Both of my parents learned to read at home, in poverty. Both had educated parents, who had been displaced by the events of the era. I learned to read at home. Both of my kids, likewise.
It didn't even remotely occur to anybody in the family that learning to read was special, or that there might even be any way to teach it other than phonics. English has a phonetic alphabet after all, right?
Moreover, learning to read at home was just part of our culture. When kids were deemed "ready," they learned to read. It wasn't a special thing.
I think my parents learned from whatever material they could lay their hands on. I learned from a 18th century reader that my mom found somewhere. My first word was CAT.
Both of my kids "took" to reading and were voracious readers. Lucky? Yes, but we also felt that letting our kids learn to read at school was leaving too much to chance.
We were told it was better to let the teachers teach otherwise kids learn bad habits or don’t engage.
That being said our eldest went to school at 4 1/2 in Australia and they had to learn 100 words in their first year (phonics), and we were a little worried that it seemed so intense, though she ended up learning 200 or so and went on to become a voracious reader. But then we moved to the US and our youngest started school at 5 1/2 and had to learn 20 words in her first year and is now 7 and can barely read. In hindsight it does seem so late, and I agree there is so much of the world and learning and curiosity they miss out on by not being able to read.
>> We were told it was better to let the teachers teach otherwise kids learn bad habits or don’t engage.
That sounds like very dubious advice to me, even if given with best intentions.
Surely if parents read books to their kids, with their kids, then it is a natural step for the kids to start learning the words and word sounds by reading too?
Reading back what I wrote, yes, we never took this as a warning not to let them learn at all! I think the intention was more that there is less incentive to actively push or pressure kids in to reading before school, and that actively trying to teach them one methodology might even conflict with the method they end up being taught in school. That parents try to "get their kids ready for school" by getting them to read before starting, and that doing so is unnecessary. That is how we took it.
Yeah, I think every person is different. My first kid learned to read himself from watching educational material and using a computer. He knew the alphabet before anyone could really understand his words. His siblings needed someone to walk them through the concepts.
Is this an anglosaxon thing? Here in Germany, I have never heard of anyone telling a child they had to "learn x words". We teach letters and common diphthongs, and then make the kids understand that these glyphs can form words with meanings. When I look at my father's schoolbooks, that already was the common way to teach reading in the 1950s.
Probably - English doesn't have good rules of spelling, so phonetics is not a good approach to learning to read. There are often several different phonetic ways you could spell a world, only one of which is right (to, too, two). In reverse there are often several different phonetic ways to pronounce a written word.
As someone with Dysgraphia I often wished we reformed English to be more phonetic (I'm not sure if it would help me spell, but it wouldn't hurt)
Um. You have not read any pre-19th century English-language literature, have you? If you think there are no good rules, expose yourself to how the language was written before there were _any_ such rules. Finnigin's Wake, anything by Cotton Mathers and the like.
The added rules were just memorize the one correct way to spell. Previously it's was phonetic, and everyone used different spellings. Of course it looks less phonetic if you are unaware of how phonics change. (U and V switched roles as one example)
Previously it was dialectic. To say that different spellings were used by different people dramatically understates the situation. You can find an author using different spelling to express the same word in different contexts in the same volume, because, well, that's the way it was spoken.
I find (some) writings from that era to be fascinating insights into how the language actually sounded during the time the piece was written but the idea of returning to a system (non-system?) of spelling makes my head hurt. At this point, I can read an book or document written (in English) by an Australian, US Southerner, US Baltimore or Indian writer without needing to decode the writer's dialect. Sure, some of that comes out despite using a fixed spelling system, but that gives the text.. I guess I might describe it as _texture_ or _personality_ without detracting from the ideas, stories or info conveyed.
I think 'ou' is still in play in British English (colour, odour, etc) but was removed from the US standard (i think) sometime in the 1970s. It certainly wasn't minor in my 2nd grade teacher's pov when I spelled it `colour` (1978..I had some old comic books at home--I blame them) but from what I understand, such changes were made after a great deal of debate which included discussions on whether the obfuscation of _existing_ text is offset by decreased obfuscation in future writing. I think, rightfully (if you're into that sort of thing), they got it right. I do not miss `colour` but whether or not it is there does not impact my understanding of the sentence.
If there was a credible effort to revert or deprecate spelling, I would be concerned about knowledge and information dissemination reverting to the old pre-reformation model of jealously guarded silos of information/education.
You need to learn something other than English! Spanish has easy spelling rules because it is one sound = one letter. (except for ll - and they consider that a separate letter). It is easy to spell in Spanish because each letter maps to exactly one sound, and each sound maps to exactly one letter.
We can reform English spelling to be the same - but it would require adding about 20 more letters. (I understand languages like French and Polish solve this by having rules of how every letter combination sounds, but I don't know enough of them to explain how it works - but they might be useful inspiration if you don't want to add letters). There should be exactly one way to spell a word, and it should be obvious what that way is by how the word is pronounced.
Of course we also need to reform English so that we all pronounce words the same (goodbye and good riddance to all the funky accents - they sound cool but they hinder communication), and a lot of other related reforms that will never happen.
It's an adaptation to the limitations of phonetical spelling in english.
IIRC, my kid was taught about 100 "sight words" that are usually common words that link stuff together or appear often. Stuff like "who", "the", "which", etc. The kids memorize those and sound out the other stuff. I think the idea is to avoid discouraging kids from getting hung up on common things or memorizing things wrong.
Not trusting authority figures tends to be extremely laborious, give little benefit, and gets you socially marked as an oddball.
Trusting authority figures generally is easy and works out well. 'Till it doesn't. But that's an unknown ways into the future, and you'll have plenty of social acceptance & sympathy for your "perfectly reasonable" misfortune.
Not trusting authority figures is the #1 advice for success in life, and has been since the invention of "authorities".
The goal of "authorities" are always to harm you as an individual and the more you follow them, the more harmed you will be. There is really no limit to how bad they are willing to make your short existence on earth, including - but not limited to - putting you in a muddy trench to be slaughtered by the enemy's artillery.
That's interesting because in the 1960 novel To Kill a Mockingbird (widely taught in the US and well-known in other countries), there's a scene where the character Scout is criticized in school by her teacher, when it's discovered that Scout learned to read ahead of the curriculum, from her father at home. The teacher expressed the concern that Scout might end up learning how to read incorrectly. If I remember correctly, the end result was that Atticus (Scout's father) told his daughter that she could secretly continue to read at home, just without telling her teacher, to avoid conflicts in class.
~~
Except from the novel (where "I" is the character Scout):
“Teach me?” I said in surprise. “He hasn’t taught me anything, Miss Caroline. Atticus ain’t got time to teach me anything,” I added, when Miss Caroline smiled and shook her head. “Why, he’s so tired at night he just sits in the livingroom and reads.”
“If he didn’t teach you, who did?” Miss Caroline asked good-naturedly. “Somebody did. You weren’t born reading The Mobile Register.”
“Jem says I was. He read in a book where I was a Bullfinch instead of a Finch. Jem says my name’s really Jean Louise Bullfinch, that I got swapped when I was born and I’m really a-”
Miss Caroline apparently thought I was lying. “Let’s not let our imaginations run away with us, dear,” she said. “Now you tell your father not to teach you any more. It’s best to begin reading with a fresh mind. You tell him I’ll take over from here and try to undo the damage-”
“Ma’am?”
“Your father does not know how to teach. You can have a seat now.”
I mumbled that I was sorry and retired meditating upon my crime. [...] I knew I had annoyed Miss Caroline, so I let well enough alone and stared out the window until recess when Jem [Scout's older brother] cut me from the covey of first-graders in the schoolyard. He asked how I was getting along. I told him.
“If I didn’t have to stay I’d leave. Jem, that damn lady says Atticus’s been teaching me to read and for him to stop it-”
“Don’t worry, Scout,” Jem comforted me. “Our teacher says Miss Caroline’s introducing a new way of teaching. She learned about it in college. It’ll be in all the grades soon. You don’t have to learn much out of books that way—it’s like if you wanta learn about cows, you go milk one, see?”
~~
Contrary to this approach in teaching, in my university courses, my professors in math and the Spanish language always encouraged additional reading and study outside of class (oftentimes, this was written directly in the syllabus or part of class discussions). So, I haven't heard much about professors being concerned about students learning the "wrong way"—I suspect that many educators are happy in general when students seek to learn from additional materials outside of what's presented in class.
Now that they are at school, there is always an emphasis on us as parents taking an active role in reading with them and encouraging them at home.
I can see now how this was taken given the way I wrote it.. I believe the intention was more "Don't pressure your kids and stress yourself trying to get them to read before even starting school". An example of kids being confused was being taught the upper-case alphabet, whereas the school starts in lower-case. But I don't think the advice was meant to be anti-intellectual.
When my oldest brother was a preschooler, my mom attended a meeting at school for parents of preschoolers. They specifically told her: "Do not attempt to teach your child to read, you will do it wrong." Also, she tried to find out the right way, and was rebuffed. She sensed bullshit, and taught us to read at home.
> I believe the intention was more "Don't pressure your kids and stress yourself trying to get them to read before even starting school".
Yeah, I think this is actually the right approach. A lot of children will learn reading without specific training if you read picture books with them in your lap and they're looking at the pictures and the letters. If they do, that's great; if they don't, that's fine too. Structured reading practice and development can happen later.
I learned French by immersion (my parents sent me to a French school aged six, and for six months I was miserable). When I went to an English school, and took French lessons, I was marked down for using the subjunctive before I had been taught it.
20 words in their first year? That’s insane. Granted I haven’t been in the US system for 20 odd years, but I believe we easily learned 100-150 in our first year here.
On the other hand, I did not learn to read at home, I learned to read in school, in the early 80s, starting with basic alphabet in kindergarden (not before), and serious reading in first grade, which was standard then -- and by third grade was a huge nerd spending many hours a week reading recreationally, and reading "adult" novels like George Orwell.
Your story is a good reminder that there may be more than one way to do it, I often think the way I learned to read (in school, in first grade) is clearly the right way to do it, since it had such good results. (In particular, i still think that earlier than kindergarden is too early for reading).
On the other hand, the thing we had in common was the family culture of reading, everyone in my family were big readers. And my parents read to me a lot before I could read.
Starting X early is IMO a bit of a red herring with child development, especially when they're in the low single digits. Their minds grow in power recognizably on a weekly basis (particularly noticeable when you spend a week apart) that an amazing uphill achievement at time t can be a trivially picked up thing at time t+1.
I think you're right on the culture thing. My kid loves new books and understands that they contain stories. A household without that is far more likely to cause issues with reading because the motivation will be missing.
Exactly. I try things with my son and observe if he's ready or not. There's no rush, nobody will care at 30 if you were a year "late" learning X. For example, I'm very skeptical of the trend of trying to teach advanced/abstract math to kids earlier and earlier. If they're that one in 100 and they are interested, sure. But in your late teens you just have so much more brain power, you'll easily catch up. I remember being intimidated in CS undergrad by the ubernerds, who had been coding since they were 6. But within a few months we were all at the same level anyway.
Indeed, and it varies with each kid. My younger brother and I were 18 months apart. Whether he was "early" or I was "late," what was my mom going to do with him while teaching me to read? So we learned together.
Also, school curricula in the US are all based on grade year... which spans almost a whole year of age within a class based on enrollment date cutoffs.
My story reflects yours (I was a "late" reader by grade but also the youngest in my grade, and voracious after I found the world larger than my tiny country town).
Because we read with our kids, all of them were reading by late 3/early 4 years old, by their own desire. While none have had a propensity for George Orwell at the third grade, they do read things beyond their age levels.
I was lucky, and my kids are lucky.
I wonder, are there any organizations that folks can volunteer at to help kids at your and my age in elementary school learn to read?
I was not considered a "late" reader at all for the early 80s though, at least where I was -- they just didn't try to teach preschoolers to read then and there like they do now. I think what they do now is a mistake... but that could be my own anecdotal prejudices.
> And my parents read to me a lot before I could read.
I think this is the huge thing in common here. If kids are read to from a young age some might pick it up almost "on their own" while others may wait and learn in early elementary school "on schedule", but I think will largely see similar outcomes. But the ones coming at it for the first time from _not_ having experienced reading, even if only from being read to, are starting from a perspective lacking both background and motivation.
We didn't teach our kids to read. We just read to them. A lot. Every day.
By the time they were in kindergarten they could read on their own. By the time they started learning to read in school they could bring their own books to read during lessons so they wouldn't get bored.
Kids at that age learn by emulating what they see. If they do not see their parents reading, learning to read in school is going to be hard. No silver bullet technique will reach all the kids, especially ones from homes where reading is bitterly condemned.
>> We didn't teach our kids to read. We just read to them. A lot. Every day.
>> By the time they were in kindergarten they could read on their own.
> We tried that with our first and it didn't work. Some children require more direct support. Knowing what works for those who need it is pretty huge.
Yeah, I think the GP is making the same error has the "whole language" approach people--making the faulty assumption that mere exposure is enough to educate. That works with some, but clearly fails a lot. And even for the kids it works with, I'd be afraid it would leave gaps that would be much better addressed with some explicit instruction.
My kid is tiny and loves to "read" (i.e. memorize and recite books). At this rate, he'll probably learn to read on his own, but I definitely want to make sure he has the tools to successfully tackle difficult and unfamiliar words, so he doesn't self-limit to the stuff he knows well.
My oldest was reading little books by 3. It was zero effort other than reading to him. Suddenly he just took over and didn't need mom and dad to read to him anymore.
He's 8 now and can plow through the Harry Potter series in a week. Some days I think he might read better than I do at 31.
My youngest is 5 and still struggling. He never really liked to be read to. As soon as he could get up and do something else, he did. He's getting there though, and we'll get him there.
Basically the same here. Oldest was reading proficiently way before preschool, my youngest is 7 and still struggling to pick out up. He's really smart, and we read to him and with him plenty, but it just doesn't click for him like my oldest. He can do math no problem and he loves science and learning in general, but reading and writing are just specifically hard.
It's weird how different things can be for kids even in the same family and environment.
We have a 9 & 5 that are exactly the same way, which makes me want to mention: the Harry Potter series gets really dark pretty quickly. Some of the stuff in the latter books is (IMHO) not appropriate for 8-9 year olds. Just a friendly note in case you struggle like me to keep up with all the books your son is going through :)
> Lucky? Yes, but we also felt that letting our kids learn to read at school was leaving too much to chance.
Luck is when preparation meets opportunity. Your preparation gave your kids an opportunity they wouldn't have had otherwise.
There is quite a push to make parents feel that they are unable to teach their kids and that it needs to be left to "professionals." When COVID sent kids home and gave parents a view into what was actually being learned in the classrooms, I think many discovered that they as parents have quite a bit more skill in teaching their kids than they had realized.
I'm not trying to bash the public school system, but the kids that get the best education are the ones where the parents see the school system as an institution they are partnering with to educate their child instead of the place that is responsible for the education.
It's one of the attitudes being pushed in the education system itself. After a couple of generations, "expertism" has embedded deeply into the American mindset. It's very dangerous to live in a culture where we don't question experts.
This is true, but like so many things America seems to have lost the ability to moderate. For every person who blindly follows "experts", there's someone who insists experts don't know anything at all and any random thought that pops into my head is just as valid as any expert opinion.
It's gone binary, and the actual real world is analog, as any expert will tell you.
I wish you were wrong. I've met actual Flat Earth believers, which I find astonishing and disconcerting. Unfortunately, I feel like the over-reaction against expert opinion is part of the cost of prior abuse of expert opinion. Trust in institutions is eroded and in my opinion, for justifiable reasons. We're definitely not in good shape as a society.
I'm Greek. When teaching a kid to read English using phonics, how do you explain that "tough" and "rough" are written the same, but sound different than "though" and "borough", and that "doe" and "low" rhyme with each other and both the latter, but neither of the former?
And how do you explain "Loughborough"? Why not "Lowborrow", as in "low" and "borrow"?
Don't kids ask those things when you teach them to read with phonics?
I got similar questions for the French, btw. "Oiseaux"? Really, French?
Simple explanation is that the spelling rules are a combination of several older languages, saxon and french included. So a lot of the trick is to just recognize which language the word construction originated in.
"tough", "rough", "though" and "borough" all come from Old English, without any French influence. The wackiness in pronouncing "ough" is sadly not predictable from any set of rules and as you'd probably expect varies between dialects
> Don't kids ask those things when you teach them to read with phonics?
Pronunciation rules are taught along with the words that follow them and then you learn the many exceptions. Just in Chemistry class you learn the ideal gas law and then you learn the deviations.
Phonics is a strategy to deal with unfamiliar words and it works pretty well as a starting point.
English spelling and pronunciation has to be memorized, fortunately young kids have an enormous capacity for memorization so it works ok.
Many school programs use the opposite strategy now. They don't teach phonics and they don't teach spelling. "Inventive spelling" where kids just make up spelling and they aren't corrected is used for the first two years. At the start of the third year they are suddenly judged on spelling. But they just spent two years practicing incorrect spelling!
I think we started with books that happened to have words that were easy to decode. After that point, we admitted that the English language is actually quite a mess. And once the kids got some momentum, then they began figuring things out for themselves, or asking. We continued reading to them, and would occasionally stop to ask them if they knew a particular word.
To be fair, we did not use "phonics" as a formal procedure, but simply a loose term for taking advantage of the limited clues built into the written language.
And it doesn't help if you can pronounce a word but don't know what it means. My kids learned by rote words such as "allegiance," "republic," and "god," without anybody explaining the meaning of those words to them.
That is just the tip of the iceberg for "ough". The way I pronounce English there are six sounds that "ough" can make:
1. borough (-oh)
2. through (-oo)
3. rough (-uff)
4. cough (-awf)
5. thought (-aw-)
6. plough (-ow)
And in some accents it can be a schwa (uh). I associate this with Britain and some northeast American regions. There are probably other sounds too.
As a kid, I was just told that these are 6 sounds that it can make. I was given them in that order (ostensibly in order of most common use), told to memorize them, and when encountering it in a word, try them until one seems correct. For some other phonics I had some mnemonics. For "oo" I remembered: "Don't eat food that you took from the floor."
This really isn't that difficult, all told. Just consider the rules of any sport, and see how conditional so many of those are. Yet they will pick them up just fine.
Yes, they will get it wrong a lot, too. But that is fine so long as you aren't ridiculing them for being wrong. Acknowledge the difference and move on.
For the specific examples you are using, the general idea is that we have a set of phonetics that can be applied to letters and letter pairings. Which one is used is often defined by the rest of the word.
Do kids ask questions? Absolutely. Get used to saying, "I don't know." Or "its complicated with and based on the history of the word." Even better if you can have time to go into the history some and explore it. Because that can be what gets kids interested. Exploring.
(And this is no different than many other things. Why do you have the name that you have? Why is it spelled as it is? In languages with genders, why are some words male and some female? There is no solid logical reason for any of those. Path dependence is a thing.)
> I got similar questions for the French, btw. "Oiseaux"? Really, French?
“Oiseaux” is perfectly regular and involves no exceptions to the baseline rules of French pronunciation, though, AFAIK; if it were pronounced any way other than it is, it would warrant a question...
Of course but that's not GP's point I think. A kid shall wonder why it's not at the very least "oiso" (when there's one) or "oisos" (when there are several). Or even why not "waso" (with "wa" as in "wapiti").
And anyway we all know that there's only one way to write "Mister oiseau" in french and it's "Mr Oizo" (french electro btw):
Well the discussion is about phonics, so I was thinking of how none of the letters in "oiseaux" are pronounced. That was pointed out to me by a French colleague. Although he stopped at "oiseau", strangely. Anyway I thought it was a common joke of sorts.
I guess you could argue that there is an "aah" after the "oo", so the "a" in "-eaux" counts, but the "aah" is not pronounced where the "a" is written in the word.
Btw, I can't make a good French accent on a keyboard but: oo-aah-zoh.
So many examples of bad definitions: German[1] electron charge[2] music notation[3]! But in the end, I think we have to largely give up the struggle against bad notation, of which spelling is just a part. If it really bothers us we can create our own notations and methods to translate between the old and new, but then you get splitting and fracturing. You can't play together. But if you invent such a notation, and make something beautiful with it, well, then you have a chance at fixing something.
1 - Don't get me started with German grammar, especially the way prepositions conjugate with the (arbitrary) gender of the noun, and the various types of prepositions reuse the same conjugations. It's clearly a language designed to detect foreign speakers and berate them.
2 - Why is electron charge negative? How many unnecessary minus signs has this poor choice caused?
3 - Or music notation vs piano keys - mapping keys to notes is needlessly complex, requiring both a flip and a rotation. (By far the best notation would be vertical, with frequency still increasing to the right in both forms - which takes into account right-hand dominance prevalence and musical taste that wants repetitive bass.) How many kids were and are turned off by this notational horror, and don't get into music at all simply because their (quite correct) aesthetics are immediately violated by arcane music notation?
Definitions don't require explanations because they already have the immense power of consensus.
Consensus is rare and precious and if you try to optimize the object, you must fight the entire consensus battle again, and for only marginal gains. Some weirdos (I use this term warmly) get pretty far though, like with tau and 2*pi.
> Or music notation vs piano keys - mapping keys to notes is needlessly complex, requiring both a flip and a rotation. (By far the best notation would be vertical, with frequency still increasing to the right in both forms - which takes into account right-hand dominance prevalence and musical taste that wants repetitive bass.) How many kids were and are turned off by this notational horror, and don't get into music at all simply because their (quite correct) aesthetics are immediately violated by arcane music notation?
While I am not a experienced musician, there seems to be a clear trade-off here. The mapping to any single instrument's interface isn't immediately obvious, but it allows me to read music written for piano and play some of it on my cello without having to know how piano keys are arranged. Compatibility between music notation across instruments is IMO a really cool feature.
Edit:
>Don't get me started with German grammar, especially the way prepositions conjugate with the (arbitrary) gender of the noun, and the various types of prepositions reuse the same conjugations. It's clearly a language designed to detect foreign speakers and berate them.
Even as a native German speaker, I agree that German grammar is ridiculous. At least Germany reformed their spelling though and made it more consistent. It was quite controversial, but allowed me to get decent spelling grades back in school. Till the reform, I always lost points in exams that weren't even about spelling because I made so many mistakes.
Music notation is pretty much the archetypal example of something designed by power users for power users. As someone who has done some orchestra conducting and composing, it's incredibly powerful and expressive, and the fact that you can usefully conduct an orchestra on an unknown piece with nothing but a score (no recordings) is amazing. Music notation hits a very powerful level of abstraction, and is so information-dense that all the information required to recreate a symphony fits in a small book.
When I was a child trying to learn music reading for piano, it was incredibly arcane and difficult, but it was learnable with a lot of practice. The equivalent of "phonics" lasts well into college for composers and conductors, though, who have a lot more to learn to build a mental model of a score.
I should also add that young pianists and organists have the hardest job here - most instruments otherwise require you to read at most 4 notes at a time from one "staff" (a staff is like a line of text). Even professionals on other instruments can have trouble reading piano music, which can involve 10 or more simultaneous notes spread across 2 staves (or 3 for organ music).
I'm a part time jazz bassist. I play in a so called "big band," so most of what we play is scored like orchestral music, albeit with improvisational portions.
I think "designed by power users for power users" nails it. Another way of putting it, is that there's a symbiosis between writers and players, if both are skilled in the same notation system, whatever it is. If you can read, you can find work. If you can write in standard notation, you can find people to play it. This creates a huge dis-incentive to explore new notations, except as an academic exercise.
> 1 - Don't get me started with German grammar, especially the way prepositions conjugate with the (arbitrary) gender of the noun, and the various types of prepositions reuse the same conjugations.
Just FYI, pretty much all Indo-European languages have gender-based noun declension. This is not special to German, it’s English that’s one of the few special ones that have lost it, no other European Indo-European language had.
German, if anything, has rather simple scheme, where only the preposition declenses. Compare it with eg. Polish, which has 7 cases (compared to 4 in German), and declension is done on the suffix of the noun itself, which is itself pretty irregular, partly due to the fact that even within a gender, different noun types declense differently, eg. there are masculine personal, masculine animate and masculine inanimate nouns, and these three can be seen as subgenders. I simply don’t have an idea how any non-native speaker can have any hope to learn all of this other than through many years of practice.
Western music notation originated in religious vocal scores, at a time when church music was largely homophonic (just one melody). As melody is linear through time, using the horizontal axis to denote time makes a lot of sense - just like we do with the written word.
Of course Gradually tastes changed and Church music became polyphonic - adding a second (and third, fourth, fifth, etc) vocal line was a natural adaptation. Instrumentalists took it up outside of the Church, and the rest is history. We standardized on this notation because, even though it was originally for the human voice, it is convenient and good enough that everyone could make use of it.
I remember some of seeing some of those scores. Fascinating notation systems, but they required a great deal of front matter to comprehend the intent of the notation.
2 - Why is electron charge negative? How many unnecessary minus signs has this poor choice caused?
Because the person who decided the sign didn't have a way of knowing a priori whether the stuff that was moving from rod to fur and from rod to silk was numerically a particular kind of charge carrier flowing in a particular kind of direction. At the point you're rubbing a piece of silk on a glass rod, you know some transfer is happening to make the silk attract the fur, but you don't know whether you're rubbing something off of the rod or onto the rod.
You can imagine each language as a painters’ pallete.
Each letter combination is a colour. You only have access to some colours, but not all.
Some colours (letter combinations) look good together, and others don’t. When they don’t, you try to see the “colour” as another one until it makes sense (looking for context). Kind of like “what colour is dress”.
To speak to your British English example, you also know that some places (i.e. regional dialects) don’t use a standard colour and only use one they “whipped up” at home.
If you have access to multiple palletes (i.e you are multilingual), you realize some colours might be similar but not always the same. If there are similar colours, they each have a different “shade”. Paint consistency might also vary.
This is also how you can learn to talk in accents. Instead of using native sounds to pronounce a word in one language, you “dip” into a “sound palette” of another language to try to get as close as you can to the original word.
Phonics were all the rage when I was learning to read. I'm sure it helped me in some way for a year or two. Then I spent five years unlearning phonics. For the most part, I learned by rote memorization of spelling lists and by figuring out words from context through a lot of individual reading. My children learned from rote memorization and from context. Every English-literate person I know learned this way. Every less-literate person I know did not learn this way.
I would like to say that English is most definitely not phonetic. But this is not really true. In any particular word, there are usually some phonetic landmarks. If there are enough of these that you can identify you can try to use them as fingerprints against your entire oral vocabulary filtered by context to identify that word. Then you rote memorize it.
As I write this I'm listening live to a British person saying things like "no-us" and "repo-uh" (I don't know phonetic symbols well enough to represent this properly). I understand these words to be "notes" and "report" in very much the same way. I pick out phonetic landmarks and filter my vocabulary by context to find words that have matching landmarks. There is an American in the conversation using words like "thanegs" which I understand to be "things" because "thanks" doesn't fit in the context.
Even though it's definitely not sufficient for English spelling, I think it's pretty important to start with phonics. It teaches kids how the alphabet is supposed to work, and to be fair, it does work that way for most of the simple words young readers will encounter.
It's a good little lesson about "ideals" or something too, eventually. It's fun when you get to joke with your kids about how strange the spelling of some words are.
I just watched Megamind for the first time with my two kids yesterday, and some of the humor is based on Megamind constantly mispronouncing words ("school" becomes "shool", "Metro City" is pronounced as one word, like "atrocity", etc). My older son thought that was funny, my younger son didn't get it.
> It's a good little lesson about "ideals" or something too, eventually.
That's a really good point, and also a good lesson for adults thinking about education.
Oftentimes it's actually a pretty bad idea to teach something based on the "ideal" understanding of someone who's already mastered the subject. Teaching a somewhat useful but ultimately faulty method as a stepping stone to mastery is often much better. That can be difficult, though because someone who understands those faults often gets hung up on them, and can't avoid the temptation to reject the stepping stone, in favor of pushing for the learner to take a too-big leap to the "true" understanding.
> It didn't even remotely occur to anybody in the family that learning to read was special, or that there might even be any way to teach it other than phonics. English has a phonetic alphabet after all, right?
> Moreover, learning to read at home was just part of our culture. When kids were deemed "ready," they learned to read. It wasn't a special thing.
> I think my parents learned from whatever material they could lay their hands on. I learned from a 18th century reader that my mom found somewhere. My first word was CAT.
Can you be more explicit about the resources (and kind of resources) your parents used? I learned to read in school, so I'm not very aware of them. Articles like the OP make me think I may have to get acquainted to fill in deficits in the school curriculum.
Not OP, and it definitely isn't an 18th century reader... But "Bob Books" are a homeschool mainstay and a big part of how my kids developed initial reading skills.
Phonics based approaches to reading have been a mainstay of private and home school programs for decades. It creates a silly disparity between those who can afford or are willing to sacrifice enough to put there children through them and those who have to use the public school system. Every once in a while the parents will have enough and revolt somehow.
I was home-schooled from 2nd grade onward, so I never really experienced the public system. But one of the small towns where I grew up had one of those revolts while I was in college. My mom because she had been homeschooling for a number of years and knew by experience how to teach a phonics based approach ended up helping a group of parents learn how to teach it to their children. A non-trivial number of families just pulled their kids out of the school and home-schooled them. I remember thinking at the time that the school was oddly hostile to updating their curriculum and approach despite concrete evidence that the phonics method substantially improved the students reading ability in part due to the training my mom gave parents and the tutoring she provided for some the students. You could see dramatic before and after results right there.
Show a parent that there is a simple method to improve their child's reading and they will fight tooth and nail to get them access to that method. Unfortunately not every town or school district will have someone who knows and can share the information.
Just a small point, and I might be mistaken on terminology, but isn't English one of the least phonetic alphabets? afaik most other languages have much more consistent pronunciation, and one of the biggest complaints of English language learners (and precocious kids) is not being able to know how a word is pronounced based on its spelling.
The writing system of English is far more phonetic than logographic writing systems such as that of Chinese. That's the relevant difference here. It is true that English's writing system is one of the least phonetic alphabets, but alphabets are always, by definition, quite phonetic. Most writing systems are alphabetic and not logographic, so if you rank them all ordinally, English is going to have a similar rank to Chinese, but the absolute difference between English and Chinese is quite large. Here is a very impressionistic assignment of percentages of phoneticity to various systems, which will hopefully make clear what I'm getting at:
Phoneticity 20% (Chinese)
--
--
--
Phoneticity 75% (English)
Phoneticity 80% (French)
Phoneticity 90% (Spanish, probably most other writing systems)
You have to distinguish different types of phoneticity. Can you pronounce what you read vs. spell what you hear? Can you pronounce an unfamiliar character?
With very few exceptions, Chinese characters are always pronounced the same way in the various Chinese languages (but not in Japanese), regardless of context, but if you're unfamiliar with a character, you'll have at best only a vague idea how to pronounce it. If you hear a Chinese syllable, you'll have several characters to choose from, and can only disambiguate them from context.
My grandfather sold World Book encyclopedias. He ended up being a regional manager for Fields Enterprises, for World Book. We always had recent editions of the encyclopedia around the house.
That plus my Dad's SF book collection were the primary influencers of my early reading education.
By sixth grade, I was reading at a college level, and the teachers had no idea what to do with me.
I'm only a single person, but I think for some of us, this immersion method works well. When the kid has a question, teach them to look up the answers themselves. Also make them provide references for the answers they provide later, so that you can be reasonably sure they're not lying.
IIRC, about 65% of children just learn to read with whatever method. The remainder need different strategies or more time or both to help.
I'm like you. I started reading as a 4 year old because my parents pace was too slow. IIRC, I was usually 3-4 grade levels ahead of whatever was expected in school. My son is not. He plateaued on reading in first grade and didn't really advance -- until he did towards the end of grade 2. Funny enough, he is and remains way ahead of the class in math - he sat down one weekend and completed his math book for the year in October.
The key thing is that parents need to be engaged. If there's a problem, be the squeaky wheel!
>English has a phonetic alphabet after all, right?
No, it doesn't - if it used IPA, it maybe would, but English has very inconsistent pronunciation for otherwise similar words written in Latin alphabet, a matter that many English native speakers seem to overlook: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1edPxKqiptw
English does use a phonetic script. The letters represent phonemes and carry no semantic meaning on their own, as opposed to an ideographic or logographic script. That fact that one symbol can possibly represent multiple phonemes doesn't make it not a phonetic script.
There's no debate about it, unless you want to debate what makes a script "phonetic" in the first place.
>English does use a phonetic script. (...) That fact that one symbol can possibly represent multiple phonemes doesn't make it not a phonetic script.
The fact that English uses Latin letters for writing doesn't mean that it uses any other properties of Latin script. Compare English-the-language to Latin-the-language; the latter is highly phonetic whereas English is not.
Or, in other words, in English individual letters neither represent phonemes nor carry meaning; it's only clumps of letters, or individual words, that have both meaning and pronunciation assigned to them. Unlike in Latin.
> The fact that English uses Latin letters for writing doesn't mean that it uses any other properties of Latin script. Compare English-the-language to Latin-the-language; the latter is highly phonetic whereas English is not.
It has nothing to do with the spoken language at all. Written English uses a script that has symbols which represent individual phonemes. English uses a phonetic script. Yes, spoken English has diverged from written English. The script is still phonetic.
The fact that it uses Latin letters doesn't make it phonetic if the same letter consistently resolves to different phonemes or lack thereof, depending on its context.
You may argue it's not a very good phonetic script, with all of the special cases present... But letters mostly represent sounds, unlike written languages where characters represent concepts.
A computer program written with knowledge of a few dozen of the common special cases would pronounce >90% of English words correctly and be close on most of the rest, "cupboard" notwithstanding. Indeed, look at how well 80's-era speech to text did with this exact approach.
I don't know what kind it uses, but it's not phonetic, because the graphemes do not represent phonemes, despite your claims.
If English was truly phonetic, to name a few examples again: the pronunciation of "are" would most likely be a prefix of "area", since the graphemes for "are" are present in "area"; "read" and "read" would be read the same, since the graphemes for "read" and "read" are identical; the words "freak", "steak", and "break" would end with the same phonemes, since the graphemes for "eak" suffix are identical... and so on.
If it was not phonetic, what "idea" would the letter "r" represent? That it can represent different phonetics depending on other rules doesn't change that it represents phonetics.
English is an alphabetic language not a phonetic one.
In a phonetic language, you can pronounce a word just based on its written representation.
Just compare current and paste tense of read. It is spelled the same but pronounced differently.
You can argue it is an phonetically inconsistent language. However, you will find most of inconsistencies occur in the most frequently used words, making it hard for a beginner.
You are not wrong in idea, but you are wrong in specifics. Does English use a 1:1 phonetic language? No. Of course not. Just like most "functional programming" languages have a lot of differences between them. The colloquial use of the term is not nearly as precise as many think it is.
Even looking up the definition of "alphabetic" shows that that is often for phonetic languages. :D
People confidently stating as fact stuff they know little or nothing about. Ask any competent linguist: English has a phonetic script. (Not a very good one, perhaps, but phonetic nonetheless.)
The issue in this thread is confusion between two separate ideas: "English is a phonetic langauge" and "English uses a phonetic script".
The former point can be debated. The latter, not. The English script is phonetic. Graphemes represent phonemes.
The English script (its writing system), which is based on the Latin alphabet (the graphic symbols) is phonetic because the symbols represent sounds and have no intrinsic semantic meaning. I think that's fairly un-debatable unless you want to make the case that emoji are part of the English script.
"t" represents a sound in the English script, a phoneme. It does not represent a thing, an idea, or anything more than an aspirated consonant sound.
There were blog posts that surfaced in the '10s trying to make a case for official inclusion of emoji into the written language. Thankfully that concept got little traction.
It's an alphabetic writing system where the letters largely correspond to sounds, in contrast to logographic writing system where the symbol corresponds to the entire word (like Chinese or Japan).
Yes, there are special rules and outliers that you need to learn in English, but it seems absurd to not classify it as phonetic because it's not purely phonetic. This is doubly so when discussing phonetic vs whole-word learning systems, as is the topic with "Sold a Story".
> Yes, there are special rules and outliers that you need to learn in English (...)
I think you're greatly understating it. It's most of English, it's present everywhere as you try to learn the language. It's present from the very beginning, when you need to figure out why "are" and "area" are not pronounced the same, until the very end, when you have mostly mastered the language but now need to be able to understand everyone else's pronunciation while also accounting for them most likely pronouncing some words incorrectly.
Japanese is phonetic, unlike English. In Japanese spelling is phonetic and pronunciation is consistent. Words sound like they look and look like they sound. Even someone who’s never studied Japanese before could read a text written in romaji and be understood without trouble (unlike someone studying French, for example).
Nit, Japanese has two phonetic alphabets. But, largely Japanese is not phonetic in written language, as they also have a logographic set which makes up a large portion of most texts.
English is highly non-phonemic. It's not absurd. If you considered English phonetic, you'd have to consider almost every modern language writing system phonetic. The distinction wouldn't mean much.
It's entirely possible for a distinction that contrasts a large majority with a small minority, or even an actually-existing totality with a hypothetical set of counterexamples, to be meaningful.
If it is not phonemic, what is it? It is not necessarily "regular" or "uniform" in the phonemes that are represented, but you can't consider it anything other than phonetic, as the characters represent phonemes. Pretty much period.
As said in other threads, you are not wrong that there are more direct 1:1 scripts to phonemes. You are wrong to think that is what phonetic means.
I'm assuming it isn't deception as much as it is a bit plain ignorance. I confess I have harbored the thought that English is not phonetic in the past. Is a common thing for folks to say; especially when trying to point out that English is hard.
For an alphabet to be phonetic, it doesn't really matter how complex the rules are for the alphabet, just that the letters carry only phonetic meaning and no semantic meaning, right?
> For an alphabet to be phonetic...just that the letters carry only phonetic meaning and no semantic meaning, right?
Yes, exactly.
If the English alphabet wasn't phonetic, it would be impossible to even try to "sound out" words. Everything would be pictograms or logograms (e.g. icons).
English has a phonetic alphabet, but history and cultural contact* have made the phonics complicated and inconsistent, but it doesn't mean they aren't there.
* Including the garbage practice of adopting foreign words with literally no spelling changes whatsoever, which in modern times has been taken to such ridiculous degrees as adopting Pinyin spellings in favor of other Chinese romanization systems that are more suited to English phonetics. Why write "ts" when you can write "c" and have every Englishspeaking person mispronounce it?
What phonetic meaning does the letter "h" carry when writing English? Especially with words like "honest" and "while". If adding a single letter at the end of a word changes the pronunciation of everything before it, it's not unlike adding a single stroke to a radical that changes the pronunciation of the whole kanji.
In other words, if you need to read the whole word in order to know how to pronounce it (and there are plenty of English examples in the aforelinked video), then, by definition, you're not doing anything remotely phonetic.
The phonetic value of [h] is /h/. In English spelling, many phonetic units are digraphs, not monographs (unsurprising when you consider that English has ~40 phonemes but only 26 letters in its alphabet).
The core phonetic rules of English are actually quite simple:
* Map consonant digraphs to phonemes where appropriate (e.g., [ch] goes to /tʃ/, [ph] goes to /f/).
* Map remaining consonants to a single phoneme, although note that [c] and [g] will map to /k/ or /s/ and /g/ or /dʒ/ respectively depending on the following letter.
* Map vowel digraphs to their monophthongs or diphthongs (e.g., [ai] goes to /ei/).
* Map vowel monographs to their "short" or "long" form depending on the following letters (e.g., [bet] is /bɛt/ while [bete] is /bit/, same as [beat]). Basic rule is vowel-consonant-vowel gets the "long" form, otherwise you get the "short" form. Doubling a consonant forces the "short" form without implying a doubled (geminate) consonant in pronunciation.
Those rules predict a large fraction of English pronunciation. You can get better by adding in rules on schwa reduction (unstressed vowels become /ə/) or rules to reflect the systematic sound changes of the past few centuries (e.g., how [-tion] becomes /ʃun/). There are still irregularities beyond that ("English" isn't justifiable by any spelling rules), and then you have the frustrating tendency of English to insist on using foreign spellings and foreign pronunciations of foreign words (e.g., "coup" is French and should be pronounced as in French and "onomatopoeia" is Greek and should be pronounced as in Greek).
Still complex compared to Polish, which has a ratio of letters-to-phonemes much closer to 1 (five digraphs in total). While it's a hard language to learn overall, its orthography is one of the parts that are pretty simple compared to English. Only three homophone pairs are present throughout the language (H/CH, Ż/RZ, Ó/U); voicing and devoicing is a thing (PRZ... almost always sounds like PSZ...); Ą and Ę have a rule where they are fully nasalized depending on context; palatalization is everywhere, and it's probably the most complex part. Foreign words are very often polonized ("onomatopeja" from your example).
Maybe I'm biased as a Polish native but I do not think the above is comparable to the mess of exceptions that is English.
A phonetic script is one where the symbols represent sounds. The Latin alphabet is a phonetic script. In contrast, consider the shared numeric system used in both English and Polish. How do you pronounce "1"? What about "10" or "11" - does using the same symbol in all three numbers give you any hint about whether they sound the same? What if I'm saying the numbers in French?
The answer is of course, no, those symbols don't have an associated sound. They have an associated meaning and there are many spoken words for that meaning.
If that is the case, how would you describe the act of comparing English to languages which actually have consistent letter-phoneme pronunciation throughout the language (starting with e.g. the same number of available letters and phonemes and a 1:1 mapping between them)?
Funnily enough, Egyptian hieroglyphs were in fact phonetic: they just used recognizable pictures instead of abstract symbols to represent the sounds. It's possible they were sometimes used as ideograms too, but not the standard.
Chinese ideograms are not phonetic, because seeing the written character gives you no indication of what the sound of the spoken word is.
>It didn't even remotely occur to anybody in the family that learning to read was special
As usual, it's much fuss about nothing. Same goes for financial discipline. There are no special techniques, unless one are dealing with special needs kids.
Not every kid learns it automatically, though. My oldest could read before he went to kindergarten (and skipped a grade later), my youngest needed extra help learning to talk. Most kids are somewhere in between those two extremes.
It didn't even remotely occur to anybody in the family that learning to read was special, or that there might even be any way to teach it other than phonics. English has a phonetic alphabet after all, right?
Moreover, learning to read at home was just part of our culture. When kids were deemed "ready," they learned to read. It wasn't a special thing.
I think my parents learned from whatever material they could lay their hands on. I learned from a 18th century reader that my mom found somewhere. My first word was CAT.
Both of my kids "took" to reading and were voracious readers. Lucky? Yes, but we also felt that letting our kids learn to read at school was leaving too much to chance.