or fluency produce on matched and unfamiliar texts?
Why it matters
This is the practical comparison Hirsch needs and the current parallel literatures do not supply.
Resolution
Run a well-powered equal-time multi-arm trial with proximal, near, mid and far outcomes.
Does a programme effect establish the value of shared content?
D2:C3 · Average distal effect
Claim
Some sustained content-literacy programmes produce small average gains on distal standardized comprehension or reading outcomes.
Status
modest_and_mixed_support
Scope note
Kim's follow-up and the broader synthesis are the cleanest positive evidence; independent programme results include nulls.
Not established
A uniformly large effect or the highlighted Colorado .473 estimate for the registered applicant population.
D2:A4 · Average distal programme effect
Claim
Programme assignment or attendance improves average distal standardized comprehension or reading outcomes.
Status
modest_and_mixed_support
Representative occurrence
sk:ch10_C10
Hirsch passage
Id
sk:ch10_C10
Book year
SK 2023
Quote
The TOT effect size was 0.473 across grades 3-6 for English Language Arts, with significant effects at each grade.
Book title
Shared Knowledge
D2:I6 · Programme success does not identify its ingredient
From
D2:A4
D2:A6
To
D2:A7
Status
not_established_for_whole_school_cases
Required assumption
The design separates content volume, disciplinary coherence, cumulative sequence and commonality from peers, leadership, staffing, discipline, take-up and professional development.
Decisive evidence
D2:S0005
D2:X0007 (cited; record outside this selection)
D2:X0006 (cited; record outside this selection)
D2:X0001 (cited; record outside this selection)
D2:S0161
D2:X0003 (cited; record outside this selection)
D2:A7 · Active ingredient
Claim
The outcome is attributable to curricular content—and specifically to commonality—rather than the surrounding school or other design features.
Status
not_established_commonality_untested
Representative occurrence
wkm:ch8_C101
Hirsch passage
Id
wkm:ch8_C101
Book year
WKM 2016
Quote
Their widespread success is best viewed not as evidence for a program but for a principle-that of a specific, communal, grade-by-grade curriculum.
Book title
Why Knowledge Matters
D2:C6 · Curriculum attribution
Claim
The strongest whole-school outcome effects were caused by curricular content rather than school selection, peers, leadership, discipline, staffing or implementation support.
Status
not_established_for_whole_school_cases
Scope note
Curriculum-specific RCTs identify their programme package; charter lotteries identify access to the whole school package.
Not established
That Core Knowledge content itself caused the Colorado charter effect.
D2:C7 · Commonality as active ingredient
Claim
The evidence identifies one common content sequence, rather than content amount, disciplinary coherence or cumulative sequencing, as the active ingredient.
Status
untested
Scope note
No reviewed study factorially separates specificity, coherence, cumulativeness and commonality.
Not established
That the knowledge effect entails a single common list.
D2:S0005 · Grissmer et al. 2023 Colorado lottery evaluation
Source
Citation
Grissmer, D., et al. (2023). A Kindergarten Lottery Evaluation of Core Knowledge Charter Schools. EdWorkingPaper 23-755.
Url
https://edworkingpapers.com/ai23-755
Design
Fourteen admission lotteries at nine Colorado Core Knowledge charter schools. Random offer identifies access to the whole school package among applicants; grade 6 was the prespecified primary endpoint, while the highlighted pooled grades 3-6 estimates use a restricted post-registration sample.
Sample
There were 2,310 unique applicants; the registered single-applicant sample was N=1,831. Take-up was 45% and grade-6 attrition 37%. The low-income result is one 62-application lottery with 16 winner-enrollees; N=167 in the paper is repeated grade observations, not children.
Effect
Grade-4 ITT .09, nonsignificant; grade-5 ITT .12, significant; prespecified grade-6 ELA ITT .04 and TOT .09, both nonsignificant. Restricted pooled grades 3-6: ITT .241, TOT .473. One low-income lottery: ITT .944, TOT 1.299.
Limits
The .241/.473 estimates exclude four high-differential-attrition lotteries and younger applicants. The .473 is at most a restricted-sample complier LATE for the whole charter package, conditional on IV, exclusion, monotonicity and missingness assumptions—not a registered-population ATE or curriculum-component effect. The low-income-site result is a within-subgroup estimate, not a treatment-by-disadvantage interaction or gap-change estimand.
Access
Open
Yes
State
full_working_paper
Review
State
primary_read
Checked
Full working paper, sample restrictions, attrition, estimands and subgroup analysis; OSF identity corroborated but direct registration inaccessible
Independence
mixed_affiliation
Independence note
Academic/federal evaluation of CKF schools; David Grissmer is independent of CKF, Dan Willingham is a CKF trustee, and CKF supplied professional development. Evaluator, programme and support ties are therefore shown separately.
Can establish
For the registered 1,831-single-applicant sample, random offer estimates access to the whole charter-school package: grade-4 ITT .09 (n.s.), grade-5 ITT .12 (significant), and the prespecified grade-6 ELA ITT .04 and TOT .09 (both n.s.). The restricted grades 3-6 TOT .473 is at most a complier LATE for that whole-school package, conditional on IV, exclusion, monotonicity and missingness assumptions.
Cannot establish
A .473 registered-population ATE, a causal Core Knowledge curriculum effect, commonality as the active ingredient, a treatment-by-disadvantage interaction, replicated subgroup benefit or durable gap closure.
Open limitation
There were 2,310 unique applicants across 14 lotteries and nine schools, but the registered single-applicant sample was N=1,831; take-up was 45% and grade-6 attrition 37%. The highlighted pooled ITT .241/TOT .473 excludes four high-differential-attrition lotteries and younger applicants. The low-income-site result comes from 62 applications and only 16 winner-enrollees; paper N=167 counts repeated grade observations, not children.
D2:X2 · The active ingredient
Question
Is the lever content amount, disciplinary coherence, cumulative sequence, whole-class commonality or the surrounding school?
Why it matters
Different answers imply different curricula and different authority arrangements.
Resolution
Use component or factorial comparisons and measure implementation, peers, staffing, leadership and professional development separately.
Did pupils benefit, or did a gap close?
D2:I4 · Average benefit is not differential benefit
The treatment effect is credibly larger for the initially disadvantaged group, estimated with adequate subgroup power and without post-hoc site selection.
Decisive evidence
D2:S0005
D2:X0001 (cited; record outside this selection)
D2:S0161
D2:X0002 (cited; record outside this selection)
D2:X0004 (cited; record outside this selection)
D2:A5 · Differential subgroup benefit
Claim
Initially disadvantaged pupils gain more under treatment than initially advantaged pupils.
Direct moderation estimates do not show a consistent equalizing pattern: Kim reports one favourable grade-4 English-learner mathematics interaction among 16 tested, while Cabell reports no economic-disadvantage moderation and some exploratory patterns favouring higher starters. Colorado and See report effects within disadvantaged subgroups, not treatment-by-disadvantage interactions; Hwang's lunch analysis is ecological.
Not established
A reliable treatment-by-disadvantage effect.
D2:I5 · Differential benefit to durable convergence
From
D2:A5
To
D2:A6
Status
not_established
Required assumption
The subgroup differential is meaningful, durable and measured against the same concurrent comparison—not inferred from benchmarks, repeated observations or external national gaps.
Decisive evidence
D2:S0005
D2:X0001 (cited; record outside this selection)
D2:S0161
D2:X0004 (cited; record outside this selection)
D2:A6 · Treatment-induced gap reduction
Claim
The treatment causes a meaningful and durable reduction in the measured between-group gap.
Status
not_established
Representative occurrence
re:ch1_C81
Hirsch passage
Id
re:ch1_C81
Book year
RE 2024
Quote
At the one low-income school in the study, the gains were large enough to eliminate altogether the achievement gap associated with income. Eliminate it!
Book title
The Ratchet Effect
D2:C5 · Gap closure
Claim
Knowledge-rich curricula reliably narrow or eliminate socioeconomic, racial or language achievement gaps.
Status
not_established
Scope note
Gap closure requires a treatment-induced change in the between-group difference, not a positive effect among disadvantaged pupils or a comparison with an external national gap.
Not established
Reliable, durable convergence across demographic groups.
D2:S0161 · Kim et al. 2023/2024 sustained content-literacy trial family
Source
Citation
Kim, J. S., et al. (2023). A Longitudinal Randomized Trial of a Sustained Content Literacy Intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 115(1), 73-98; Kim et al. (2024), Time to Transfer, Developmental Psychology, 60(7), 1279-1297.
Url
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED638864.pdf
Design
Thirty-school cluster RCT of the MORE content-literacy programme, followed across grades 1-4 in the same district and cohort.
Sample
Initial 2023 trial N=2,952; final MAP outcome N=2,275. 2024 follow-up randomized N=2,870; grade-3 analytic N=2,001 and grade-4 N=2,025.
Effect
2023 science-reading .18; near transfer .22; mid transfer .17; far transfer .04, nonsignificant. 2024 distal state reading/math about .11/.12 in grade 3 and .12/.16 at grade-4 follow-up. Of 16 moderation interactions, 15 were unmarked/nonsignificant; grade-4 English-learner mathematics was +.14 (p<.01).
Limits
One developer-led programme, one district and overlapping cohorts. Moderation is mostly null with one favourable interaction, not consistent subgroup convergence; percentages of national gaps eliminated are projections against external NCES gaps, not observed trial gap change.
Access
Open
Yes
State
full_primary_and_author_manuscripts
Review
State
primary_read
Checked
2023 primary paper and 2024 full author manuscript, including transfer distance, follow-up outcomes and moderators
Independence
developer_evaluator_non_ckf
Independence note
The research team developed/evaluated MORE; it is independent of CKF but not an independent replication. The 2023 and 2024 papers follow the same programme and overlapping cohort.
Can establish
A sustained science/social-studies content-literacy programme caused near and mid transfer and later small average reading and mathematics gains in one district.
Cannot establish
Core Knowledge efficacy, a required common content list, consistent subgroup moderation or observed gap closure.
Open limitation
The far-transfer estimate in 2023 was .04 and nonsignificant. Of 16 reported moderation interactions, 15 were unmarked/nonsignificant; one grade-4 English-learner-by-treatment mathematics interaction was positive (+.14, p<.01). Later percentages of national gaps eliminated are projections using external gaps, not observed convergence.
D2:X1 · The gap estimand
Question
Do disadvantaged pupils gain more under treatment, or do all pupils merely improve?
Why it matters
Only a credible treatment-by-disadvantage interaction or equivalent difference-in-differences directly establishes gap narrowing.
Resolution
Pre-register subgroup contrasts with adequate power, concurrent groups, repeated outcomes and an explicit gap-change estimand.
Why should schools prioritize what public writers presuppose?
D4:A1 · Tacit knowledge conditions communication
Claim
Writers necessarily omit what they assume readers know, so comprehension depends on relevant prior knowledge and shared associations.
Status
strongly_supported_with_scope_limits
Representative occurrence
poc:ch4_C75
Hirsch passage
Id
poc:ch4_C75
Book year
PoC 1977
Quote
A shrewd decision about the knowledge that the writer can tacitly assume in his audience may be the most important decision the writer makes.
Book title
The Philosophy of Composition
D4:A3 · Unequal inheritance creates an access problem
Claim
Advantaged children acquire much enabling public knowledge outside school; universal direct provision can therefore be compensatory.
it is necessary to teach all students in a focused and direct way the knowledge which the children of privilege gain indirectly by constant exposure and repetition at home.
Book title
The Schools We Need
D4:A4 · The end is autonomous public membership
Claim
The strongest version of Hirsch's educational purpose is equal autonomous membership in the public sphere, with commonality early serving later individuality.
Status
coherent_and_defensible_not_empirically_entailed
Representative occurrence
wkm:chprologue_C34
Hirsch passage
Id
wkm:chprologue_C34
Book year
WKM 2016
Quote
The unifying aim of early schooling is autonomy and equality of opportunity
Book title
Why Knowledge Matters
D4:I6 · Existing assumptions become worthwhile curriculum
From
D4:A1
To
D4:A7
Status
central_is_ought_gap
Required assumption
What current public discourse presupposes deserves curricular priority beyond the narrower duty to disclose an inherited code and equip pupils to criticize it.
Decisive evidence
D4:X0008 (cited; record outside this selection)
D4:X0010
D4:X0012 (cited; record outside this selection)
D4:X0014 (cited; record outside this selection)
D4:A7 · Selector one: disclose the existing public code
Claim
Priority should go to information competent public writers already assume; the list is functional, empirically revisable and not a literary canon.
Status
functional_access_rule_normatively_incomplete
Representative occurrence
kd:ch7_C86
Hirsch passage
Id
kd:ch7_C86
Book year
KD 2006
Quote
Is this information often taken for granted in talk and writing addressed to a general literate audience?
Book title
The Knowledge Deficit
D4:C5 · Functional selection
Claim
Teaching what competent public writers currently presuppose is an ingenious access rule but not a sufficient account of educational worth.
Status
functionally_plausible_normatively_incomplete
Scope note
Existing currency can justify disclosure and access but not all educational worth. Hirsch himself denies that the extensive curriculum is sufficient and requires intensive understanding alongside it (Cultural Literacy, pp.127–130). The remaining dispute concerns how these commitments are ordered and enacted.
Not established
That prevalence, familiarity or consensus exhausts what future citizens should learn.
D4:I5 · Communicative access becomes the chief educational purpose
From
D4:A1
D4:A3
To
D4:A4
Status
value_premise_not_empirical_result
Required assumption
Equal public membership should organize early schooling rather than only receive practical priority when lack of access blocks learning or participation. The stronger ordering must justify how other purposes are integrated or subordinated; a necessary enabling condition alone does not settle that ranking.
Decisive evidence
D4:X0010
D4:X0016 (cited; record outside this selection)
D4:X0010 · Klafki 1995, the problem of educational content
Source
Citation
Klafki, W. (1995). Zum Problem der Inhalte des Lehrens und Lernens in der Schule aus der Sicht kritisch-konstruktiver Didaktik. In S. Hopmann & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Didaktik und/oder Curriculum: Grundprobleme einer international vergleichenden Didaktik (Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, Beiheft 33, pp. 91-102). Weinheim and Basel: Beltz.
Primary theoretical statement of critical-constructive Didaktik. Klafki distinguishes curriculum-level from classroom-level decisions and offers eight theses about how cultural contents become educational themes.
Sample
Not applicable (theoretical article).
Effect
Klafki gives aims priority over contents and methods: cultural material becomes educational content only through a reasoned judgment about why it matters. Given the aims of self-determination, co-determination and solidarity, selections require didactic justification and must remain open to criticism and change. He requires mediation between pupils' present interests and experience and their likely future social and individual tasks; neither pupil preference alone nor adult pre-emption alone is adequate. The concrete meaning of a theme is further shaped through teacher-pupil interaction.
Limits
This is a normative and hermeneutic framework, not an algorithm that mechanically returns a list and not a head-to-head efficacy test. Its answer depends on accepting Klafki's three orienting aims and on capable didactic judgment. It neither names Hirsch nor establishes comparative learning outcomes or a complete governance procedure for resolving disagreement.
Access
Open
Yes
State
full_primary_published_text_read
Review
State
primary_read
Checked
Full German text and decisive pages 97–98 inspected; English summaries are Atlas paraphrases, not presented as quotations.
Independence
primary_independent
Independence note
Independent primary theoretical text; it does not test Hirsch and is used as a positive rival warrant.
Can establish
Klafki requires inherited curricular aims and contents to receive didactic justification in relation to self-determination, co-determination and solidarity and to remain open to criticism and change; neither pupil preference nor adult pre-emption suffices.
Cannot establish
Which specific topics satisfy those criteria, comparative outcomes, or that professional judgment avoids elite fashion and unequal variation.
Open limitation
The framework supplies a warrant and revision grammar, not a deterministic content-selection algorithm.
D4:K5 · Which educational purposes have priority, and when?
Question
How should qualification, public access, disciplinary power, self-determination, solidarity, inquiry, socialization and subjectification be balanced by age and domain?
Why it matters
Necessary access, a practical priority for repairing exclusion, and a general hierarchy of educational ends are distinct claims. Hirsch includes intensive understanding; Biesta gives subjecthood a central role. Neither textual correction determines the best allocation of school time.
Resolution
Specify an age/domain/context, the access barrier, the common entitlement and the present opportunities for understanding and agency. Compare feasible ways to secure all of them; identify the actual sacrifice before ranking ends. Empirical comparisons can test feasibility and losses; the priority rule still needs a stated normative warrant.
D4:kd:ch7_C86 · Hirsch passage
Id
kd:ch7_C86
Book year
KD 2006
Quote
Is this information often taken for granted in talk and writing addressed to a general literate audience?