Spelling rules

Don H · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 187

What are the main rules of English spelling, and why do they apply?
Can we list the 10 most essential rules?

Contrary to "popular" belief, the English language IS phonetic, with about
87% of words following fixed spelling rules. The other 13% are not
"unphonetic" but usually contain just one irregularly spelled vowel. (See
page 13 of Rudolf Flesch's book "Why Johnny Can't Read").

The main problem with English is that it has 26 letters but 44 sounds; hence
various techniques are used in spelling to overcome the deficiency of
symbols. While this makes English harder to learn than some other
languages, it is not very difficult if a sensible, systematic, method is
followed. Starting with the alphabet, simple words, then more complex, and
ending with exceptions-to-rules - mastery of basic ability to read and write
should not be a problem beyond second grade at school for 98% of children.

If literacy was not a problem for our grandparents' generation, why is it
today?
===========================================================

Archived from group: aus>education

Don H · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 187

Probably the most important rule is that of spelling the "short" and "long"
sound of vowels. For example: "mat" and "mate", which become "matting" and
"mating" by the double consonant in the former, and single consonant in the
latter.
There is no reason why "mate" could not be spelt "maet", except that this is
inefficient when applying the suffix, as "maeting" then has a superfluous
vowel. The "i" takes the place of the "e" ending "mate", thus preserving
the "long" vowel sound - after single consonant "t".
English is a far more logical and efficient language than many might credit.
Just try "reforming" it, and see how you fare! Of course, there ARE aspects
which could do with reform - the variable endings for "-able", is a good
case.....
=========================
"Don H" wrote in message$bo1.34878@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> What are the main rules of English spelling, and why do they apply?
> Can we list the 10 most essential rules?
>
> Contrary to "popular" belief, the English language IS phonetic, with about
> 87% of words following fixed spelling rules. The other 13% are not
> "unphonetic" but usually contain just one irregularly spelled vowel. (See
> page 13 of Rudolf Flesch's book "Why Johnny Can't Read").
>
> The main problem with English is that it has 26 letters but 44 sounds;
hence
> various techniques are used in spelling to overcome the deficiency of
> symbols. While this makes English harder to learn than some other
> languages, it is not very difficult if a sensible, systematic, method is
> followed. Starting with the alphabet, simple words, then more complex,
and
> ending with exceptions-to-rules - mastery of basic ability to read and
write
> should not be a problem beyond second grade at school for 98% of children.
>
> If literacy was not a problem for our grandparents' generation, why is it
> today?
> ===========================================================
>
>

Don H · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 187

How to teach Phonics:
Use these Five STEPS: (which Rudolf Flesch doesn't claim as his unique
system, but merely the common method of all genuine Phonics systems):
===========================
1) The five short vowels and all consonants spelled by single letters.
2) Consonants and consonant combinations spelled with two or three letters.
3) Vowels and vowel combinations spelled with two or three letters.
4) The five long vowels.
5) Irregular spellings.
===================
The above is quoted from page 27 of Rudolf Flesch's book, in which he
details the whole Phonics method in the five pages of Chapter II: "What is
Phonics?" - at the end of which he says: "...it's not a question of speed.
The point is that this method is GUARANTEED. A child who has been taught
this way can read. Millions of children taught the other way can't."
==========================
"Why Johnny Can't Read - and what you can do about it" by Rudolf
Flesch.(Perennial Library; Harper & Row, publishers; US$13.00; ISBN
0-06-091340-1 pbk. 1986)
My copy from www.amazon.com
===========================
"Andy" wrote in message$1frl$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
> Until schools get serious about teaching phonics nothing will improve.
> This means teaching teachers in how to teach phonics effectively first.
> It means looking at the teacher training institutions, and what they are
> teaching.
> I still cannot work out why we studied Karl Marx and the Russian
Revolution
> as trainee primary teachers back in the early 70's. (Yes I can - loony
> lefties)
> In Victoria at present the school curriculum is being reviewed (again).
> Consultations are being held by the education department with principals
and
> teachers. What a waste! What the department should be doing is heading off
> overseas, not to USA or England because we have copied their system and
> failed, but to Scandinavia, Europe and Asia, and have a look at how their
> education systems operate.
>
> Andy K
........

Andy · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 4

Until schools get serious about teaching phonics nothing will improve.
This means teaching teachers in how to teach phonics effectively first.
It means looking at the teacher training institutions, and what they are
teaching.
I still cannot work out why we studied Karl Marx and the Russian Revolution
as trainee primary teachers back in the early 70's. (Yes I can - loony
lefties)
In Victoria at present the school curriculum is being reviewed (again).
Consultations are being held by the education department with principals and
teachers. What a waste! What the department should be doing is heading off
overseas, not to USA or England because we have copied their system and
failed, but to Scandinavia, Europe and Asia, and have a look at how their
education systems operate.

Andy K

"Don H" wrote in message$bo1.34878@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> What are the main rules of English spelling, and why do they apply?
> Can we list the 10 most essential rules?
>
> Contrary to "popular" belief, the English language IS phonetic, with about
> 87% of words following fixed spelling rules. The other 13% are not
> "unphonetic" but usually contain just one irregularly spelled vowel. (See
> page 13 of Rudolf Flesch's book "Why Johnny Can't Read").
>
> The main problem with English is that it has 26 letters but 44 sounds;
hence
> various techniques are used in spelling to overcome the deficiency of
> symbols. While this makes English harder to learn than some other
> languages, it is not very difficult if a sensible, systematic, method is
> followed. Starting with the alphabet, simple words, then more complex,
and
> ending with exceptions-to-rules - mastery of basic ability to read and
write
> should not be a problem beyond second grade at school for 98% of children.
>
> If literacy was not a problem for our grandparents' generation, why is it
> today?
> ===========================================================
>
>

Don H · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 187

Perhaps the second most important rule is that for spelling of the sounds in
"goat" and "gem" for Letter G, and for "coat" and "cement" for Letter C.
Generally, the two letters have the "soft" (j,s) sound before vowels "e,i,y"
and "hard" (g,k) otherwise, but not always.
But the rule is useful to remember.
The "silent u" in "guide" is there to let the "g" have the hard sound.
Words like "large" end in an "e" to give the soft "j" sound to "g"... "dg"
can also represent "j" sound - as in "judge".
=============================
"Don H" wrote in message$bo1.56511@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Probably the most important rule is that of spelling the "short" and
"long"
> sound of vowels. For example: "mat" and "mate", ......

johnsuth · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 44

In , "Don H" writes:
>Perhaps the second most important rule is that for spelling of the sounds in
>"goat" and "gem" for Letter G, and for "coat" and "cement" for Letter C.
>Generally, the two letters have the "soft" (j,s) sound before vowels "e,i,y"
>and "hard" (g,k) otherwise, but not always.
>But the rule is useful to remember.
>The "silent u" in "guide" is there to let the "g" have the hard sound.
>Words like "large" end in an "e" to give the soft "j" sound to "g"... "dg"
>can also represent "j" sound - as in "judge".
>=============================
>"Don H" wrote in message
>$bo1.56511@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Probably the most important rule is that of spelling the "short" and
>"long"
>> sound of vowels. For example: "mat" and "mate", ......
>
>

I was taught "cat cot cut city cent"

Don H · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 187

....to which we could add "cyclone".
========================
wrote in message >
........
> I was taught "cat cot cut city cent"
>
>
>

Don H · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 187

Another "rule" relates to unknown words, which may be analysed by their
components, not so much by syllables, but by roots+affixes. Large or
compound words can consist of a base or root, with prefixes and/or suffixes.
A knowledge of such affixes is useful, and the best source of these (that I
know of) is an ancient book - "Outline of English Grammar" by J.C.Nesfield
(MacMillan; 1900 - last printed in 1972?) The affixes are classified by
source: Teutonic, Romanic, Greek; and also by their grammatical function. A
dictionary of roots and affixes, cross-classified, has yet to be written.
========================
"Don H" wrote in message$bo1.34878@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> What are the main rules of English spelling, and why do they apply?
> Can we list the 10 most essential rules?
........

Don H · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 187

"The simplest way to explain how learning through a whole language approach
works is to compare it to learning to ride a bike. In helping a child to
learn to ride a bike we give the child the bike and let them 'have a go' at
riding it. While they are practising riding we give them specific
information about how to turn the handle bars or how to use the brake. We
teach them how to ride the bike while they are riding it. We do not give
them the pedals and handle bars and explain how they work and eventually
give them the bike when they've mastered these sub-skills." - page 49 of
"Life's Little Guide to Reading at Home and at School" by Cheryl Semple &
Judy Tuer (Hale & Iremonger; 1996)
The trouble with "arguing by analogy" is that there are often as many
differences as similarities; also, that contrary analogies can be found -
eg. throwing a child 'in the deep end' to teach it to swim (or sink).
Even with the bike-riding analogy, there are assumptions about a child's
learning process. Most children graduate to bike-riding through years of
apprenticeship, which can be summed up as follows:
(1) Pedimobility - learning to crawl, then walk; use of foot-propelled seat.
(2) Quadricycle - use of a toy car; four wheels plus pedal power.
(3) Tricycle - a three-wheeled vehicle; stability with pedals.
(4) Bicycle - Junior version (otherwise feet don't reach the pedals)
(5) Bicycle - Adult version. (Real experts can go on to: (6) the Monocycle)
These five stages neatly coincide with Rudolf Flesch's five stages in
teaching a child to read-and-write by Phonics, the Fifth stage being
Irregular spellings.
However, even Flesch concedes that - "...you can't teach a child to read
without letting him read words. And every word in English contains a vowel.
So you have to start with teaching the child the letters a,e,i,o,u in spite
of the fact that each of them spells a long and a short vowel. The only way
to solve this problem is to begin by teaching the child only the five short
vowels (which are far more common than the long ones) and postpone the long
vowels until a much later stage."
While I'd agree with Flesch that proceeding from simple-to-complex is the
only way, if confusion is to be avoided, I'd qualify this by saying that it
is SHORT words (eg. of one syllable) which should be taught first,
irrespective of their nature. If the alphabet is taught, and spelling rules
also, then short SIMPLE words shouldn't present a problem. The average
child is quite intelligent, and its brain has not yet ossified with
prejudice and dogma, so it is amenable to reason. Of course, while rules
should be taught, exceptions must come later. But "mat" and "mate" are
possible words, even right from the start. Don't confuse with too many
rules, and use the techniques of - dictation, reading-aloud, transcription,
and even composition. Any standard "readers" used should consist initially
of only simple short words, which follow spelling rules - even if the
stories told are somewhat mundane. Their purpose is to promote interest in
reading, and confidence that reading is possible.
PS: While I have some sympathy for the Initial Teaching Alphabet of Sir
James Pitman, any process which requires unlearning is not satisfactory, for
that very reason. Hence, while "maet" of i.t.a. is tempting, it is better
to stick with "mate".
====================================================
"Don H" wrote in message$bo1.34878@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> What are the main rules of English spelling, and why do they apply?
> ..........

A & D Frost · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 3

One can use a similar analogy to this when considering the teaching of
music. It is much easier to teach music theory to a student who is learning
to play a musical instrument than it is to try and do it "dry".

Most students do not even realise they are learning theory while they are
learning an instrument, they just believe they are learning the how to play.

I believe that the teaching of language should be done in a similar fashion.

"Don H" wrote in message$bo1.64606@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "The simplest way to explain how learning through a whole language
approach
> works is to compare it to learning to ride a bike. In helping a child to
> learn to ride a bike we give the child the bike and let them 'have a go'
at
> riding it. While they are practising riding we give them specific
> information about how to turn the handle bars or how to use the brake. We
> teach them how to ride the bike while they are riding it. We do not give
> them the pedals and handle bars and explain how they work and eventually
> give them the bike when they've mastered these sub-skills." - page 49 of
> "Life's Little Guide to Reading at Home and at School" by Cheryl Semple &
> Judy Tuer (Hale & Iremonger; 1996)
> The trouble with "arguing by analogy" is that there are often as many
> differences as similarities; also, that contrary analogies can be found -
> eg. throwing a child 'in the deep end' to teach it to swim (or sink).
> Even with the bike-riding analogy, there are assumptions about a
child's
> learning process. Most children graduate to bike-riding through years of
> apprenticeship, which can be summed up as follows:
> (1) Pedimobility - learning to crawl, then walk; use of foot-propelled
seat.
> (2) Quadricycle - use of a toy car; four wheels plus pedal power.
> (3) Tricycle - a three-wheeled vehicle; stability with pedals.
> (4) Bicycle - Junior version (otherwise feet don't reach the pedals)
> (5) Bicycle - Adult version. (Real experts can go on to: (6) the
Monocycle)
> These five stages neatly coincide with Rudolf Flesch's five stages in
> teaching a child to read-and-write by Phonics, the Fifth stage being
> Irregular spellings.
> However, even Flesch concedes that - "...you can't teach a child to
read
> without letting him read words. And every word in English contains a
vowel.
> So you have to start with teaching the child the letters a,e,i,o,u in
spite
> of the fact that each of them spells a long and a short vowel. The only
way
> to solve this problem is to begin by teaching the child only the five
short
> vowels (which are far more common than the long ones) and postpone the
long
> vowels until a much later stage."
> While I'd agree with Flesch that proceeding from simple-to-complex is
the
> only way, if confusion is to be avoided, I'd qualify this by saying that
it
> is SHORT words (eg. of one syllable) which should be taught first,
> irrespective of their nature. If the alphabet is taught, and spelling
rules
> also, then short SIMPLE words shouldn't present a problem. The average
> child is quite intelligent, and its brain has not yet ossified with
> prejudice and dogma, so it is amenable to reason. Of course, while rules
> should be taught, exceptions must come later. But "mat" and "mate" are
> possible words, even right from the start. Don't confuse with too many
> rules, and use the techniques of - dictation, reading-aloud,
transcription,
> and even composition. Any standard "readers" used should consist
initially
> of only simple short words, which follow spelling rules - even if the
> stories told are somewhat mundane. Their purpose is to promote interest
in
> reading, and confidence that reading is possible.
> PS: While I have some sympathy for the Initial Teaching Alphabet of Sir
> James Pitman, any process which requires unlearning is not satisfactory,
for
> that very reason. Hence, while "maet" of i.t.a. is tempting, it is better
> to stick with "mate".
> ====================================================
> "Don H" wrote in message
> $bo1.34878@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > What are the main rules of English spelling, and why do they apply?
> > ..........
>
>

Don H · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 187

Maybe. My ignorance of music is almost total. The only instrument I can
play is a gramophone. My quarrel with the "whole language" people is that a
"word" is not the most basic concept in the English language. Letters and
their sounds are. Presumably, a "cord"(?) is not basic to music - a "note"
is?
Scientists once thought the atom was the fundamental unit - until protons,
neutrons, electrons, etc, were discovered.
But to already know that the alphabet exists and then insist on starting
with words, seems retrograde.
Granted that a word, such as "cow", is more than the sum of its parts (ie.
concept of an animal), it still consists of three letters and relevant
sounds.
The "whole language" system relies largely on "guessing" - intelligently
or otherwise. When I was at school, we were told "Don't guess!" Learning
to read-and-write was taken for granted; no problem! Virtually all children
were accomplished readers/writers by end of second grade; there was no need
for "remedial teaching". "Dyslexia" was unknown in the 1930s.
Phonics should be taught systematically, not incidentally. In any line of
study, you go from the simple to the complex; from rules, to exceptions to
rules. Why should teaching English be any different?
=========================
"A & D Frost" wrote in message$bo1.28265@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> One can use a similar analogy to this when considering the teaching of
> music. It is much easier to teach music theory to a student who is
learning
> to play a musical instrument than it is to try and do it "dry".
>
> Most students do not even realise they are learning theory while they are
> learning an instrument, they just believe they are learning the how to
play.
>
> I believe that the teaching of language should be done in a similar
fashion.

Don H · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 187

I thought the word "cord" seemed wrong somehow, until it struck me -
"chord". Long time, not used. ========================
"Don H" wrote in message$bo1.70675@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Maybe. My ignorance of music is almost total. The only instrument I can
> play is a gramophone. My quarrel with the "whole language" people is that
a
> "word" is not the most basic concept in the English language. Letters and
> their sounds are. Presumably, a "cord"(?) is not basic to music - a
"note"
> is?

A & D Frost · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 3

Fundamentals in music can mean different things to what fundamentals mean in
English.

The wonderful thing in music is that once rules are learnt there are no
exceptions, not the case in languages, with the possible exception of
Malay/Indonesian.

The fundamentals in English are the alphabet. There is no definitive guide
to how letters are pronounced in words, it's just that the variables are
endless. There is an endless stream of exceptions, or so it seems,
especially to those students who are from the "whole word" generation, they
never had the opportunity we did to learn "the rules".

I had one of my Year 9 students ask me about the tense of actions, 'run
becomes running, so vote becomes voteing, you just add ing, don't you?' To
me this is a practical example of the 'whole word' option, yes - no?

Any insight would be appreciated. Thank you.
"Don H" wrote in message$bo1.70675@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Maybe. My ignorance of music is almost total. The only instrument I can
> play is a gramophone. My quarrel with the "whole language" people is that
a
> "word" is not the most basic concept in the English language. Letters and
> their sounds are. Presumably, a "cord"(?) is not basic to music - a
"note"
> is?
> Scientists once thought the atom was the fundamental unit - until
protons,
> neutrons, electrons, etc, were discovered.
> But to already know that the alphabet exists and then insist on starting
> with words, seems retrograde.
> Granted that a word, such as "cow", is more than the sum of its parts
(ie.
> concept of an animal), it still consists of three letters and relevant
> sounds.
> The "whole language" system relies largely on "guessing" -
intelligently
> or otherwise. When I was at school, we were told "Don't guess!" Learning
> to read-and-write was taken for granted; no problem! Virtually all
children
> were accomplished readers/writers by end of second grade; there was no
need
> for "remedial teaching". "Dyslexia" was unknown in the 1930s.
> Phonics should be taught systematically, not incidentally. In any line of
> study, you go from the simple to the complex; from rules, to exceptions to
> rules. Why should teaching English be any different?
> =========================
> "A & D Frost" wrote in message
> $bo1.28265@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > One can use a similar analogy to this when considering the teaching of
> > music. It is much easier to teach music theory to a student who is
> learning
> > to play a musical instrument than it is to try and do it "dry".
> >
> > Most students do not even realise they are learning theory while they
are
> > learning an instrument, they just believe they are learning the how to
> play.
> >
> > I believe that the teaching of language should be done in a similar
> fashion.
>
>

Don H · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 187

No one, not even Phonics advocates, claim that learning to spell is easy -
but why make something that is rather difficult almost impossible? Spelling
does have rules; admittedly with many exceptions, but we are stuck with
that. Learn the rules first, then exceptions later.
English is a "mongrel" language, which is its virtue, but also its
disadvantage. Why do you think that English has been so successful as a de
facto "world language"? I don't think this can be entirely due to colonial
history; I'd claim that English has intrinsic advantages over other
languages. It is an isolating, analytic language; its grammar is based on
word-order; it has no superfluous gender ("le","la" of French). It uses
roots and affixes with considerable efficiency. Its words derive from
Latin, Greek, French, and basically from Anglo-Saxon (German). I'd be
interested to learn how non-English speakers learn English - I'll bet they
start with the alphabet, and learn spelling rules, NOT by the stupid
Whole-Word system - only USA, UK, and Australia are dumb enough to do that.
The example you quote would be no problem to anyone who knew the difference
between a "short" vowel and a "long" one - and how to preserve that sound
when adding "-ing". The efficiency of English is demonstrated by dropping
the now-superfluous "e" to give "voting".
As to music, my knowledge is limited, but what is the difference between
music and noise? Much "rock" or "pop" music, to me, is just organised noise.
=======================
"A & D Frost" wrote in message$bo1.1653@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Fundamentals in music can mean different things to what fundamentals mean
in
> English.
>
> The wonderful thing in music is that once rules are learnt there are no
> exceptions, not the case in languages, with the possible exception of
> Malay/Indonesian.
>
> The fundamentals in English are the alphabet. There is no definitive
guide
> to how letters are pronounced in words, it's just that the variables are
> endless. There is an endless stream of exceptions, or so it seems,
> especially to those students who are from the "whole word" generation,
they
> never had the opportunity we did to learn "the rules".
>
> I had one of my Year 9 students ask me about the tense of actions, 'run
> becomes running, so vote becomes voteing, you just add ing, don't you?'
To
> me this is a practical example of the 'whole word' option, yes - no?
>
> Any insight would be appreciated. Thank you.