Talk:Phonics

Comments

hi

Phonics is described as "the study of the way in which spellings represent the sounds that make up words." The problem is they don't. Believers in phonics may protest that letters sometimes represent sounds, but you can't tell when they're doing it, so they're not really representing. Few customers would be happy with a bank which sent them information which only sometimes represented the state of their accounts.

The article says: "G has a name of "Gee" but it says "Gaa" (with the Aa sound suppressed.)". If "g" says "gaa", what is it saying in "Gee"? Aha, replies the phonicist. That's one of the exceptions. Hang on, says the realist. So "g" doesn't always say "Gaa". Why did you tell me it did?

The suggestion that each letter has a name and a sound could be taken to mean that a letter's name can't be the same as its sound(s) (cf. "k" and "a").

People learning to read can start reading before they memorise the 20,000 words mentioned. I wonder how many people really do know how to speak 20,000 words let alone write them. Phonics' 100 rules is a formidable number. Also, the statement: "But there are many exceptions to this rule." is very depressing, though true. An exception to a rule is really a new rule. One must therefore add the number of exceptions to the number of rules to get the total number of rules. Also, you have to decide which is a rule and which an exception. Is the use of "c" to say /k/ somehow more regular than it's saying /s/ and, if so, why?

Saying: "OUGH has up to 6 different sounds, such as "Cough", "tough", "Thought", "Through", "Trough", "Bough" etc." may be at least partly correct but it doesn't help the child know which one applies. I'm not sure what the difference is between the "ough" in "cough" and the same letters in "trough", but "trough" may be a typo for "though".

The statement that each vowel has two sounds is false, even if you add that each vowel can also be schwa. When children figure this out they will have to unlearn phonics to be able to read and spell.

In the first large table, part 12 seems not to make a distinction between the pronunciation of, for example, "hue" and "june" (sic). In part 1 we have the unfamiliar "lade". There's a rule called 2 which says: "E is often silent before d; as in bribed, changed, hedged; cradled, handled, struggled." and one called 3 which says: "E is often silent before l; as in drivel, grovel, hazel, shovel, swivel, weasel." This so-called silent "e" can therefore be truly silent or a syllabic schwa.

It's said that, inter alia, "t" regularly represents one sound, but it does not. Think of all the instances where it precedes "h" or "ion".

We'd all love it if English spelling were phonetic, but it isn't. Part of the problem is that the alphabet was developed for a Romance language.

Some writing on phonics is unclear in terms of whether it is about reading or spelling. Maybe part of the problem with phonics is that its adherents believe that words' essences reside in their written form, and that the spoken language is a rendition of a written one.

pauldanon

If there are problems with the phonics system (as undoubtedly there are), then there is no reason that they cannot be addressed in the article under a "criticisms" section or some such. Anyone who reads this should feel free to add one if the spirit moves them. Nohat 16:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but my criticism above is principally of the article, which suggests that statements about phonics are factual statements about how language works.

Uhmmm ..... phonics isn't how language works, but it *is* how alphabetic writing systems work: sounds map to letters and letter combinations.

I don't see anything in the article that either states or implies that phonics is how language works, but maybe I'm missing something. Could you point out where you see this?

Rosmoran 00:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't really understand Paul Danon's objection to phonics. People who use it to teach generally know that it is not a perfect system for teaching reading and writing but it is certainly a very effective way to begin the process. It is generally coupled with memorisation of high frequency words, books with controlled vocabulary, looking at variations in spelling and various other teaching techniques to supplement synthetic phonics. It is not intended to be a system used in complete isolation. A further point is that if you are so critical of the synthetic phonics system what is it that should be used to begin to teach reading and writing? Geoffie1 (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

info moved from Auditory phonetics

Phonics in school education

In kindergarten 1 and 2 (ages 4-5) the basic sounds of the alphabet are taught. In Auditory Phonetics emphasis is on the perception of specific sounds and their grasp on them. For example; when the teacher teaches the basic sounds of the alphabet she has to emphasise the pronunciation of each sound clearly and show the movements of her lips so students can hear clearly and imitate the sounds effectively. An example: a for apple, b for bat and c for cat and so forth. This is reinforced with listening to songs having the same sounds in them, reading and listening of the sounds on whiteboard or cards with pictures, oral games and reading the sounds in simple words in story book.

In grades 1 and 2 (ages 6-7), this development is taken a step further to include the phonic blends, (such as bl for blanket, fl for flag or sh for shell and ch for church) and long vowel sounds, until all the sounds are learnt. Reinforcement is provided by different types of oral and listening work.

The above isnt about auditory phonetics, but maybe it can be integrated into this article if desired. peace — ishwar  (SPEAK) 18:31, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

Definition: identity, characteristics

DEFINITION

A definition has two parts. The first part asks, ‘What group does it belong to?’ The second part asks, ‘How is it different from others in the group?’

IDENTITY

Phonics is the study of the way in which sounds are associated or correspond to individual letters or letter sequences that make up written words. The word ‘represent’ in the article implies the process of creating a mental image of something, and should be replaced by the word ‘associate’ or ‘correspond’ in the article.

‘Represent’ implies a one-to-one correspondence between two things, which creates a unique identity. Phonics in English does not involve representation, it involves association or correspondence. The teaching of phonics involves classification, not identification. An encyclopedia article from the '60's uses the term association.

A 1970's dictionary indicates that phonics is a letter-sound correspondence, not a sound-letter correspondence, as indicated in the article Some letter-sound correspondences are single and some are multiple.

Phonics involves pronunciation. The ’sounds that make up words’ are significant in the context of the pronunciation of the whole word. Does phonics teaching include the pronunciation of one letter, two letters, a syllable, and also the whole word? If phonics does not include the pronunciation of the whole written word, then why does it involve a letter sequence, but not a complete letter sequence?

The dictionary indicates that phonetics includes the representation of sounds with letters. If phonics is sound-letter correspondences, as the article says, and phonetics includes sound-letter correspondences, then what does one call letter-sound correspondences?

CHARACTERISTICS

The statement, ‘Pronunciation rules are inconsistent’ implies that phonics is the study of letter-sound correspondences, contrary to the beginning sentence. ‘Inconsistent’ implies that in English there are multiple letter-sound correspondences and multiple sound-letter correspondences. This statement also implies that other languages may have single letter-sound correspondences, not multiple.

The statement, ‘Students of the English language must memorize hundreds of words,’ does not indicate whether the word memorize refers to pronunciation or spelling. In order to ‘memorize’ the pronunciation of words, one must hear words correctly pronounced in association with the correctly-spelled written word. In order to ‘memorize’ the spelling of words, one must see words spelled correctly in association with the correctly-pronounced spoken word.

Phonics and phonetics are tools for the classification of sounds and letters in written and spoken words. They are not substitutes for the process of actually reproducing written and spoken words. To classify is not to reproduce. In other words, one must pronounce what one hears and spell what one sees, not pronounce what one sees and spell what one hears. This process also occurs in languages with picture alphabets.

Some foreigners with non-phonetic languages can be very good spellers of English, in spite of difficulties in pronunciation. This is unlike some other completely phonetic languages where one can pronounce what one sees and spell what one hears.

What is ‘the phonetics of letters?’ Is it sound-letter correspondences or letter-sound correspondences?

In the article, what does ‘such words by rote’ refer to? The previous sentence speaks of phonetic words. ‘Such words’ should be preceded by a reference to non-phonetic words.

‘Learn hundreds of such words by rote’ implies that the classification process that phonics teaches does not aid in the process of remembering how to pronounce or spell non-phonetic words. One must question whether phonics is taught as a classification process or as a process of ‘representation.’

The association -- of correct pronunciation and correct spelling with non-phonetic words -- is committed to memory and retrieved from memory according to some type of pattern. If an association cannot be retrieved from memory, as in learning disabilities, then one must question whether the problem lies with committing associations to memory or with lack of initial exposure to those associations. If a person is taught to associate a letter sequence with letter names, then the person will retrieve that letter sequence as letter names. If a person is taught to associate a letter sequence with phonetic sounds, then the person will retrieve that letter sequence as phonetic sounds.

If a person is taught to associate a letter sequence with the correct pronunciation of a whole word, then that person will retrieve that letter sequence as the correct pronunciation of a whole word. These three process are not mutually exclusive. They can be done in parallel.

Entire populations that use non-phonetic languages apply ‘rote memorization’ every day. They use visual associations to aid them in understanding new characters.

There are sections in the article on EXAMPLES, ORGANIZATION, PROCESSES, DYNAMICS and APPLICATIONS. Others are more qualified to comment on those subjects.

Seventhpower 03:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Disproving tenets

The article says that each letter has two sounds, short and long. Four instances of "a" are cake, tack, father and about. A tenet of the system is thus proven false. Some instances of "i" are bite, bit and lotion. Instance of "o" are over, other and bottom (two in the last word). If phonics teaches literacy, it doesn't do it because it's true. www.danon.co.uk

Synthetic and analytic (sic) phonics

The article tries to illustrate the difference between these variants by suggesting that, on the one hand "street" has six (presumably phonetic) elements and, on the other hand, that it has three. All great fun but, phonetically at least, utterly wrong. A broad pseudo-IPA transcription would show it as having five elements thus: /strit/. Sure, "street" has six letters, but "though" has six letters, one syllable and three sounds. None of this advances human knowledge, least of all that of the poor kids who have to learn this misleading hogwash at the same time as actually learning to read and write. www.danon.co.uk

Reading level

What reading level are we aiming at here?

"Each letter is like an animal, which has a name and the sound(s) that it makes ... A criticism of this statement would be that in fact ..."

Writing for primary school students would make sense in this article but if this is what we're doing we'll want to be consistant and leave out the hard stuff which will only turn the kids off. Jimp 20Dec05

Brilliant

Some "smarter" kids recognize certain pronunciation patterns on their own and can then extrapolate how to read new words; the less fortunate can become illiterate if they fail to do enough reading exercises.

Imagine that - not doing reading exercises will impede your reading ability. And not doing your math assignments will impede your math ability.--RLent 18:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What it's saying is: either you can teach the children the rules, even though there are exceptions, so they can get started easily, or you can throw the words at them and leave the determined ones to work the rules out for themselves, including the exceptions. Under the second system, many children become discouraged early on because it is very hard. When a child doesn't know how to read a word, are you more likely to say 'sound it out' or 'remember, you must have seen this somewhere before....'? Everyone who can read words they haven't seen before, or haven't seen often, has worked out the basic rules, even though there are exceptions. "Imagine that - not doing reading exercises will impede your reading ability. And not doing your math assignments will impede your math ability" So would you advocate not teaching children the principles of arithmetic on the basis that, if they did enough homework (and extra maths problems at home with their parents) they would pick them up themselves? 57.66.51.165 14:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitional Problems

From my understanding of Phonics, it is less a study of the relationship between spelling and pronunciation, and more a method of teaching people how to read (and later spell), through the study of this relationship between spelling and pronunciation.

I am curious as to where the author(s) of this article got their "Basic Rules." I am familiar with several Phonics methods:

Matsuka Phonics - a popular method used in Japan and several other Asian countries and is based on research.

Hooked on Phonics - the now Phonics method that educators in the US claim has injured the name of Phonics by teaching a half-baked method.

Orton-Spalding Method - another well-known Phonics method, developed in 1937 by a neuro-pathologist, Samuel T. Orton. This is the most "complete" Phonics method I know of; by "complete", I mean that it does not consider many common words to be "exceptions."

Let's take a quick look at a few of these claims:

Each vowel has two sounds: one long and one short

Matsuka Phonics teaches two sounds for each vowel. Orton-Spalding does not. For the letter 'u', for example, four sounds are taught: cup, cute, tune, put.

The article says: "G has a name of "Gee" but it says "Gaa" (with the Aa sound suppressed.)". If "g" says "gaa", what is it saying in "Gee"? Aha, replies the phonicist. That's one of the exceptions.

If the Phonics method you refer to teaches only one sound for the letter 'G', then you are right... that is crazy. But I know of no method that only teaches one sound for the letter 'G'. AFAIK, all three of the above-metioned methods teach both sounds for the letter 'G' (rag & rage).

Many words do not follow these rules; they are called "sight words". Sight words must be memorized since the regular rules do not apply. e.g., "The", "Are", "You".

This is a common reason given for the uselessness of Phonics. Again, depending upon the Phonics method under consideration, this statement may or may not be true. According to the Orton-Spalding method, all three of these words follow the Phonics rules as they are taught. The only possible "exception" might be the word "the", as most native speakers now pronounce the final 'e' as a schwa instead of as a long 'e'.

I could go on... and I guess I should take some time to edit the article. At any rate, if anyone is interested in reading more about Phonics, check out the Riggs Institute:

http://www.riggsinst.org/GreatDebate.aspx

Peace, --Hardov 07:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Wee teech fonicks in Feenex.

Phonics is an effective instructional method

The information presented on phonics in this entry was far from complete before I made substantial revisions. It remains far from complete, but significantly clearer. The debate over the utility of phonics, as the revised entry demonstrates, is largely closed. Phonics is effective for 95% of students. The remaining 5% of students have learning disabilities. Among those, 3% can learn to read using intensive phonics programs, such as Orton-Gillingham (described above). That leaves 2% of students. Whole language approaches are generally considered to work for about 70% of the population. Clearly, phonics works.

The argument against phonics goes like this: "English is so complex and there are so many rules, many of which contradict each other, that it's not worth teaching students how it works. We're better off teaching them to memorize words and use textual clues for words they can't decode outright."

There's an irony inherent in this argument. The argument against teaching phonics is that there are too many rules to remember. By extension, this implies that phonics takes up too much valuable mental real estate. The argument for memorizing words requires rote knowledge of thousands of words, such that even more mental real estate is consumed. The anti-phonics argument, in response to this clear irony, is that memorizing doesn't require the complex mental machinations that phonics does (e.g., you don't need to remember when g says /dʒ/ and when it says /g/). To the contrary, without phonics, students are expected to go through the complex mental machinations of figuring out a word using some sketchy word knowledge (perhaps the first and last letter) in addition to textual and visual cues (context and illustrations, respectively).

So, not teaching phonics requires as much mental effort as teaching phonics, even if we assume that phonics is an extremely complex process students cannot possibly master. But, the a priori idea that phonics is necessarily complicated beyond reason is unreasonable.

Yes, the English spelling system is challenging. However, armed with a bank of key phonics tools, most words can be decoded. A computer simulation, armed with a strong knowledge of only the most regular English spelling conventions could "read" 96% of words correctly. That does leave a frustrating 4%, mostly very old (and often high frequency words) and foreign words that require special attention. The other 96% we can teach students to decode using a bank of phonics knowledge. There are fewer than 100 phonic elements needed to decode the majority of English words. If we require students to memorize their times tables, we can certainly expect them to memorize 100 word patterns.

And we should expect this. Why? It works, as stated above. Kids also enjoy it, when it is taught clearly by teachers who understand how it works. Few of us, having grown up with Dick and Jane or whole language, understand the phonic system, but a little education goes a long way to helping students read and spell more successfully. As a teacher, learning how the English phonetic and phonic systems function was among the most important things I ever learned.

All of this emphasis I've given to phonics here should not obscure the fact that I am steadfastly committed to comprehension instruction from the earliest grades. Kindergarteners and 1st graders should be engaged in meaningful discussion about text and learn new concepts from reading in all disciplines. After all, phonics is useless if it is not used to make meaning out of text! However, there need not be a choice made between phonics and comprehension: both can be--and should be--taught. --Kearnsdm 08:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I would dispute your statistics regarding the 95% beging able to use phonics. No system works that well and that is a statisitic fact based on standard deviations etc, the best you can hope for can be 60/70% anything more is pure distortion to add to any case. Therew are many who can not access phonics. especially the 10% of the population who have some degree of Auditory Processing Disorder, who have listening disorder. They have problems using phonics because the whole phonic structure is based on good listening skills. Then you have thosew who are notable toi access their Auditory leqarning styles very well, those who are dominantly Kineasthetic or Visual Learners, especially Visual-Spatial Learners. Yes the phonetic approach worksd well for may but there is a need to use both a whole word anda phonic apprach not just one or the other. Teachers need to be able to adapt top the learning needs of the pupils and not be limited to the use of one specific program which could be harmful to some of their pupils becvause of some lunatic limitation of using only one program. May be the teacher will need better trainming to understand the needs of their pupils but that is never a bad thing.

best wishes

dolfrog 01:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Rarity of symbol use

I reverted the changes to the section on the instructional phonics symbols used in the U.S. I understand they are still commonly used. -- Mwalcoff 04:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Symbol Use

Symbol use is not very common in the United States, contrary to your understanding. It may be used in some cases and by some programs (a special alphabet--not the one you've chosen, but something somewhat similar--is, for example, used in SRA's Reading Mastery in its early levels). However, most programs do not use these. Frankly, the use of this pseudoalphabet makes phonics seem like a strange way to teach children to read. It, therefore, implies that it is a way of teaching that distracts students from the actual print on pages in actual text.

The way you've framed your "understanding" almost certainly suggests that you're at a certain distance from actual reading instruction. This raises the quite legitimate question, what is the basis for your assertion?

I think that, pending a better resolution, the way I've reframed that section is a fair compromise. A productive, evidence-based discussion of methods in wide use would be appropriate for resolving this issue.--Kearnsdm 05:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I admit my understanding of how the symbols are used might be off. Certainly the symbols are used, as seen in websites like [2] and [3], as well as my mother's classroom and my own elementary-school classes so many years ago. Let's remove the section for now while I get more information on how exactly the symbols are used. -- Mwalcoff 05:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

National Geographic Channel randomised intermediate letters goes haywire

The National Geographic Channel randomised intermediate letters shows that if the first and last letter of a word remain the same with the intermediate letters randomised, the meaning is superficially maintained.

A sample in talk:Whole language shows that is it broadly true, and by implication, that Whole language is the way to go.

However, National Geographic fails to mention the possibility that randomisation can change one word into another, which might give a completely different meaning.

Talk:whole language lists a ambiguous pair of words seen in the Economist newspaper of 30 September, 2006, page 56.

Imagine the following:

• Bill Gates donates $10b to poverty relief in Tasmania, ( a rich state).
• Bill Gates donates $10b to poverty relief in Tanzania, ( a poor state).

Note that M and N have very close sounds, while S and Z can have the same sound and may be interchangable, such as in the words organise and organize.

It is not known what other word pairs may have similar hidden traps waiting to catch people.

In terms of the phonics-whole language debate, National Geographic Channel appears to be supporting whole language, while this example is suggesting that whole language can be dangerous, and that therefore phonics should be preferred.

Tabletop 04:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Why the National Geographic Experiment Means Nothing

Certainly, the NG experiment is interesting, but it does not prove that we are only looking at the beginning and the end of the word. To examine this, let's remove all of the middle letters, leaving only the first and last graphemes and substituting X's for everything else (on the assumption that word length, if not the intermediate letters, makes a difference).

So, here goes:

The axxxe dxxxxxxxd exxxxxxxxt pxxxxs oxxy thxt hxxxn cxxxxxxxe fxxxxxxxs axe ixxxxxxxxy rxxxxt -- we cxn rxxxxxxxe txe ixxxxxxxxxxe lxxxxxs in a wxxd axd pxxxxxxxe txe rxxxxt axxxxxxxxy wxth lxxxxe dxxxxxxxxy.

If you can figure out what this says reading at the rate of 100 words per minute, I will admit that the experiment is valid. Otherwise, it is an entertaining, but unhelpful, exercise.

Kearnsdm 07:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

This is the current lead section:

Phonics is the study of the way in which spellings represent the sounds that make up words. It is related to phonetics, which is the study of speech sounds in general. In the United States, the term is also sometimes used to refer to a particular instructional design such as that used by the commercial Hooked on Phonics products.

I think this has to be rewritten. The study of spellings (with regard to speech sounds) is not really close enough to phonetics to merit a mention of a relationship. Also, a dictionary search tells me phonics is a synonym for acoustics or phonetics. I propose:

For the study of sounds and speech sounds, see Acoustics and Phonetics.

In the United States, Phonics is the study of the way in which spellings represent the sounds that make up words. The term is also sometimes used to refer to a particular instructional design such as that used by the commercial Hooked on Phonics products.

--Kjoonlee 09:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

“Phonics” is not used outside the United States or for other languages than English, and the lead section has to reflect that: "Phonics is a system used in the United States to teach English spelling", or even simpler: "Phonics is a system used in the United States to teach children how to write". Or do they first learn how to write and then they are tought "phonics"? —Babelfisch 07:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

To be simple in explanation to the above question: Reading and writing are reciprocal processes. Some students learn sound symbol relationships implicitly, that is to say, they pick it up, or intuit. Others require explict explanation and multisensory practice to store these relationships into long term and working memory until they become automaticallly recalled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.113.168 (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

problems

The system, at least as described in the article, misleads children by suggesting that diphthongs are actually long vowels. The sound called long-A is customarily taken to be the A-sound in father (at least in RP). Schwa isn't indistinct; it is as distinct as any other vowel and, I'd suggest, not hard to understand. Indeed, it's quite easy to grasp that it occurs in most unstressed syllables. How are the poor children to work out that, according to phonics, the first syllable of "button" is closed while the first syllable of "basin" is open? The definition of a diphthong as being "linguistic elements that fuse to adjacent vowel sounds" is meaningless and inaccurate. The vowel-consonant-E rule "wherein a single vowel letter, followed by a consonant and the letter e makes the long vowel sound." includes "cone" as an example, but what are the poor children to make of "done" and "gone"? The phrase: "The final 'short vowel+consonant pattern' is just one example of dozens that can be used to help children unpack the challenging English alphabetic code." Dozens? Learning that number of rules is surely beyond most adults let alone children. The entry also says: "This example illustrates that, while complex, English spelling retains order and reason." Surely, English spelling's complexity illustrates how it is disordered and unreasonable. Pity the poor child who, when she or he finds it hard to make sense of English spelling using phonics' tortuous and inaccurate methods, thinks that they are at fault because they are told by phonicists that spelling is actually ordered. pauldanon

Response to Problems

First, it is important to clarify that the purpose of this entire article: It is not for children, so the idea that this article would mislead children is based on a flawed assumption that this article targets children as an audience.

Second, the representations of phonics above is inaccurate. The long A is not the sound of the 'a' in 'father'; the sound in father is something else entirely. It is actually the sound made by the 'ai' in 'train.' The long 'a,' long 'i,', long 'o,' and long 'u' sounds ARE diphthongs. Long 'e' is not. The asssertion that the description of diphthongs is "meaningless" is spurious, unreasoned, and polemical. Diphthongs are linguistic elements, not phonics elements alone; they are applied to phonics because there are a regular set of symbols that represent the diphthongs.

Third, the idea that English is unreasoned continues to be inaccurate (see Hanna and the discussion above) and, again, unreasoned.

Finally, calling teachers of beginning reading "phonicists" is reductionistic and mean-spirited.

This "problems" discussion is based on ad hominem attacks without citing any contrary work. The discussion about the relative advantage of phonics programs and the degree to which phonics is taught is productive, but the present, poorly-formed, discussion is not. --Kearnsdm 20:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Long 'u' (i.e., /uː/) is not a diphthong, at least in most dialects I'm aware of. /juː/ (e.g. in 'use') is not a diphthong either but a long monophthong preceded by a consonant. Phonologically speaking the 'a' in 'father' (IPA /ɑː/) is indeed a long a, but of course the term "long a" is generally used in phonics for /eɪ/, which is a diphthong. Hairy Dude 17:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

While the formants of [u] do not change as drastically as do the formants of [aɪ], they do change a little. When they do, it can sound like a diphthong to a trained phonetician. --Kjoonlee 03:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't accept the pronouncement that long 'o' (as in 'lone') and long 'a' (as in 'page') are diphthongs in the US. I've heard this rhetoric for years, but as far as I can determine, both sounds are monophthongal. I can protract long 'a' or 'o' all day long without their shifting into the 'i' position, which is something that you cannot do with 'i' as in 'ride', which is diphthongal. I think this notion is probably a hangover from British lexicography. Also I very seriously doubt that the 'ir' of 'bird' should be counted as a single r-colored vowel or whatever. This too may be an inherited Anglicism. Grammarians and phoneticians repeat these banalities robotically, but that doesn't make them true. 18 November, 2006 Thomas Keyes

IPA chart for English gives [e] as a variant of [eɪ], but I have never yet seen anyone who uses a monophthong. My phonetics textbook show AmE /eɪ///e/ with a definite change in the formants; in other words, diphthongal pronunciations do exist and have been described by phoneticians. --Kjoonlee 03:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a broadcaster on [[WCCO] radio, Steve Thompson, who pronounces long-A kind of like a dipthong. He says "baseball" almost as if it were spelled "bay-iss-ball". Wahkeenah 03:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Long and Short Vowels

What I now realize is that linguists and teachers have different definitions of short and long vowels. To teachers, short vowels are those listed in the article and long vowels are synonymous with the names of the consonants. I gather this is different than in IPA. I added a mention of this in the article. Does this clarify the point to the satisfaction of the linguists? Kearnsdm 14:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed Globalize Tag

I removed the globalize tag because phonics is a method of reading instruction that is used in countries besides the United States. See synthetic phonics for details about this focus in Britain. I do agree that the pronunciations given for the long and short vowels are in General American English. I would welcome someone who knows British pronunciation better than I to include those pronunciations along with the U.S. ones. Kearnsdm 14:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article as written, while largely using US pronunciation, is not only about phonics in the US. The tag is still present however. --WhiteDragon (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference to Hooked on Phonics

Hi,

I find it odd that this particular program is referenced in the article. It is a highly commercialized program largely marketed to parents, and is by no means supported by any reliable research. It cannot be considered a "beginning reading program" because it doesn't cover all of the required elements of such a program; furthermore, it does not teach enough of the body of phonics knowledge required for proficient word decoding.

Could someone please clarify the purpose of this reference? Is it just an attempt to provide an example of a beginning reading program that uses phonics to develop word decoding and encoding skills? If so, there are many better examples that could be used instead.

Best,

Rosmoran 10:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Substitution of "unyielding" for "intransigent"

I made this substitution because, although the word "intransigent" has multiple definitions with different connotations, the word in general seems to have a negative feel. For example, Roget's New Millennium Thesaurus defines intransigent as "difficult, stubborn".

In my view, unyielding has a more neutral connotation.

There are other alternatives, of course. Some are: adamant, steadfast, resolute, and so forth.

Anyone prefer a different alternative?

Best,

Rosmoran 21:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision of info regarding English spelling/Alphabetic principle

I revised this section to eliminate the inaccurate statement that the English writing system is not a completely alphabetic language. Although English spelling patterns are certainly inconsistent, it still has an alphabetic writing system because it uses only letters to represent the sounds. It certainly isn't ideographic or logographic!

Best,

Rosmoran 22:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Beginning in the mid 19th century, some American educators, prominently Horace Mann, argued this point precisely

In this particular sentence is "this point" that phonics should or should not be adopted? Please make this clear. I'd also suggest changing the "Beginning in the mid 19th century" part. RedRabbit 10:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add this text, but I can clarify what Horace Mann advocated for --- for "meaning-based" reading instruction and against any phonics instruction.

How would you change the "mid-19th century" part?

Best, Rosmoran 14:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Another page

I just found this page Teaching_reading:_Whole_Language_and_Phonics. It looks like it was created by someone who didn't know much about Wikipedia. Everyone feel free to fix it or move it or delete it or whatever.

-- TimNelson (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide View Tag

I think the worldwide view tag is inappropriate. The content is applicable to any country where English is spoken. It is true that the pronunciations are general American, but that's noted and it doesn't change the universality of the content to other countries (there is also specific mention of the British turn toward synthetic phonics in the last few years). I would like to remove the tag, but I think it's important for others to weigh in on why they think it should be there (if they think it should). Best, Kearnsdm (talk) 05:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say phonics is by and large only of relevance to the USA. So no world view exists and can therefore not be required. −Woodstone (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the first part of the article is global enough to merit the removal of the worldwide view tag, as it applies to English in general. However, the tag may have some relevance when it comes to the "History and Controversy" section, which deals almost entirely with the United States. Hopefully the tag will encourage others to add some more historical data on other English-speaking countries, and their particular experiences with phonics instruction.Yodaki2 (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Phonics as described in this article is linited to the USA and may be the United Kingdom. Phonics mainly applies to the alphabet othrographies, which are based on the Latin Writing system There are many other writing systesm whis do not use phonics at all. So to become a global article there should be more content regarding other latin (alphabet) orthographies, which tend to be based on langauges which have European origins

dolfrog (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Phonics is a specific method of teaching to read and write English. Extending it to other languages, or writing systems is therefore not meaningful. I am removing the globalise tag. −Woodstone (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Long Vowels / Diphthongs

/juː / as in humor is neither a long vowel nor a diphthong. /uː / is a vowel; /j/ is a semivowel, which serves as a consonant. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 01:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible info

I have moved the following from English as a Foreign or Second Language, added by an anonymous editor:

Recent neuroscience seems to indicate that the brain is reading and writing by comparing what it sees with a large "word archive" of Mental Orthographic Images (MOI). While rules and phonics are great tools when in doubt, it is essential for successful reading and writing that the brain has a large amount of vocabulary readily stored in its word archive.

For decades, spelling education has been associated with rote learning styles. However, just because old learning styles did not work all that well does not mean that we can do away with the content to be learned. Increasingly voices are heard within the educational community cautioning that spelling practice may still have an important place in education, since not being able to write a word is an important indication of the word not yet being successfully stored in long-term memory.

Most people write based on a "looks right" mechanism, and read with the help of a powerful yet largely improvising "looks like" process. Both processes match words within fractions of a second to meaning - provided the brain is operating on the basis of a strong vocabulary. Secure vocabulary knowledge - which includes the ability to spell with confidence - is therefor likely a foundation of successful reading and writing that should not be underestimated.

It is not suitable in English as a Foreign or Second Language but might be of use to editors working on this article. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to have some actual neuro- related research. Does anyone know of any that could be cited in this article? --WhiteDragon (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Maybe not

Thanks, BrainyBabe, for sharing this. I do not think it is appropriate, however. There is a lot of neuroscience research on reading, and phonics particularly, that runs counter to what is written above. Kearnsdm (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is appropriate to consider neurodevelopmental research on the ordering systems: temporal sequential ordering and spatial ordering, and their impact on learning to read. To learn more visit http://www.allkindsofminds.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.113.168 (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Globalise or split

The article can go one of two ways. globalise to include at least all english speaking countries and not just to focus on the UK and the USA Or split the article into contant relevent ot each specific country, and be included in the Reading instruction by country category. There may be a need for some input from specialist Linguistic and Writing system Experts dolfrog (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Phonics is a typically American (USA) phenomenon. That a few sentences now mention the UK is ok. I cannot see how this article could be meaningfully internationalised. −Woodstone (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Dolfrog has systematically gone through reading-related articles and demanded that they be renamed or re-written to fit his particular goals. These requests are generally not helpful, result in violations of Wikipedia's long-standing naming conventions (e.g., if something exists only in one country, and no other country uses that name, then we don't use the title to signal the location), and frequently seem to be based on a very partial, dyslexia-focused grasp of educational practices. I don't think that this article needs changing to address his concern, I do think that Dolfrog needs to read the hatnote at the top of the article, and I also think that he needs to quit demanding that nearly every reading article be restructured "his way". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So WhatamIdoing, are you saying that using a phonetic system of learn to read is perculiar top the English language, and that other orthographies in the latin writing system, and other alphabetic system do not use similar reachign practices which may best suite some of their pupils. I am not surewaht the Hatnote really means. English is a combination of many orthographies, so a system of the teaching of reading may have many other aplicatosn in other orthographies, but may be in the USA thye are no so aware of these orthograpies due to their very insular approach to life in general. My point of view is not a dyslexia point of view more an international globla point of view and a researchers point of view. As one who seeks the truth over popular opinion and myth. May be the Hatnote is inacurate. As an experienced editor you must be used to questioning everything and seeking the truth dolfrog (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Phonics is not the general word for a teaching method using phonetics. Phonics is a specific teaching method, developed in the United States of America, and used there to teach reading and writing to young native English speakers. As such it is not a subject amenable to internationalisation. You may want to look for general articles on phonetics teaching. −Woodstone (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am seeking clarification, about the mentods used to teach reading on a global level, and for mentods which only apply to a single country to have that countries name in the title of the article, so that the article can be correctly categorised within the "Reading instruction by country" category. Reading is an aquired skill to understand the the various form of visual notations of Speech, or writing systems from around the globe. Speech is another acquired skill which has earlier but similar origins. Those who are dyslexic have neurlogicla issues which cause them to have problems acquiring the skills required to perform the task of reading, and can develop skills to remedialte their preoblems which may be similar to the learning methods of others in different countries, or orthographies or writing systems depending on the naqture of their neurlogicla deficits and the neurlogicla skill strength to enable them to work around thier particual type of deficit. How different groups acquire reading skills has not as yet been scientifically defined, and it open to much speculation and uses many sometimes false assumptions. This why there are topics such as "what works" because there is no scientific or researched understandinf of the complex processes that enable us to read. Or in some instances an unwilligness to try to understand these wider issues in order to favour, promote and sell a specific teaching program or teaching method. All teaching mehtods were developed top resolve a problem for a specific group trying to learn to read, there is no one single apprach best for all, as we all have different neurlogicla learning abilities and deficits, and so we require different approached of learning and teaching. Sorry to ramble on so dolfrog (talk) 09:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest have you ever looked at any of the following Wikipedia Articles

1. Differences between American and British English (vocabulary)
2. List of British words not widely used in the United States
3. List of words having different meanings in British and American English
4. North American English regional phonology
5. American and British English differences
6. North American English

dolfrog (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I will be sharing references with all the editors to help improve this article.

I have had this article and related articles on my watchlist for a while as I gather reliable secondary sources from various countries on the issues of reading instruction, writing systems (for all world languages), and dyslexia. I intend to post here a link to citations list on my user space that all of you can use to verify the related articles, and I encourage you in turn to suggest to me further reliable secondary sources. There is a lot of controversy and advocacy surrounding the issues treated in this article, but also a lot of steady, incremental sound research that eventually is reflected in the better secondary sources such as popular books by scholarly authors on the issue from major publishing companies, textbooks from academic publishers, review articles in peer-reviewed professional journals, and practitioners' handbooks. Many of those sources have an international, cross-language perspective and carefully review what the primary research literature shows and does not show. I look forward to discussing the sources and how they can be used to improve articles as I come out of lurk mode and begin more bold editing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Why "English"

"Phonics refers to a method for teaching speakers of English to read and write that language. Phonics involves teaching how to connect the sounds of spoken English with letters or groups of letters..."

• Why does this have ANYTHING to do with English? I'm not trying to be overly PC about all this but as a native English speaker, this sounds odd to me. What's wrong with:
  

"Phonics refers to a method for teaching speakers of a language to read and write that language. Phonics involves teaching how to connect the sounds of spoken language with letters or groups of letters..."

• Just thought this minor edit may not sound so odd, in fact I was wondering why some PC group didn't jump all over this. Thought it might be worth my time to mention this.
  

--Kisss256 11:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kisss256 (talk • contribs)

RS

Is Moats, Louisa. Whole language high jinks: How to tell when scientifically-based reading instruction isn't a reliable source? What is the exact reference? DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Great Vowel Shift

Isn't the claim that 'the Great Vowel Shift, a historical linguistic process in which the quality of many vowels in English changed while the spelling remained as it was, greatly diminished the transparency of English spelling in relation to pronunciation' spurious? It was a regular chain-shift, so while it may have rendered the whole orthography less intuitive for speakers of continental languages, it didn't per se make it less regular -- additional developments, like the unstressed vowel reduction or the steam-great-bread split, did. 89.231.125.218 (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of (Chinese) Second/Foreign Language material

I have removed the second/foreign language material unrelated to phonics. Phonics doesn't "teach English pronunciation rules" because it was designed for users of English as a First language, who already have phonemic competence in that language. In fact, phonics is just the opposite relationship of "pronunciation rules" because it's the grapheme and grapheme-phoneme relationships that are systematically being taught by increasing phonemic awareness. In other words, phonics is about teaching decoding skills, a subset of reading skills, where the learning readers have been producing and using the phonemes of English their entire lives. Pronunciation is not being taught in phonics. CJ Withers (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Closed syllables

There is something missing in the section on 'closed syllables' in 'Vowel phonics patterns'. The sentence starting 'Therefore' is a non sequitur. Presumably there is a missing claim that vowels in closed syllables are short (although not in 'closed', so this really needs a lot more explanation, and a clearer separation of phonetics and orthography). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eiamjw (talk • contribs) 15:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Phonics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011183306/http://www.sedl.org/reading/topics/exception.html to http://www.sedl.org/reading/topics/exception.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110422080804/http://www.dest.gov.au/nitl/documents/executive_summary.pdf to http://www.dest.gov.au/nitl/documents/executive_summary.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

"ough"

Perhaps this example does not fit. "/ʌp/ as in hiccough", under Alphabetic Principles.

I see this word as /h/-/i/-/c/-/ou/-/gh/.

The paragraph is excellent. John (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Changes to the introduction

I made some changes to the first few paragraphs. Please let me know if you have concerns or suggestions. Thank you. John (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Changes related to the use of IPA

In my view, since most of the readers of this article will have some understanding of the English language, they do not need to use the IPA. In fact, for most of them the IPA is very specialized and is about as comprehensible as hieroglyphics. So, with genuine respect and thanks to our wonderful linguists, I will suggest some modifications in an attempt to make the article more readable by the average person. Please let me know if you disagree with my changes. Thanks to all. John (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

In fact, I would appreciate it if any linguists among you would check my attempts at IPA and make any necessary corrections. I will be doing them over the next week. John (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I've notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics. Nardog (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with IPA, that is invaluable. Please note: I am using both the "teacher's style" and the "IPA style" together, so the average person can understand it better. (i.e. the word turkey has six letters but four phonemes /t/ - /ur/ - /k/ - /ey/ (IPA /t/, /ɜːr/, /k/, /i/).) Teachers and tutors typically explain segmenting by writing t/ur/k/ey, so the learner sees that two letters often make one sound. As you can appreciate, teachers do not typically use IPA with children. John (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

If there were ever an article that adequately addressed the impenetrability of IPA it would be this one. Every instance of IPA usage in this article is paired with either example words or the letters used to spell the phonemes in question.

To me, it all looks good as is, with the exception that we might want to bracket "teacher's style" in something other than slashes to help distinguish it from IPA (unless slashes are typical for teacher's style). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I appreciate your insight. I will stick with the slashes because that is exactly the way teachers and tutors show the different phonemes, on a white board, a note pad, and on sound cards. See https://www.readingrockets.org/article/tips-teaching-your-child-about-phonemes When I try to do IPA again, I will let you have a look. Much appreciated. John (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure Aeusoes1 is talking about the use of slashes for graphemes, not phonemes. I too find it incredibly confusing, especially when used alongside actual phonemic transcriptions which are also in slashes. English doesn't have a "/c/" (which Turkish does), and "/ur/" would usually indicate the rime of lure, not the sound in turkey. Why not use ⟨angle brackets⟩, as done in English orthography etc.? (See also Help:IPA#Brackets.) Nardog (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Based on what I'm being told, it seems as though the "teacher's style" is a phonemic representation of English phonemes using symbols that more closely reflect how these sounds are spelled in English orthography. This would be more confusing if the article didn't distinguish between these transcriptions and IPA with the use of {{IPAc-en}} for the latter, which is visually distinct (a different color and a dotted underline). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, this is very helpful. I made the changes based on my interpretation of what you suggest. Let me know if I got it wrong. I am trying to make the article both technically correct and readable by the average person. I expect that the typical reader of this article is a teacher, tutor or parent. So the less confusion the better. Your suggestion seems to work. Do my changes make sense? Thanks again. John (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Letters are not sounds. Whenever you're referring to sounds you should use {{IPAc-en}}, conforming to the Help:IPA/English key, which is specifically made accessible to speakers of different varieties of English. Nardog (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. That is the reason I like your suggestion of using the ⟨angle brackets⟩ as in this example from the help page: "Letters in English orthography usually represent a particular sound (phoneme). For example, the word cat /ˈkæt/ consists of three letters ⟨c⟩, ⟨a⟩, and ⟨t⟩, in which ⟨c⟩ represents the sound /k/, ⟨a⟩ the sound /æ/, and ⟨t⟩ the sound /t/." I am attempting to make this readable by laypeople and acceptable to professionals such as yourself. What do you think? John (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

That is indeed much more preferable to the current version of the article. Nardog (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, so I have made the changes in the first paragraph to read: "For example, the word cat has three letters and three sounds ⟨c⟩ ⟨a⟩ ⟨t⟩ (in IPA: /k/, /æ/, /t/), whereas the word turkey has six letters but four sounds ⟨t⟩ ⟨ur⟩ ⟨k⟩ ⟨ey⟩ (IPA /t/, /ɜːr/, /k/, /i/)." I trust this is acceptable. You might also find the Synthetic phonics article to be interesting, or upsetting :). I may attempt to use ⟨angle brackets⟩ there as well, although I am not the original author. The reality is that educators do use the slashes regularly; but that doesn't make it correct. John (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

And, other times they do this |c| |a| |t|, which also has problems because it is not always as readable. John (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Vertical lines also have a special meaning in linguistics so they shouldn't be used either. Again see H:IPA#Brackets. Nardog (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I missed that. So, ⟨angle brackets⟩ are definitely preferred. John (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

ALSO: Can you tell me if you agree with my proposed change to the Synthetic phonics page. If you look at the Synthetic phonics page it might be more clear. I will change this:

• /ae/ ape, baby, rain, tray, they, eight -
• /air/ square, bear -
• /ar/ jar, far -
• /e/ peg, bread -
• /ee/ sweet, me, beach, key, pony

After reading more, I hace decided to not use angle brackets. And I am using a different word that "turkey" because it is subject to interpretation. If you can, please check my IPA rendering of "thought". John (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

to this:

• ⟨ae⟩ ape, baby, rain, tray, they, eight -
• ⟨air⟩ square, bear -
• ⟨ar⟩ jar, far -
• ⟨e⟩ peg, bread -
• ⟨ee⟩ sweet, me, beach, key, pony -

Thanks again, Nardog. John (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the example word to "flower" to reduce confusion. I think I have the IPA correct. I am using the alternate pronunciations from Dictionary.com, to appeal to the average reader. As always, your comments are welcome. John (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't use Dictionary.com's respelling. It's proprietary and nobody else uses it, unlike the IPA, which has wide currency especially outside the US. We already have our respelling system and the template {{respell}} for it. And we use it in addition to the IPA, not in place of it. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation, which I recommend you take a thorough look at. Nardog (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, this is helpful; I was not aware of that. I have removed the alternate spelling because it is unnecessary. The article needs to be about phonics, rather than phonetics. John (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Please remove the tag on reference #36.

I cleaned it up but could not remove the tag. John (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Analytic phonics section

I will remove much of this section unless there are citations added. In particular the following content has little evidence and appears to be more of an opinion. "Today, most[which?] teachers combine phonics with the elements of whole language that focus on reading comprehension. Adams[38] and the National Reading Panel advocate for a comprehensive reading programme that includes several different sub-skills, based on scientific research. This combined approach is sometimes called balanced literacy, although some researchers assert that balanced literacy is merely whole language called by another name.[39] Proponents of various approaches generally agree that a combined approach is important.[citation needed] A few stalwarts favour isolated instruction in Synthetic phonics and introduction to reading comprehension only after children have mastered sound-symbol correspondences." I welcome your comments. John (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Following the deletion, I will add content that I believe is backed by the evidence. John (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You template

Nardog, consider this paragraph in the lead:

Phonics is different from phonemic awareness (PA) - the ability to hear, identify, and manipulate the individual spoken sounds; unrelated to their letters. For example, to demonstrate PA, or teach it explicitly, a learner would be given exercises such as "Say 'ink'. What do you get when you add the /th/ sound to the beginning of the word 'ink' (think)?" Or, "Say 'sing'. What do you get when you change the /ng/ sound to /t/ (sit)? (Or, "Say 'park'. What do you get when you take away the /p/ sound (ark)?" PA is strongly related to the learner’s oral language skills and is critical in learning to read. The most important determinant of a child’s early reading success is their knowledge of spoken language.[7] PA is sometimes taught separately from phonics and at other times it is a bi-product of systematic phonics instruction.

The "you" is less of a problem for me than the non-encyclopedic tone it has. Perhaps I should have used {{Tone}} instead? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't quite see what's non-encyclopedic in the passage. Nardog (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

On further examination, I see the quotation marks. That being said, perhaps there's another way to describe these exercises without giving examples like that? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I will look at this. John (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I have removed the quotation marks and rewritten that part. Does this work? John (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Jnhmunro, made a few tweaks myself, but it looks much better. Thanks! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Paragraph has unsubstantiated claims

I will change this paragraph because it has some unsubstantiated claims. "Owing to the shifting debate over time (see "History and Controversy" below), many school systems, such as California's, have made major changes in the method they have used to teach early reading. Today, most[which?] teachers combine phonics with the elements of whole language that focus on reading comprehension. Adams[41] and the National Reading Panel advocate for a comprehensive reading programme that includes several different sub-skills, based on scientific research. This combined approach is sometimes called balanced literacy, although some researchers assert that balanced literacy is merely whole language called by another name.[42] Proponents of various approaches generally agree that a combined approach is important.[citation needed] A few stalwarts favour isolated instruction in Synthetic phonics and introduction to reading comprehension only after children have mastered sound-symbol correspondences. On the other side, some whole language supporters are unyielding in arguing that phonics should be taught little, if at all." John (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Changed. John (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Revised and moved page on sight words

I revised and moved this page because much of the material was already covered in other areas and it just seemed to belong in the controversy category. If you think it belongs elsewhere, please tell me. I can add more to this if you feel it is warranted; just let me know. John (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to expand the list of vowels and consonants

I propose we expand the list and make it easier for the average reader to understand. I can prepare a list of sounds under the following categories: short vowels, long vowels, R-controlled vowels, simple consonants, and complex consonants & digraphs. They would be based on the American usage, rather than the British usage that we see in Synthetic phonics. I can post it for review before I make any changes, so you can check it for accuracy. What do you think? John (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

other countries

hi

could you plz add sections for other countries that use phonics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.153.68 (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

We have ten countries (so far) covered under the Controversy and history section. Did you have something else in mind? John (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, good point. See my change. Thank you. John (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed addition of samples

I would appreciate the help of the linguists to edit the following list, and to make any suggestions. As mentioned before, similar to Synthetic Phonics, I would like to add sample spellings of sounds under five categories: Short vowels, Long vowels, R-controlled vowels, Simple consonants and Complex consonants & digraphs. This will give our average reader (a parent, a non-linguist and a non-teacher of phonics) a better appreciation for how challenging it is to teach reading and to learn to read. The intent is to show a good sampling of the spellings for the sounds, using Standard American usage (perhaps Western USA or Western Canada?). I will finish the bolding when I post it. I don't think this is excessive, it makes it more clear to the lay person and it is the way phonics is taught. I am including k-s (x) and k-w (q) because that is the way it is done in phonics.

These are the consonants; vowels to follow:

Simple consonants:

b - ball, rabbit

c/k - camera, kitten, school, truck

d - drive, rained, ladder

f - first, photograph, stiff, laugh, tough

g - girl, egg, ghost, league

h - home, who

j - jam, page, gym, fidge

l - light, bell

m - man, welcome, hammer, crumb

n - new, sunny, know

p - piano, puppy

r - river, sorrow, write

s - smile, grass, sauce, mouse, city

t - travel, butter, slipped

v - van, glove

w - wall, white

y - yellow

z - zoo, fries, cheese, breeze, puzzle, scissors

Complex consonants and digraphs:

ch - chair, watch

k+s - box, books, ducks, lakes

k+w - queen

-ul - table, animal, camel

ng - spring

sh - show, lotion, chef, mission

th - think

th - them

gz - exam

z-h - vision, treasure

Vowels column

Short vowels:

a - mat, half

e - bed, head

i - fish, gym

o - on, father, saw, faucet, chalk, caught

u - up, onion, touch

oo - look, push, should

Long vowels:

a - cake, play, maid, break, eight

e - bee, eat, funny, she, scene, key

i - bike, find, night, my, tie

o - pony, rope, bow, boat, toe, dough

u - cube, uniform, few

oo - room, flu, suit, soup, grove

ow - house, clown, plough

oy - toy, oil

R-controlled vowels:

air - chair, care, very, carry, pear, where

ar - art

ear - fear, steer, here

er - butter, word, bird, color, turkey, earth

or - sort, roar, floor, core, four, quart

ure - cure, tourist

z - zipper, fizz, sneeze, is, cheese

g-z - exist

zh - treasure

Note: I have reduced the number of words in each line to be no more than six, and used some words that are not so juvenile. John (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

section for sweden

hi

plz add a section for sweden because phonics is used there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.153.68 (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC) == Hi. I'll get on that. John (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

(gasp)! It’s there! Thank you, John! And can you add the following to the first paragraph: “Phonics can also mean the teaching of the connection between the written syllables and spoken syllables in languages with simple syllable structure e.g. Spanish, Portuguese and many African languages.” Tomiwa278 (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. You are correct, the explanation is too narrow. I will adjust it soon and you can tell me what you think. John (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Tomiwa278. Pleases see my changes. I did not have to refer to other languages because syllables are also used to teach phonics in English. I may, however, be able to use that elsewhere. I am very open to any and all suggestions, so thanks. John (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Sample spellings of the sounds

If you have any concerns about this please let me know. I removed the part about lexical vs sublexical because lexical is not phonics and the debate is covered in the section on phonics vs. whole language. John (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Theodore Clymer

Please let me know if you have concerns. The section on the Alphabetic principle is well written, however I have removed the following reference to Theodore Clymer. "For an estimate of the reliability of strictly phonic rules, we still cannot do much better than the 1963 study by Theodore Clymer." While interesting, my concerns are that this sentence expressed an opinion not shared by everyone, and his book is the subject of much debate; and it has been used by both supporters and critics of phonics. If I could find more reliable information, I would include it in the reading wars section. John (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Reference to Adams

This sentence is highly suspect and I cannot find anything to support it: "Adams argued strongly that the phonics and the whole language advocates are both right". Of course everyone agrees that children must understand what they read, but many of the practices of phonics and whole language are not compatible. So, I will rewritten the paragraph. John (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Book reading Kids.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I removed the picture and added another.John NH (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Phonics in Russia

I appreciate all feedback about this page. I have made some changes based on a new source and welcome comments. John NH (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Alternative spellings of the sounds

Thank you for the corrections and additions to this section. I made some changes based on my understanding, but welcome your comments. I am looking at the "ure" sound and will think about it.John NH (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 I have removed "furnish, burr, bird, and earn" from the "ure" sound because they all appear to be the "er" sound.John NH (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Resources for phonics instruction

Note: this section is devoted to government and non-profit sources, not the numerous commercial outlets. The article List of phonics programs is a more appropriate place for commercial programs, although I am not convinced that article even belongs in an encyclopedia. John NH (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Names translate phonics

Names the write in phonics 106.198.126.252 (talk) 10:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Language and Literacy Acquisition and Development

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 21 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SavvyWriter58 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Litstudent, AnnyP29.

— Assignment last updated by LehmanProf (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Revision

Thank you for your interest in this article. To avoid confusion, I combined Analytic phonics with its subset Analogy phonics; and I removed duplication of material and some of the unnecessarily detailed section "tested studies". Please let me know if you have any suggestions or comments. John NH (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Readability

I have restored the first sentence to make it more readable and increase our readership. I believe this is important since approximately half of adult English readers do not have a reading level of grade 12 (PIAAC). The article itself has a reading level of 52 out of 100 (https://www.webfx.com/tools/read-able/). Comments are welcomed.

Why is there no section on efficacy or research?

Why is there no section on, or even the faintest mention of, efficacy or research? 155.4.221.27 (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the question. I will respond to this a little later today. John NH (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I have created a new section, "Effectiveness of programs and evidence-based education", and moved material from another area. Thank you. John NH (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That sounds all well and good, but...

There is no mention, there, of any evidence for/against the efficacy of phonics. There is mention of how effective various implementations/executions of phonics are, compared to each other, and how effective evidence-based education is. (which is a distinctly separate thing, to phonics, involving various different things, and thus is completely irrelevant)

Nothing that compares phonics, to "non-phonics".

Comparison to using phonics and/or various other methods, versus using none of them, obviously doesn't say anything about the efficacy of phonics. 155.4.221.27 (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Confusion

I came to this article after reading some letters to the Guardian, about the recent (UK) government fanaticism about "teaching phonics". I understand that in some sense this refers to teaching "theory" as opposed to just letting children "pick it up" for themselves, as they did with speech, but I wanted to know more. I guess that in practice a debate over questions like this can only possibly happen in a language with a more-or-less non-phonetic spelling system (so presumably also French, for example, but not Italian, Russian, or Japanese). But it is impossible to tell from this article exactly what "phonics" is. Just a "teaching system used in the US", would be the overall impression, but there is this curious redirect to "synthetic phonics" with reference to the UK version. But I cannot understand any real principled distinctions between the descriptions for these two supposed "methods"; I see that in the UK context the term "synthetic phonics" is indeed used, but I have to wonder if this is really any more than a brand name. The "synthetic" article does discuss quite a few specifically UK-related issues, though it seems to be about 80% US-English, judging by the spelling of "program(me)". Overall the articles are extremely uninformative.

(Followup) The lead claims that "phonics" applies to any language with an alphabetic writing system, but the references I just removed said nothing about this at all. Perhaps they say that Russian and Arabic have alphabetic writing systems, but there is nothing in the article body that would suggest that the "phonics" method could not also be used for a syllabic writing system, such as Korean hangul or Japanese kana. (Of course the reality is that "phonics" is an attempt to deal with the very irregular spelling system of English, so applied to a language with a regular writing system (probably any of the four above for example), the methods of "phonics" collapse to emptiness. It is much more plausible that a language such as French might have a similar "system", or actually similar educational debate, but I have no idea.) Imaginatorium (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

"Fourth-graders"

This article keeps referring to "fourth-graders", which has no clear meaning outside the USA. Can someone replace it with a meaningful term? Imaginatorium (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I hope my change is acceptable. John NH (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Repeating "students in their fourth year of education" seems unduly cumbersome, and at that, it leaves us less than confident about what it is referring to. Why not just utilize a wikilink: fourth grade or fourth-graders, which makes the intention clear if there is some doubt. The only question is whether or not to wikilink every occurrence. Fabrickator (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Flower has four sounds?

> whereas the word flower has six letters but four sounds: f - l - ow - er, (IPA /f/, /l/, /aʊ/, /ər/),

/flaʊər/ has 6 sounds... Why is it counted as 4? 46.33.152.203 (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)