 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007Should we make English spelling more "phonics friendly"?
According to Kate, If we don't make our spellings "phonics friendly" we will eventually lose phonics entirely. SB: Language continues to change so 200 years from now there will be even fewer overlaps between the spoken and written word ...unless spelling is updated. Spelling reform means to realign the written and spoken word. Spelling reform could be far short of a dictionary key. By one measure English is 7% phonemic compared to Spanish (85% phonemic). By simply dropping superfluous letters, English could come close to being 40% phonemic. A basic codes approach would respell only those words that did not conform to the 4 most frequent spelling patterns. If a spelling pattern was used over 10% of the time in the dictionary, it would not be dropped. Currently English has about 14-15 ways of spelling a phoneme. Reducing this to an average of 4 ways would be a significant improvement in regularity. The reason for reform is to reduce the time it takes for illiterates to become literate. Italians could still be writing Latin and speaking their regional dialect. The only downside would be that this divergent code would take over ten times as long to learn. The Italian writers supported reform because it gave their works a much larger audience. It takes much longer to learn a written code for a language or dialect that you do not speak. It only takes 3 months (2 hrs.per day) to teach someone to read a highly phonemic code that accurately records the language you speak. Laubach teachers could teach illiterates to read a newspaper in 95% of the 30 written languages they worked with in 3 months. They were not that efficient when it came to teaching French or English. Chris: Kate Gladstone, a handwriting expert, fears that if we don't sooner or later make our spellings "phonics friendly" (as most other phonics using nations and languages have done ) we will eventually lose phonics entirely. KATE: Folks - If memory serves, it takes kids in Finland or Italy or Russia about 4 - 5 months to learn to read. Then they can read anything accurately, they can spell anything accurately, and they can understand anything written down that they'd understand if they heard it spoken. In our own language (with its more complex spelling) even with the best teaching it takes quite a bit longer than 4 - 5 months to get kids to that point. In places like China (where the form of the written language prevents applying phonics), from what I hear it takes 10 years to get people that far - IF they ever get that far. Most of us here (as I recall) agree that, the more easily/simply phonics applies to a written language, the more quickly a person taught with phonics will become full master of that written language. Most of us here also know that applying phonics to English has become harder and harder over time: as sounds and sound-sequences have changed over time, the task of applying the code to those sounds and sound-sequences has become more and more complex. For instance, 600 - 700 years ago the "a" in "sane" stood for the same vowel-sound as the "a" in "sanity"- the "i" in "sign" stood for the same vowel-sound as the "i" in "signature," - the "k" and the "gh" in "knight" and similar words stood for actual consonant sounds - and so on and so forth. Now that people talk quite differently, we have a lot more to learn in order to decode and spell "sane/sanity," "sign/signature," "knight/knee/through," etc. The system has become more complex - phonics teaching has therefore also had to become more complex and far more time-consuming than in the "olden days," so that we can continue to ensure that children learning phonics continue to learn ALL of phonics, continue to master ALL of the encoding/decoding system, however complex both time and chance have made it. Right? > According to Kate, If we don't make our spellings "phonics friendly" we > will eventually lose phonics entirely. [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > to master ALL of the encoding/decoding system, however complex both > time and chance have made it. Right? Wrong. This kind of drivel arises about once every ten years when we suddenly have a 'crisis' in reading standards or, more to the point, the Government of the day needs to be doing something about education! There is no reliable evidence at all to suggest that our language is any more difficult to learn in spoken or written form nor that phonics is *the* way to teach reading. There will always be good readers and poor readers just as there will always be good teachers and poor teachers. The best readers in fact bypass method altogether, recognising intuitively that there is almost no direct relation between written and spoken language as 'codes', and certainly are not aided by phonics. And lo, Flying Tortoise <purple.mug@googlemail.com> emerged from the ether and spake thus: >> According to Kate, If we don't make our spellings "phonics friendly" we >> will eventually lose phonics entirely. [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > written and spoken language as 'codes', and certainly are not aided by > phonics. Moreover, a fully phonetic language is a crutch for those weak-minded buffoons incapable of remembering that "sacrilegious" isn't spelled like "religious." It would destroy the variety and intricacy of our language, one steeped in history and built from a patchwork of foreign tongues. Much the same way today's public speakers butcher the spoken word, so would phonetics butcher the written one. Our language is being steadily perverted by cell phone text messaging and instant messaging as it is. We certainly don't need zealous phonetics activists further diluting its integrity.  SignatureAaron http://www.fisheyegallery.com http://www.singleservingphoto.com > Moreover, a fully phonetic language is a crutch for those weak-minded > buffoons incapable of remembering that "sacrilegious" isn't spelled > like "religious." Would you complain if the language were hypothetically phonetic, but everyone was taught that the word's roots are found by splitting it sacri-legious rather than sac-religious[sic]? Is it the state of being phonetic that you dislike, or the change towards being phonetic that riles you? > It would destroy the variety and intricacy of our > language, one steeped in history and built from a patchwork of foreign [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and instant messaging as it is. We certainly don't need zealous > phonetics activists further diluting its integrity. I'm not sure English, any variety, has ever had anything which might be called 'integrity'. It's always been a scruffy mongrel. Some have been able to get it to perform clever tricks occasionally. However, I do agree with your disdain for messagingisms. Phil Signature"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./. And lo, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> emerged from the ether and spake thus: >> Moreover, a fully phonetic language is a crutch for those weak-minded >> buffoons incapable of remembering that "sacrilegious" isn't spelled [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Phil Academically speaking, English is a derivative language and thus can lay no claim to the same historical and classical integrity that a language such as Italian can. At the same time (and perhaps this is what you meant by "clever tricks"), reading speeches and letters written by Abraham Lincoln (himself home schooled, to thicken the soup we're brewing), or by Thomas Jefferson, must cause a modern English-speaker to wonder how we've slipped so far. Flip to C-SPAN on any day of the week and you will witness the verbal fumblings of our leaders as they attempt to glue words together that produce even the most superficial meanings. Heaven forbid they be called upon to express any loftier ideas, as their meager vocabularies and awkward turns of phrase would surely fail them. There was a time not so long ago when writing and oration were not merely tools for the expression of thought but also art forms, crafts in and of themselves. It seems that those goals have been eschewed for direct, utilitarian, and naked expression. There is no inspiration or chilling imagery in these words, only the occasional weakly constructed metaphor. It is shameful. SignatureAaron http://www.fisheyegallery.com http://www.singleservingphoto.com > And lo, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> emerged from the ether > and spake thus: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > It is shameful. Worse than that - its like a thing that went all crap. Phil Signature"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./. > > According to Kate, If we don't make our spellings "phonics friendly" we > > will eventually lose phonics entirely. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > The reason for reform is to reduce the time it takes for illiterates to > > become literate. [snip] > Wrong. This kind of drivel arises about once every ten years when we > suddenly have a 'crisis' in reading standards or, more to the point, > the Government of the day needs to be doing something about education! > There is no reliable evidence at all to suggest that our language is > any more difficult to learn in spoken or written form True, more or less. > nor that phonics > is *the* way to teach reading. False, more or less. > There will always be good readers and > poor readers just as there will always be good teachers and poor > teachers. Faulty logic. > The best readers in fact bypass method altogether, > recognising intuitively that there is almost no direct relation between > written and spoken language as 'codes', and certainly are not aided by > phonics. Do you have any evidence to support those claims? From what I have seen and read, I'd claim the following: 1. Phonics is probably the best available method for teaching children to read. 2. The irregularities of Written English do not prevent the use of phonics. 3. Whatever method is used, intensive remedial work rapidly increases a child's reading age. 4. Most dyslexia is simply the result of a poor education and/or upbringing. 1&2: http://www.ruthmiskinliteracy.com/ http://www.syntheticphonics.com/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4584491.stm http://www.dfes.gov.uk/highlights/article12.shtml 3&4: http://www.everychildareader.org/ http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/childrensservices/reading/default.asp http://www.channel4.com/community/showcards/D/Dispatches_-_Dyslexia.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/parents/story/0,,1564251,00.html Adrian > > > According to Kate, If we don't make our spellings "phonics friendly" we > > > will eventually lose phonics entirely. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Do you have any evidence to support those claims? I need no edivecne ohetr tahn the fcat taht you are radenig tihs snetcnee wtih no oviuobs lsos of fcltaiiy to povre taht pnihocs pyals no prat in a sllkied radeer's pctarcie of the art of rineadg, and taht iertptrenig wettrin wrdos is an eritnely dfifrnet slikl to irtninetrepg skoepn wrods! And lo, Flying Tortoise <purple.mug@googlemail.com> emerged from the ether and spake thus: >> > > According to Kate, If we don't make our spellings "phonics friendly" we >> > > will eventually lose phonics entirely. [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > iertptrenig wettrin wrdos is an eritnely dfifrnet slikl to irtninetrepg > skoepn wrods! Wow. A point proved more definitively I have not seen. SignatureAaron http://www.fisheyegallery.com http://www.singleservingphoto.com On 07 Jan 2007, Flying Tortoise wrote >>> The best readers in fact bypass method altogether, >>> recognising intuitively that there is almost no direct [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I need no edivecne ohetr tahn the fcat taht you are radenig tihs > snetcnee wtih no oviuobs lsos of fcltaiiy Nope; don't get this word. Felicity? Faculty? > to povre taht pnihocs > pyals That one wasn't immediately apparent. > no prat in a sllkied Had to pause a few seconds to decipher that one. > radeer's pctarcie Even longer pause for that one; I'll give up here. I never always crap at anagrams, and would dispute that deciphering them quickly is a mark of "skilled reading". SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van On 08 Jan 2007, HVS wrote > I never always crap at anagrams, and would dispute that > deciphering them quickly is a mark of "skilled reading". Damn. Should be "I was always crap at anagrams"; editing error. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van Phil and Adrian, If there is a clear connection between the way we speak and the way we represent speech, it doesn't take much schooling to learn how to read. Written languages that are over 80% alphabetic or phonemic can be learned in 3 months. That is, after 180 hours of practice, students are able to read a newspaper in their native language. Laubach instructors report this time table in over 30 languages. In most schools, students learn to decode and write in 7 months when the orthography is "shallow" or simple. According to a study by Seymour, it takes another three years for students in English speaking schools to reach the level of proficiency found in Italy, Spain, etc. after 7 months. English is complex because the same sound can be written over 14 different ways on the average. However, if the student learns the 5 most frequent spelling patterns for the sound, he will be able to spell 85% of the words in the dictionary in 4 tries. I am not sure what Adrian considers to be reliable but there have been plenty of studies on the impact of orthographic depth on learning. I can't recall one that indicated that complex orthographies were just as easy to learn as simple ones. This has little to do with how easy the language is to learn to speak. Spoken English was greatly simplified between Old English and Middle English. What ESL students complain about is that you have to learn English twice, first as a spoken language and then as a written one because of the unreliable way that English spelling is connected to speech. To support your view, we do have studies of 15 year olds that indicate that by this time there is little differences in the reading ability of students in English speaking countries and in countries with simple orthographies. What happens, of course, is that by this time, both groups are reading word-signs. To show the persisting difference one would have to use text with unfamiliar words or make the students complete a dictation exercise. Second year students of foreign languages with simple orthographies can spell in the foreign language better than they can in their native English. This finding for students of German was reported in Reading Research. Here is a simple spelling test you can use to illustrate the ambiguity of English spelling: Some info on phonics and writing to read (Orton Phonograms) http://foolswisdom.com/~sbett/70phonograms.htm --- >> > There is no reliable evidence at all to suggest that our language is any more difficult to learn in spoken or written form > I need no edivecne ohetr tahn the fcat taht you are radenig tihs > snetcnee wtih no oviuobs lsos of fcltaiiy to povre taht pnihocs pyals > no prat in a sllkied radeer's pctarcie of the art of rineadg, and taht > iertptrenig wettrin wrdos is an eritnely dfifrnet slikl to irtninetrepg > skoepn wrods! SB: As a group, we are pretty good with anagrams since we have had lots of pracgce making sense out of TS (traditional spelling). but it doesn't prove that we learn to read faster without phonics. What it shows to me is that we could remove the superfluous letters without making the text unreadable. This is the first step toward simplification. I think that this regularized paragraph can be read much easier than the one above: I need no evidence other than the fact that u ar reeding this sentence with no obvius los of facility to pruve that fonics plays no part in a skild reeders practis of the art of reeding, and that interpreting ritn wurds is an entirely difrent skil to interpreting spoken wurds. If this sentence were completely or 100% phonemic, words that rime would be spelled the same. e.g., need-reed, ar-art-part, curbs-curds-wurds, etc. It does not go that far but removing the superfluous letters does get us to about 50% phonemic. Up from 7%. >>> Adrian: The best readers in fact bypass method altogether, >>> recognising intuitively that there is almost no direct >>> relation between written and spoken language as 'codes', and >>> certainly are not aided by phonics. SB: Efficient readers do not stop and sound out familiar words which they have memorized as word signs. I would even agree that you can teach reading without mentioning phonics or that letters and letter groups are often used as sound-signs. However, you can't learn to write very well without having some phonemic awareness. --Steve ----------------------- > > > SB: According to Kate, If we don't make our spellings "phonics friendly" we > > > will eventually lose phonics entirely. > > > SB: Language continues to change so 200 years from now there will be > > > even fewer overlaps between the spoken and written word ...unless > > > spelling is updated. Spelling reform means to realign the written and > > > spoken word. > > > Spelling reform could be far short of a dictionary key. By one measure > > > English is 7% phonemic compared to Spanish (85% phonemic). By simply [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > spelling a phoneme. Reducing this to an average of 4 ways would be a > > > significant improvement in regularity. > > > The reason for reform is to reduce the time it takes for illiterates to > > > become literate. > [snip] > > Adrian: Wrong. > > There is no reliable evidence at all to suggest that our language is > > any more difficult to learn in spoken or written form > Phil: True, more or less. > > > Adrian: nor that phonics > > is *the* way to teach reading. > > Phil: False, more or less. > > Adrian: The best readers in fact bypass method altogether, > > recognising intuitively that there is almost no direct relation between [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Adrian > Phil and Adrian, > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > can't recall one that indicated that complex orthographies were just as > easy to learn as simple ones. [...] Same old same old. So which dialectal variants are you proposing to abolish by law? What would be the penalties for infringement? Am I to suffer merely professional, or social, exclusion for not pronouncing all my Rs? Or do I go to jail? Are @straly@ and other countries which joined in the war on tear in Eyerak going to be special exceptions? How do you want me to say Merr@l@nd? Newfoundland? Ohio? How do you want me to spell "Fascism"? SignatureMike. > So which dialectal variants are you proposing to abolish by law? > What would be the penalties for infringement? Am I to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > do you want me to say Merr@l@nd? Newfoundland? Ohio? How do you want me > to spell "Fascism"? Mike, I think it would help if you studied how spelling reform is carried out in other languages. No dialects are abolished. It used to be that the only dialect represented was the King's dialect. Today, the only one represented would be the broadcast dialect. It is the same as with dictionary pronunciation guides. The NBC pronunciation guide wlll not represent a North Carolina or Texas regional accent. The representation does not have to be precise, just close enough so that when people pronounce the word as spelled, they will be understood by native speakers. Dialects are not regulated and there are no spelling police once you are out of school. People can and do continue to write informal correspondence the way they want. About all that changes is that material submitted for publication is updated according to the new house style. If you were a professional broadcaster or newsreader, you would check out the pronunciation of IRAQ before you went on the air. According to the NBC pronounciation guide, it is not EYE-rack, it is in Dr. Seuss notation: ih-RAK or ih-ROCK. IPA: / I 'r?k / ? 'ra:k /. FACISM according to the same authority should be pronounced FASH-izm. In a phonemic notation it would probably be written something like <fashizm> unless it were considered to be a foreign loan word: in which case it might retain its current spelling. I don't think many people would want to change *chauffeur to show-fur....altho that might be the way the word would be spelled in a beginning reader. The critical goals are to get everyone reading by the beginning of grade 3 and to have the phonemic awareness that permits you to invent plausible spellings and decipher unfamiliar written words. About 50% of the population manages to do this today. With a few minor changes, we might be able to get that up to 80-90%. The notation would probably be determined by an international spelling commission. It could be based on current high frequency spellings or it could involve an augmented alphabet since we are short about 17 sound-signs. If the former strategy were adopted, FASCISM might be spelled fashizm and IRAQ might not be respelled. It depends on how concerned we are about having spellings that may be mispronounced. The pronunciation, EYE-rack, is close enough to understand when spoken. It is also a plausible interpretation of the spelling *Iraq. --Steve -----------original message---------------------- > > If there is a clear connection between the way we speak and the way we > > represent speech, it doesn't take much schooling to learn how to read. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > can't recall one that indicated that complex orthographies were just as > > easy to learn as simple ones. >I think it would help if you studied how spelling reform is carried out >in other languages. >No dialects are abolished. It used to be that the only dialect >represented was the King's dialect. >Today, the only one represented would be the broadcast dialect. =============================================== Here in the UK there is no longer a uniform broadcast dialect, nor even a general Received Pronunciation any more. One of my own thoughts about 'spelling as it sounds' is the considerable differences which exist between broad masses of people. Here's just one example. In the UK 'God' (or 'god') is pronounced with a short 'o' as in our bod, cod, mod, sod, dot, com. In the USA the central continuant is quite different. USA 'God' would be spelt 'guard' in the UK. SignatureFrancis Cameron >>I think it would help if you studied how spelling reform is carried out >>in other languages. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >continuant is quite different. USA 'God' would be spelt 'guard' in the >UK. In that last sentence you have assumed that "guard" will be understood to have a silent "r". The UK has rhotic accents in which the "r" is sounded. So do the US and other English-speaking countries. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >>>I think it would help if you studied how spelling reform is carried out >>>in other languages. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >the "r" is sounded. So do the US and other English-speaking >countries. =================================================== Thank you. You make a good point though, in my experience the 'r' in 'guard' is not vocalised in UK English. My illustration stands. UK English has a short 'o' sound in the word 'god'. I hear the same word pronounced, by North Americans in general, with a sound nearer to our UK long 'ah'. =================================================== SignatureFrancis Cameron Francis Cameron in <LQY+yGFU7SrFFw2q@topdeck.demon.co.uk>: > UK English has a short 'o' sound in the word 'god'. Unless you're from Belfast. SignatureCol Morrison > Francis Cameron in <LQY+yGFU7SrFFw2q@topdeck.demon.co.uk>: > > > UK English has a short 'o' sound in the word 'god'. > > Unless you're from Belfast. Geordie too probably, but that's one dialect I find hard to reconstruct in my mind's ear. It only takes one news report containing Iain Paisley to be able to reconstruct your example, as one simply cannot purge that man's noise from one's auditory memory, alas. Londoners, et al., of course use 'gawd' a lot, but I don't know if that counts as 'god' or not. Phil Signature"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./. Phil Carmody in <87mz4hpwzb.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org>: > > Francis Cameron in <LQY+yGFU7SrFFw2q@topdeck.demon.co.uk>: > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > as one simply cannot purge that man's noise from one's > auditory memory, alas. Yes, I confess I did have him in mind when I wrote the above. It's the habitually portentous tone, as well as the sheer volume, that gets to you. > Londoners, et al., of course use 'gawd' a lot, but I don't > know if that counts as 'god' or not. Et al to include Harry H. Corbett, perhaps? SignatureCol Morrison > Phil Carmody in <87mz4hpwzb.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org>: > > Londoners, et al., of course use 'gawd' a lot, but I don't > > know if that counts as 'god' or not. > > Et al to include Harry H. Corbett, perhaps? You dirty old man! Rangoon, Shepherds Bush, what's the difference? Phil Signature"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./. > My illustration stands. UK English has a short 'o' sound in the word 'god'. > I hear the same word pronounced, by North Americans in general, with a sound > nearer to our UK long 'ah'. The usual USA pronunciation of the o in god is the same as all your examples: cod, sod, mod, rod, nod, etc. The only time I hear it pronounced with an 'ah' sound is in the (usually female) exclamation, "Oh my Gaahhhd!" SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email. >> My illustration stands. UK English has a short 'o' sound in the >> word 'god'. I hear the same word pronounced, by North Americans in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > pronounced with an 'ah' sound is in the (usually female) exclamation, > "Oh my Gaahhhd!" Ah, but the US "o" usually *sounds* like "near-ah" to UK ears in all those words. The ASCII IPA symbol for the UK version is /A./, but for the US version /A/ (= UK near-ah) or apparently sometimes /O/ (= UK near-aw) . (By US and UK I mean standard pronunciations as shown in dictionaries, not as in regional accents). Alan Jones Alan and John, Since a narrow phonemic transcription only applies to one dialect, there can be dialect problems if your goal is precision. The British short o is rendered as Q in SAMPA The American short o is rendered as A in SAMPA. Longman's Dictionary for American English uses <?> in spot and spa (sp?t and sp?). Other notations use <o> for ah in (spot and spo). Sound spelling gets very confusing in r-combinations. army art = ormy ort. When Pitman was marketing the i/t/a all over the world, he made it clear that it was not a pronunciation guide as such. Pitman used key words to define the sounds assigned to each symbol. father pot bother and path would not be pronounced the same in Australia as in the U.S. So with the i/t/a we have a phonemic writing system for three major dialects that looks the same but is not pronounced exactly the same. Another solution is not to respell words that are not pronounced the same in all major dialects. father pot bother and path would have ambiguous pronunciation but it would not be any worse than at present. You fix what can be fixed and leave the rest unregularized. The goal is to bring written English closer to spoken English and accelerate literacy. Keep the goal in mind rather than preconceived notions on how this might be achieved. A standardized spelling for international english is not going to be as phonemic as a dictionary key unless that key or the sound-spelling is redefined in each major region - which is what dictionary publishers do. If you want better answers to your questions or pronunciation guides and spelling reform, please post them on the saundspel egroup. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saundspel. --Steve -------------------- > John Varela wrote:UK English has a short 'o' sound in the word 'god'. I hear the same word pronounced, by North Americans in general, with a sound nearer to our UK long 'ah'. > > JV: The usual USA pronunciation of the o in god is the same as all your > > examples: cod, sod, mod, rod, nod, etc. The only time I hear it > > pronounced with an 'ah' sound is in the (usually female) exclamation, > > "Oh my Gaahhhd!" > Alan Jones: Ah, but the US "o" usually *sounds* like "near-ah" to UK ears in all those > words. The ASCII IPA symbol for the UK version is /A./, but for the US > version /A/ (= UK near-ah) or apparently sometimes /O/ (= UK near-aw) . (By > US and UK I mean standard pronunciations as shown in dictionaries, not as in > regional accents). And lo, Steve <steve.bett@gmail.com> emerged from the ether and spake thus: > Phil and Adrian, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > [snip] I fail to understand why language should be easy. Perhaps we should make English harder so we can ridicule an even greater number of Americans for not being able to properly write or speak it. You must learn approximately 3,000 hiragana characters to read a Japanese newspaper; by those standards English is a piece of cake. Sure, English has its eccentricities, but that's what makes it so satisfying to participate in alt.english.usage. SignatureAaron http://www.fisheyegallery.com http://www.singleservingphoto.com > And lo, Steve <steve.bett@gmail.com> emerged from the ether > and spake thus: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > You must learn approximately 3,000 hiragana characters to read a You're thinking of kanji. There are approximately than 50 hiragana characters. Kanji are the ideographic characters brought form China, while hiragana, along with katakana, are the Japanese phonetic characters. > Japanese newspaper; by those standards English is a piece of cake. > Sure, English has its eccentricities, but that's what makes it so > satisfying to participate in alt.english.usage. SignatureClark S. Cox III clarkcox3@gmail.com > > > SB: The reason for reform is to reduce the time it takes for illiterates to become literate. > > FLYING TORTOISE: (If spelled more phonemically: FLYING TORTIS, aka FT) "Wrong. This kind of drivel arises about once every ten years when we suddenly have a 'crisis' in reading standards." STEVE: I am not sure what you consider a crisis but surely there is some level of illiteracy that you would find unsatisfactory. This is probably not a cyclic phenomenon. The literacy levels have been in a slight decline for years. It is now estimated that 40% of the population of English speaking countries cannot read and write well enough to compose simple letter. Most employers find this a little disturbing. The proposed solutions to the literacy problem, however, tend to be cyclic. For the past 50 years, the dominant reading method has been the non-phonic "whole word" Learning to read using readers with controlled vocabularies does work for many. It probably would work for more than 60% of the method continued on after the 3rd grade. > > FT: There is no reliable evidence at all to suggest that our language is any more difficult to learn in spoken or written form. > ADRIAN: True, more or less. STEVE: Isn't the issue whether or not the written form of the language would be easier to learn if it had simple (or shallow) orthography? ESL students complain that unlike other languages, you have to learn English twice because the spoken form and the written form are so disconnected. > > FT: nor that phonics is *the* way to teach reading. > ADRIAN: False, more or less. STEVE: Phonics would seem to be the way to teach a writing system that was over 85% phonemic. Most written languages meet this standard. Laubach literacy teachers claim they can teach illiterates to read a newspaper written in their native language in 3 months....provided that the written language is 85% phonemic. > > FT: The best readers in fact bypass method altogether, > > recognising intuitively that there is almost no direct relation between > > written and spoken language as 'codes', and certainly are not aided by phonics. STEVE: Phonics advocates claim that written English is 85% rule based and predictable. Those opposed to phonics can find evidence that by the same measure that gives a rating of 85% phonemic to Spanish and Italian gives a rating of only 7% phonemic to written English. If we examine the 8000 most frequently used words, we find that 50% contain one or more irregularities. On the other hand, if we allow 4 guesses as to how to spell a phoneme, it is possible to match the lexical spelling 85% of the time. This, of course, does not mean that English spelling is 85% predictable. > ADRIAN: Do you have any evidence to support those claims? > From what I have seen and read, I'd claim the following: > 1. Phonics is probably the best available method for teaching children to read. > 2. The irregularities of Written English do not prevent the use of phonics. SB: It certainly lowers its efficiency. > 4. Most dyslexia is simply the result of a poor education and/or upbringing. SB: Clinical dyslexia is evenly distributed across the world. The percent of the young population with clinical dyslexia is rather low. The symptoms of dyslexia are ten times as common in the first year of school population in English speaking schools. There is a connection between orthographic complexity and the reading problems we lable dyslexia. ADRIANS references: > 1&2: http://www.ruthmiskinliteracy.com/ > http://www.syntheticphonics.com/ > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4584491.stm > http://www.dfes.gov.uk/highlights/article12.shtml --- > 3&4: http://www.everychildareader.org/ > http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/childrensservices/reading/default.asp > http://www.channel4.com/community/showcards/D/Dispatches_-_Dyslexia.html > http://www.guardian.co.uk/parents/story/0,,1564251,00.html original message: > > > SB: According to Kate, If we don't make our spellings "phonics friendly" we > > > will eventually lose phonics entirely. > > > SB: Language continues to change so 200 years from now there will be > > > even fewer overlaps between the spoken and written word ...unless > > > spelling is updated. Spelling reform means to realign the written and > > > spoken word. > > > SB: Spelling reform could be far short of a dictionary key. By one measure > > > English is 7% phonemic compared to Spanish (85% phonemic). By simply [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > spelling a phoneme. Reducing this to an average of 4 ways would be a > > > significant improvement in regularity. > According to Kate, If we don't make our spellings "phonics friendly" we > will eventually lose phonics entirely. > Right? No. Phonetic spelling has been propsed, and failed, for generations. English is the "lingua franka" for no other reason than the Internet. One thrid of all non-native Engish speakers are trying to learn English. Anyone who undertakes to learn a foreign language, other than English, with no intent to use it in the near future is wasting his time. Hey, don't blame me! Just the facts. GFH > No. Phonetic spelling has been propsed, and failed, for generations. > English is the "lingua franka" for no other reason than the Internet. Is there a coded message that I missed in your spelling of 'lingua franca'? > > No. Phonetic spelling has been propsed, and failed, for generations. > > English is the "lingua franka" for no other reason than the Internet. > > Is there a coded message that I missed in your spelling of 'lingua franca'? Yes. Think German. GFH > Phonetic spelling has been propsed, and failed, for generations. > English is the "lingua franka" for no other reason than the Internet. > One thrid of all non-native Engish speakers are trying to learn English. George, You are correct. Phonetic or phonemic spelling for English has been proposed from 1500 on. The only place where it took hold was in the pronunciation guides for dictionaries. It took almost 300 years for this to happen. The closest phonetic spelling came to be adopted was around 1890 when the proposal was supported by the American and British Philological Societies and other educational associations. The phonetic spelling council had broad support among educators and scholars but not much among the general population. In 1906, President Teddy Roosevelt tried to update the style guide for the Government Printing Office. For some reason, there was strong political opposition to changing *catalogue to catalog, *through to thru, *though to tho, etc. In Hearst paper editorials, T.R. was accused of throwing out the dictionary. This was, of course, untrue. All of the proposed changes were listed as variant spellings in Funk & Wagnalls dictionary. The PSC was unprepared for the backlash and within 10 years had lost the support of many educators who were not interested in backing what appeared to be an unpopular cause. English spelling was standardized in 1755 with the publication of Johnson's dictionary, the first popular dictionary. It was adopted by publishers who where looking for a standard. Johnson tended to adopt the spellings used by the best writers. There was no attempt to connect spelling to pronunciation because Johnson considered popular pronunciation a river of change. Etymology seemed like firmer ground. Unfortunately, he was wrong on about 50% of his etymologies. e.g., ME det came from Fr. dette, not the Latin debit. There was no etymological justification for Johnson's DEBT. Today's scholars know a lot more about etymology than the 17th and 18th century scholars. ------ > STEVE: According to Kate, If we don't make our spellings "phonics friendly" we will eventually lose phonics entirely. Right? GFH: No. Phonetic spelling has been propsed, and failed, for generations. English is the "lingua franka" for no other reason than the Internet. One thrid of all non-native Engish speakers are trying to learn English. SB: Yes, there are more non-native speakers trying to learn to read and write English than there are native speakers. This would seem to be grounds for making the language easier to spell. Why take ten years to learn to write a language when it could be simplified and learned in a year. We can learn foreign spelling systems in less than a year and students of foreign languages spell the foreign language better than they spell their native English. (If interested, ask for the citations in Reading Research). It is not that difficult to remove the superfluous letters. However, not all of the problems with English spelling are hard are as easy to solve. What is it that makes English spelling hard? Here are some of the factors. 1. Silent letters 2. Misspelling of schwa 3. Doubled consonants 4. Wrong letter representing the correct sound. pale-pail, read-red, Some students will start to insert silent letters at random because they know they are in the word somewhere but they don't understand the logic of their insertion point. The numerous error types in written can be compared to German. I think in the study, the students were asked to write the same essay in both languages. 1. no silent letter errors in German 2. no misspellings of schwa in German 3. some double consonant errors but only 1/4 the number when compared to English 4. only one case of using the wrong spelling pattern for a sound. --Steve stbett@yahoo.com > One thrid of all non-native Engish speakers are trying to learn > English. Facetiously I would say: "Think of how our language would be improved if a similar portion of native speakers would try to learn English." LAM As an aside; I post from google groups because I have an account on a read-only news server. Can anyone suggest a free read-write new server? > According to Kate, If we don't make our spellings "phonics friendly" we > will eventually lose phonics entirely. Now for a more fair anwser. I know several high school English teachers in The Hague, Netherlands. I have discussed this question with them. They say that the whole question is irrelevant. Unlike native English speakers, their students learn the word and the correct spelling at the same time. They never have the problems of "phonetics" that native speakser do. And, if you visit the Netherlands, you will quickly come to appreciate the excellent job these teachers of English do in that country. GFH > According to Kate, If we don't make our spellings "phonics friendly" we > will eventually lose phonics entirely. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Spelling reform could be far short of a dictionary key. By one measure > English is 7% phonemic compared to Spanish (85% phonemic). [snip rest] English is over 85% phonetic. Read "Meihem in ce Klasrum": http://www.rajeun.net/index4.html Cxu vi parolas esperante? That's completely phonetic. Cece My bias against phonetic simplification is that spellings often tell us something of the history and derivation of words- the argument in its favor reeks of Newspeak. I have wondered what will happen as English becomes ever more the global lingwa franker. It does seem to me that the sense of many old words, what we often think of as the Anglo-Saxon heritage, is being lost, as are connotations and traditional distinctions. Many reasons for this; these were often tied to traditional occupations, mass media obliterate distinctions, non-native speakers simply don't get such usages. English becomes more user-friendly, but loses a lot of richness and depth. > My bias against phonetic simplification is that spellings often tell us > something of the history and derivation of words- the argument in its > favor reeks of Newspeak. I have wondered what will happen as English > becomes ever more the global lingwa franker. [ ... ] Speaking as we were of procedural matters, please consult: http://www.alt-usage-english.org/intro_a.shtml#TOGOOGLEGROUPSUSERS Thank you. > Speaking as we were of procedural matters, please consult: > http://www.alt-usage-english.org/intro_a.shtml#TOGOOGLEGROUPSUSERS Actually, Google have fixed that problem. Anyone, posting recently from Google Groups without quoting, has removed the quote themselves. We need to tell them not to. SignatureWH > > Speaking as we were of procedural matters, please consult: > > http://www.alt-usage-english.org/intro_a.shtml#TOGOOGLEGROUPSUSERS > > Actually, Google have fixed that problem. How about that? And it only took them -- what? -- two years? > Anyone, posting recently from > Google Groups without quoting, has removed the quote themselves. We > need to tell them not to. There's another part of the AUE (sic) FAQ that does exactly that: <http://www.alt-usage-english.org/intro_a.shtml#Responding>. I'll cite it next time in place of the one about Google. SignatureBob Lieblich Never posted yet from Google; plan never to do so |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.