Talk:Phonics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Maybe some of the problems are less to do with whether the page is wikified than whether the phonics system holds water.
Phonics is described as "the study of the way in which spellings represent the sounds that make up words." The problem is they don't. Believers in phonics may protest that letters sometimes represent sounds, but you can't tell when they're doing it, so they're not really representing. Few customers would be happy with a bank which sent them information which only sometimes represented the state of their accounts.
The article says: "G has a name of "Gee" but it says "Gaa" (with the Aa sound suppressed.)". If "g" says "gaa", what is it saying in "Gee"? Aha, replies the phonicist. That's one of the exceptions. Hang on, says the realist. So "g" doesn't always say "Gaa". Why did you tell me it did?
The suggestion that each letter has a name and a sound could be taken to mean that a letter's name can't be the same as its sound(s) (cf. "k" and "a").
People learning to read can start reading before they memorise the 20,000 words mentioned. I wonder how many people really do know how to speak 20,000 words let alone write them. Phonics' 100 rules is a formidable number. Also, the statement: "But there are many exceptions to this rule." is very depressing, though true. An exception to a rule is really a new rule. One must therefore add the number of exceptions to the number of rules to get the total number of rules. Also, you have to decide which is a rule and which an exception. Is the use of "c" to say /k/ somehow more regular than it's saying /s/ and, if so, why?
Saying: "OUGH has up to 6 different sounds, such as "Cough", "tough", "Thought", "Through", "Trough", "Bough" etc." may be at least partly correct but it doesn't help the child know which one applies. I'm not sure what the difference is between the "ough" in "cough" and the same letters in "trough", but "trough" may be a typo for "though".
The statement that each vowel has two sounds is false, even if you add that each vowel can also be schwa. When children figure this out they will have to unlearn phonics to be able to read and spell.
In the first large table, part 12 seems not to make a distinction between the pronunciation of, for example, "hue" and "june" (sic). In part 1 we have the unfamiliar "lade". There's a rule called 2 which says: "E is often silent before d; as in bribed, changed, hedged; cradled, handled, struggled." and one called 3 which says: "E is often silent before l; as in drivel, grovel, hazel, shovel, swivel, weasel." This so-called silent "e" can therefore be truly silent or a syllabic schwa.
It's said that, inter alia, "t" regularly represents one sound, but it does not. Think of all the instances where it precedes "h" or "ion".
We'd all love it if English spelling were phonetic, but it isn't. Part of the problem is that the alphabet was developed for a Romance language.
Some writing on phonics is unclear in terms of whether it is about reading or spelling. Maybe part of the problem with phonics is that its adherents believe that words' essences reside in their written form, and that the spoken language is a rendition of a written one.
pauldanon
- If there are problems with the phonics system (as undoubtedly there are), then there is no reason that they cannot be addressed in the article under a "criticisms" section or some such. Anyone who reads this should feel free to add one if the spirit moves them. Nohat 16:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] info moved from Auditory phonetics
- Phonics in school education
- In kindergarten 1 and 2 (ages 4-5) the basic sounds of the alphabet are taught. In Auditory Phonetics emphasis is on the perception of specific sounds and their grasp on them. For example; when the teacher teaches the basic sounds of the alphabet she has to emphasise the pronunciation of each sound clearly and show the movements of her lips so students can hear clearly and imitate the sounds effectively. An example: a for apple, b for bat and c for cat and so forth. This is reinforced with listening to songs having the same sounds in them, reading and listening of the sounds on whiteboard or cards with pictures, oral games and reading the sounds in simple words in story book.
- In grades 1 and 2 (ages 6-7), this development is taken a step further to include the phonic blends, (such as bl for blanket, fl for flag or sh for shell and ch for church) and long vowel sounds, until all the sounds are learnt. Reinforcement is provided by different types of oral and listening work.
The above isnt about auditory phonetics, but maybe it can be integrated into this article if desired. peace — ishwar (SPEAK) 18:31, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
[edit] Definition: identity, characteristics
DEFINITION
A definition has two parts. The first part asks, ‘What group does it belong to?’ The second part asks, ‘How is it different from others in the group?’
IDENTITY
Phonics is the study of the way in which sounds are associated or correspond to individual letters or letter sequences that make up written words. The word ‘represent’ in the article implies the process of creating a mental image of something, and should be replaced by the word ‘associate’ or ‘correspond’ in the article.
‘Represent’ implies a one-to-one correspondence between two things, which creates a unique identity. Phonics in English does not involve representation, it involves association or correspondence. The teaching of phonics involves classification, not identification. An encyclopedia article from the '60's uses the term association.
A 1970's dictionary indicates that phonics is a letter-sound correspondence, not a sound-letter correspondence, as indicated in the article Some letter-sound correspondences are single and some are multiple.
Phonics involves pronunciation. The ’sounds that make up words’ are significant in the context of the pronunciation of the whole word. Does phonics teaching include the pronunciation of one letter, two letters, a syllable, and also the whole word? If phonics does not include the pronunciation of the whole written word, then why does it involve a letter sequence, but not a complete letter sequence?
The dictionary indicates that phonetics includes the representation of sounds with letters. If phonics is sound-letter correspondences, as the article says, and phonetics includes sound-letter correspondences, then what does one call letter-sound correspondences?
CHARACTERISTICS
The statement, ‘Pronunciation rules are inconsistent’ implies that phonics is the study of letter-sound correspondences, contrary to the beginning sentence. ‘Inconsistent’ implies that in English there are multiple letter-sound correspondences and multiple sound-letter correspondences. This statement also implies that other languages may have single letter-sound correspondences, not multiple.
The statement, ‘Students of the English language must memorize hundreds of words,’ does not indicate whether the word memorize refers to pronunciation or spelling. In order to ‘memorize’ the pronunciation of words, one must hear words correctly pronounced in association with the correctly-spelled written word. In order to ‘memorize’ the spelling of words, one must see words spelled correctly in association with the correctly-pronounced spoken word.
Phonics and phonetics are tools for the classification of sounds and letters in written and spoken words. They are not substitutes for the process of actually reproducing written and spoken words. To classify is not to reproduce. In other words, one must pronounce what one hears and spell what one sees, not pronounce what one sees and spell what one hears. This process also occurs in languages with picture alphabets.
Some foreigners with non-phonetic languages can be very good spellers of English, in spite of difficulties in pronunciation. This is unlike some other completely phonetic languages where one can pronounce what one sees and spell what one hears.
What is ‘the phonetics of letters?’ Is it sound-letter correspondences or letter-sound correspondences?
In the article, what does ‘such words by rote’ refer to? The previous sentence speaks of phonetic words. ‘Such words’ should be preceded by a reference to non-phonetic words.
‘Learn hundreds of such words by rote’ implies that the classification process that phonics teaches does not aid in the process of remembering how to pronounce or spell non-phonetic words. One must question whether phonics is taught as a classification process or as a process of ‘representation.’
The association -- of correct pronunciation and correct spelling with non-phonetic words -- is committed to memory and retrieved from memory according to some type of pattern. If an association cannot be retrieved from memory, as in learning disabilities, then one must question whether the problem lies with committing associations to memory or with lack of initial exposure to those associations. If a person is taught to associate a letter sequence with letter names, then the person will retrieve that letter sequence as letter names. If a person is taught to associate a letter sequence with phonetic sounds, then the person will retrieve that letter sequence as phonetic sounds.
If a person is taught to associate a letter sequence with the correct pronunciation of a whole word, then that person will retrieve that letter sequence as the correct pronunciation of a whole word. These three process are not mutually exclusive. They can be done in parallel.
Entire populations that use non-phonetic languages apply ‘rote memorization’ every day. They use visual associations to aid them in understanding new characters.
There are sections in the article on EXAMPLES, ORGANIZATION, PROCESSES, DYNAMICS and APPLICATIONS. Others are more qualified to comment on those subjects.
Seventhpower 03:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Disproving tenets
The article says that each letter has two sounds, short and long. Four instances of "a" are cake, tack, father and about. A tenet of the system is thus proven false. Some instances of "i" are bite, bit and lotion. Instance of "o" are over, other and bottom (two in the last word). If phonics teaches literacy, it doesn't do it because it's true. www.danon.co.uk
Synthetic and analytic (sic) phonics
The article tries to illustrate the difference between these variants by suggesting that, on the one hand "street" has six (presumably phonetic) elements and, on the other hand, that it has three. All great fun but, phonetically at least, utterly wrong. A broad pseudo-IPA transcription would show it as having five elements thus: /strit/. Sure, "street" has six letters, but "though" has six letters, one syllable and three sounds. None of this advances human knowledge, least of all that of the poor kids who have to learn this misleading hogwash at the same time as actually learning to read and write. www.danon.co.uk
[edit] Reading level
What reading level are we aiming at here?
"Each letter is like an animal, which has a name and the sound(s) that it makes ... A criticism of this statement would be that in fact ..."
Writing for primary school students would make sense in this article but if this is what we're doing we'll want to be consistant and leave out the hard stuff which will only turn the kids off. Jimp 20Dec05
[edit] Brilliant
Some "smarter" kids recognize certain pronunciation patterns on their own and can then extrapolate how to read new words; the less fortunate can become illiterate if they fail to do enough reading exercises.
Imagine that - not doing reading exercises will impede your reading ability. And not doing your math assignments will impede your math ability.--RLent 18:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
What it's saying is: either you can teach the children the rules, even though there are exceptions, so they can get started easily, or you can throw the words at them and leave the determined ones to work the rules out for themselves, including the exceptions. Under the second system, many children become discouraged early on because it is very hard. When a child doesn't know how to read a word, are you more likely to say 'sound it out' or 'remember, you must have seen this somewhere before....'? Everyone who can read words they haven't seen before, or haven't seen often, has worked out the basic rules, even though there are exceptions. "Imagine that - not doing reading exercises will impede your reading ability. And not doing your math assignments will impede your math ability" So would you advocate not teaching children the principles of arithmetic on the basis that, if they did enough homework (and extra maths problems at home with their parents) they would pick them up themselves? 57.66.51.165 14:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Definitional Problems
From my understanding of Phonics, it is less a study of the relationship between spelling and pronunciation, and more a method of teaching people how to read (and later spell), through the study of this relationship between spelling and pronunciation.
I am curious as to where the author(s) of this article got their "Basic Rules." I am familiar with several Phonics methods:
Matsuka Phonics - a popular method used in Japan and several other Asian countries and is based on research.
Hooked on Phonics - the now Phonics method that educators in the US claim has injured the name of Phonics by teaching a half-baked method.
Orton-Spalding Method - another well-known Phonics method, developed in 1937 by a neuro-pathologist, Samuel T. Orton. This is the most "complete" Phonics method I know of; by "complete", I mean that it does not consider many common words to be "exceptions."
Let's take a quick look at a few of these claims:
Each vowel has two sounds: one long and one short
Matsuka Phonics teaches two sounds for each vowel. Orton-Spalding does not. For the letter 'u', for example, four sounds are taught: cup, cute, tune, put.
The article says: "G has a name of "Gee" but it says "Gaa" (with the Aa sound suppressed.)". If "g" says "gaa", what is it saying in "Gee"? Aha, replies the phonicist. That's one of the exceptions.
If the Phonics method you refer to teaches only one sound for the letter 'G', then you are right... that is crazy. But I know of no method that only teaches one sound for the letter 'G'. AFAIK, all three of the above-metioned methods teach both sounds for the letter 'G' (rag & rage).
Many words do not follow these rules; they are called "sight words". Sight words must be memorized since the regular rules do not apply. e.g., "The", "Are", "You".
This is a common reason given for the uselessness of Phonics. Again, depending upon the Phonics method under consideration, this statement may or may not be true. According to the Orton-Spalding method, all three of these words follow the Phonics rules as they are taught. The only possible "exception" might be the word "the", as most native speakers now pronounce the final 'e' as a schwa instead of as a long 'e'.
I could go on... and I guess I should take some time to edit the article. At any rate, if anyone is interested in reading more about Phonics, check out the Riggs Institute:
http://www.riggsinst.org/GreatDebate.aspx
Peace, --Hardov 07:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Wee teech fonicks in Feenex.
[edit] Phonics is an effective instructional method
The information presented on phonics in this entry was far from complete before I made substantial revisions. It remains far from complete, but significantly clearer. The debate over the utility of phonics, as the revised entry demonstrates, is largely closed. Phonics is effective for 95% of students. The remaining 5% of students have learning disabilities. Among those, 3% can learn to read using intensive phonics programs, such as Orton-Gillingham (described above). That leaves 2% of students. Whole language approaches are generally considered to work for about 70% of the population. Clearly, phonics works.
The argument against phonics goes like this: "English is so complex and there are so many rules, many of which contradict each other, that it's not worth teaching students how it works. We're better off teaching them to memorize words and use textual clues for words they can't decode outright."
There's an irony inherent in this argument. The argument against teaching phonics is that there are too many rules to remember. By extension, this implies that phonics takes up too much valuable mental real estate. The argument for memorizing words requires rote knowledge of thousands of words, such that even more mental real estate is consumed. The anti-phonics argument, in response to this clear irony, is that memorizing doesn't require the complex mental machinations that phonics does (e.g., you don't need to remember when g says /dʒ/ and when it says /g/). To the contrary, without phonics, students are expected to go through the complex mental machinations of figuring out a word using some sketchy word knowledge (perhaps the first and last letter) in addition to textual and visual cues (context and illustrations, respectively).
So, not teaching phonics requires as much mental effort as teaching phonics, even if we assume that phonics is an extremely complex process students cannot possibly master. But, the a priori idea that phonics is necessarily complicated beyond reason is unreasonable.
Yes, the English spelling system is challenging. However, armed with a bank of key phonics tools, most words can be decoded. A computer simulation, armed with a strong knowledge of only the most regular English spelling conventions could "read" 96% of words correctly. That does leave a frustrating 4%, mostly very old (and often high frequency words) and foreign words that require special attention. The other 96% we can teach students to decode using a bank of phonics knowledge. There are fewer than 100 phonic elements needed to decode the majority of English words. If we require students to memorize their times tables, we can certainly expect them to memorize 100 word patterns.
And we should expect this. Why? It works, as stated above. Kids also enjoy it, when it is taught clearly by teachers who understand how it works. Few of us, having grown up with Dick and Jane or whole language, understand the phonic system, but a little education goes a long way to helping students read and spell more successfully. As a teacher, learning how the English phonetic and phonic systems function was among the most important things I ever learned.
All of this emphasis I've given to phonics here should not obscure the fact that I am steadfastly committed to comprehension instruction from the earliest grades. Kindergarteners and 1st graders should be engaged in meaningful discussion about text and learn new concepts from reading in all disciplines. After all, phonics is useless if it is not used to make meaning out of text! However, there need not be a choice made between phonics and comprehension: both can be--and should be--taught. --Kearnsdm 08:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rarity of symbol use
I reverted the changes to the section on the instructional phonics symbols used in the U.S. I understand they are still commonly used. -- Mwalcoff 04:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Symbol Use
Symbol use is not very common in the United States, contrary to your understanding. It may be used in some cases and by some programs (a special alphabet--not the one you've chosen, but something somewhat similar--is, for example, used in SRA's Reading Mastery in its early levels). However, most programs do not use these. Frankly, the use of this pseudoalphabet makes phonics seem like a strange way to teach children to read. It, therefore, implies that it is a way of teaching that distracts students from the actual print on pages in actual text.
The way you've framed your "understanding" almost certainly suggests that you're at a certain distance from actual reading instruction. This raises the quite legitimate question, what is the basis for your assertion?
I think that, pending a better resolution, the way I've reframed that section is a fair compromise. A productive, evidence-based discussion of methods in wide use would be appropriate for resolving this issue.--Kearnsdm 05:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- I admit my understanding of how the symbols are used might be off. Certainly the symbols are used, as seen in websites like [1] and [2], as well as my mother's classroom and my own elementary-school classes so many years ago. Let's remove the section for now while I get more information on how exactly the symbols are used. -- Mwalcoff 05:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] National Geographic Channel randomised intermediate letters goes haywire
The National Geographic Channel randomised intermediate letters shows that if the first and last letter of a word remain the same with the intermediate letters randomised, the meaning is superficially maintained.
A sample in talk:Whole language shows that is it broadly true, and by implication, that Whole language is the way to go.
However, National Geographic fails to mention the possibility that randomisation can change one word into another, which might give a completely different meaning.
Talk:whole language lists a ambiguous pair of words seen in the Economist newspaper of 30 September, 2006, page 56.
Imagine the following:
- Bill Gates donates $10b to poverty relief in Tasmania, ( a rich state).
- Bill Gates donates $10b to poverty relief in Tanzania, ( a poor state).
Note that M and N have very close sounds, while S and Z can have the same sound and may be interchangable, such as in the words organise and organize.
It is not known what other word pairs may have similar hidden traps waiting to catch people.
In terms of the phonics-whole language debate, National Geographic Channel appears to be supporting whole language, while this example is suggesting that whole language can be dangerous, and that therefore phonics should be preferred.
Tabletop 04:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why the National Geographic Experiment Means Nothing
Certainly, the NG experiment is interesting, but it does not prove that we are only looking at the beginning and the end of the word. To examine this, let's remove all of the middle letters, leaving only the first and last graphemes and substituting X's for everything else (on the assumption that word length, if not the intermediate letters, makes a difference).
So, here goes:
The axxxe dxxxxxxxd exxxxxxxxt pxxxxs oxxy thxt hxxxn cxxxxxxxe fxxxxxxxs axe ixxxxxxxxy rxxxxt -- we cxn rxxxxxxxe txe ixxxxxxxxxxe lxxxxxs in a wxxd axd pxxxxxxxe txe rxxxxt axxxxxxxxy wxth lxxxxe dxxxxxxxxy.
If you can figure out what this says reading at the rate of 100 words per minute, I will admit that the experiment is valid. Otherwise, it is an entertaining, but unhelpful, exercise.
Kearnsdm 07:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lead section
This is the current lead section:
- Phonics is the study of the way in which spellings represent the sounds that make up words. It is related to phonetics, which is the study of speech sounds in general. In the United States, the term is also sometimes used to refer to a particular instructional design such as that used by the commercial Hooked on Phonics products.
I think this has to be rewritten. The study of spellings (with regard to speech sounds) is not really close enough to phonetics to merit a mention of a relationship. Also, a dictionary search tells me phonics is a synonym for acoustics or phonetics. I propose:
- In the United States, Phonics is the study of the way in which spellings represent the sounds that make up words. The term is also sometimes used to refer to a particular instructional design such as that used by the commercial Hooked on Phonics products.
--Kjoonlee 09:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
“Phonics” is not used outside the United States or for other languages than English, and the lead section has to reflect that: "Phonics is a system used in the United States to teach English spelling", or even simpler: "Phonics is a system used in the United States to teach children how to write". Or do they first learn how to write and then they are tought "phonics"? —Babelfisch 07:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] problems
The system, at least as described in the article, misleads children by suggesting that diphthongs are actually long vowels. The sound called long-A is customarily taken to be the A-sound in father (at least in RP). Schwa isn't indistinct; it is as distinct as any other vowel and, I'd suggest, not hard to understand. Indeed, it's quite easy to grasp that it occurs in most unstressed syllables. How are the poor children to work out that, according to phonics, the first syllable of "button" is closed while the first syllable of "basin" is open? The definition of a diphthong as being "linguistic elements that fuse to adjacent vowel sounds" is meaningless and inaccurate. The vowel-consonant-E rule "wherein a single vowel letter, followed by a consonant and the letter e makes the long vowel sound." includes "cone" as an example, but what are the poor children to make of "done" and "gone"? The phrase: "The final 'short vowel+consonant pattern' is just one example of dozens that can be used to help children unpack the challenging English alphabetic code." Dozens? Learning that number of rules is surely beyond most adults let alone children. The entry also says: "This example illustrates that, while complex, English spelling retains order and reason." Surely, English spelling's complexity illustrates how it is disordered and unreasonable. Pity the poor child who, when she or he finds it hard to make sense of English spelling using phonics' tortuous and inaccurate methods, thinks that they are at fault because they are told by phonicists that spelling is actually ordered. pauldanon
[edit] Response to Problems
First, it is important to clarify that the purpose of this entire article: It is not for children, so the idea that this article would mislead children is based on a flawed assumption that this article targets children as an audience.
Second, the representations of phonics above is inaccurate. The long A is not the sound of the 'a' in 'father'; the sound in father is something else entirely. It is actually the sound made by the 'ai' in 'train.' The long 'a,' long 'i,', long 'o,' and long 'u' sounds ARE diphthongs. Long 'e' is not. The asssertion that the description of diphthongs is "meaningless" is spurious, unreasoned, and polemical. Diphthongs are linguistic elements, not phonics elements alone; they are applied to phonics because there are a regular set of symbols that represent the diphthongs.
Third, the idea that English is unreasoned continues to be inaccurate (see Hanna and the discussion above) and, again, unreasoned.
Finally, calling teachers of beginning reading "phonicists" is reductionistic and mean-spirited.
This "problems" discussion is based on ad hominem attacks without citing any contrary work. The discussion about the relative advantage of phonics programs and the degree to which phonics is taught is productive, but the present, poorly-formed, discussion is not. --Kearnsdm 20:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Long 'u' (i.e., /uː/) is not a diphthong, at least in most dialects I'm aware of. /juː/ (e.g. in 'use') is not a diphthong either but a long monophthong preceded by a consonant. Phonologically speaking the 'a' in 'father' (IPA /ɑː/) is indeed a long a, but of course the term "long a" is generally used in phonics for /eɪ/, which is a diphthong. Hairy Dude 17:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't accept the pronouncement that long 'o' (as in 'lone') and long 'a' (as in 'page') are diphthongs in the US. I've heard this rhetoric for years, but as far as I can determine, both sounds are monophthongal. I can protract long 'a' or 'o' all day long without their shifting into the 'i' position, which is something that you cannot do with 'i' as in 'ride', which is diphthongal. I think this notion is probably a hangover from British lexicography. Also I very seriously doubt that the 'ir' of 'bird' should be counted as a single r-colored vowel or whatever. This too may be an inherited Anglicism. Grammarians and phoneticians repeat these banalities robotically, but that doesn't make them true. 18 November, 2006 Thomas Keyes
- IPA chart for English gives [e] as a variant of [eɪ], but I have never yet seen anyone who uses a monophthong. My phonetics textbook show AmE /eɪ///e/ with a definite change in the formants; in other words, diphthongal pronunciations do exist and have been described by phoneticians. --Kjoonlee 03:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a broadcaster on [[WCCO] radio, Steve Thompson, who pronounces long-A kind of like a dipthong. He says "baseball" almost as if it were spelled "bay-iss-ball". Wahkeenah 03:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Long and Short Vowels
What I now realize is that linguists and teachers have different definitions of short and long vowels. To teachers, short vowels are those listed in the article and long vowels are synonymous with the names of the consonants. I gather this is different than in IPA. I added a mention of this in the article. Does this clarify the point to the satisfaction of the linguists? Kearnsdm 14:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removed Globalize Tag
I removed the globalize tag because phonics is a method of reading instruction that is used in countries besides the United States. See synthetic phonics for details about this focus in Britain. I do agree that the pronunciations given for the long and short vowels are in General American English. I would welcome someone who knows British pronunciation better than I to include those pronunciations along with the U.S. ones. Kearnsdm 14:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
