A question for SYNTHETIC PHONETICS fans.

[Eaney]

Having read here that virtually every word can be broken down using synthetic phonetics i had a conversation with DO who refused to believe this.

Anyway he has asked me to ascertain how the following word could be explained to a child using Syn Phoenitics:

Said
Cupboard
Entrepreneur

He will be thinking of more words (I know what he is like) so be prepared.

Thanks

there are exceptions

I meant DP of course.

Katierocket, I thought so too but someone here who seemed to know what she was talking about was adamant that virtually every word could be broken down. I will try and find out who it was.

Said would be Ssss like a snake, ai would be as in a yelp of pain and d - is ddd - the sound of a nut on a drum according to the charts at home. TBH DH is the expert here, I'm retaining my amateur status for the synthetic olympics....

But doesn't 'said' sound like 'sed'?

yeah... it sort of works that they learn the look of the words and then, actually I have no clue. DH says he thinks that right from the charts tho!

what about:

though
through
tough
bough
cough

how can they be taught using a purely phonetic approach?

Yeah good one Ohfennel.....I was going to say that 'ough' sounds like 'off' but then I looked again at your list.

Well I found the poster and she answered my question about 'said'. Here is link thread the poster is catflap. Will have to read it again though to see if she answers all my questions. She certainly seems to know her stuff.

Syn phonics isn't just about learning that each letter makes a sound, it's also about learning that certain letter strands or blends also make particular sounds.
So, children would learn that the letters ough, when grouped together, often make an 'o' sound (as in though) but also can make an 'uf' sound (as in rough).
They learn rules like the 'magic e' (as we called it) makes the letter say its name. Although they call it various names such as holding hands letters (the e at the end and the other vowel)
Hope this makes a little sense.

Hmm... Jolly Phonics is a form of synthetic phonics, is it not? I'm pretty sure "said" is mentioned as one of the "tricky words" that you just have to learn by rote. Ditto in the other phonics system I'm working through (Distar ... something like that anyway, forget the name of it).

A few words are 'sight' words but tbh, children who learn phonics can still work them out.

Ds1 has done JP since he started reception in September - he can work out the word 'said' within the context of the sentence - he might sound out 'ssss' 'ay' 'ddd' and then say 'said' because he's already got an idea what it's meant to say iyswim. Same with 'was' that sounded out is 'w' 'a' 'sss' but he can still work out to say 'woz'. They say the sounds and even if not exactly right it's pretty easy to work out the word. This is what I've found with ds1 anyway - he can work out all sorts of words already, it's amazing.

Yep, you're right GG - I'm amazed at how ds1 can figure the trickier stuff out using context, pictures and rough sound. I find the whole process of learning to read completely awe inspiring. It's amazing how the brain works, isn't it?

I think you have answered my question in that groups of letters have more than one sound.

Eaney,
Of course all words can be broken down into their constituent sounds. The writing system was invented to represent the sounds of the language and every word is comprised of sounds. This means that you can ALWAYS break words down into sounds. The problem is that the system for representing sounds is complicated. The 'e' in 'said' is represented by the digraph (two letters) . It's a very common word, but not a very common representation of the sound. Actually, if you always start with the sounds and think about how they are represented, you can't go wrong. This is because there are 44 (linguists sometimes disagree a bit - accents are different around the country)sounds in the language. There are about 175 different ways of spelling those sounds, plus some one-offs, which are very infrequent. Learning to match 175 or so spellings to the sounds everyone learns naturally, as all mother tongue speakers do, is a lot easier than trying to remember over a million sight words in the language, or trying to match sounds to letters!
So, 'said', three sounds: 's' 'e' 'd'- easy.
'Cupboard' a two-syllable word - much more difficult because in the second syllable there is a weak vowel sound, which isn't spelt as it sounds (This is very common in English if you think about it. Take the name 'Helen. Two syllables. The second syllable is pronounced He / lun, not He/ len). So Cu / bord if you say the word precisely, using a spelling voice. The 'b' sound is (very weird;)the 'or' sound is - not at all strange: 'oar' 'boar', 'hoard', etc.
No one says this is easy, but then again you wouldn't teach a young child all these complications straight away; you go from simple to complex. In any case they'd learn a lot of this stuff by reading a lot.
I won't bother with 'entrepreneur' because young children in KS1 and 2 wouldn't use it normally, and, in any case, it is a borrowed French word. It can still be broken down though: in French it goes like this: 'en' (one sound- very nasal)'t' 'r' 'uh' 'p' 'r' 'uh' 'n' 'uh' 'r'. In English pronunciation: 'o' 'n' 't' 'r' 'uh' 'p' 'r' 'uh' 'n' 'er'.
But, the thing to remember is that about 90% of the words we use in everyday discourse follow perfectly straightforward spelling patterns.
Sorry to suffer so badly from logorrhoea!

Ds can use phonics to sound out unfamiliar words even if they aren't entirely regular because he will say - say - 'sss....ay....d, hmm, sayd....Oh! Said!"
Same goes for Cup-board (originally pronounced that way, of course, we've just corrupted it with time)
Entrepreneur is a French word.

Some people use the term 'tweaking' to explain the vowel adjustments needed in words such as 'said'. The thing is, as a previous poster said (delosreyes?), since around 90% of English words are regular, why not first of all teach the rules to help children make sense of those, and afterwards worry about the 10% that aren't? There are some very common words that are difficult to 'sound out', although usually even in these some of the word is regular (and even 'was' isn't so irregular when you realise that the majority (not all) of words starting 'wa-' are sounded 'w-o-' (eg wash, want, wander, wallow).

I agree, Singersgirl, but one of the points I was making was that there aren't any irregular words in the English language from the point of view of sounds. All words are comprised of sounds. The word 'was' isn't difficult to sound out. In fact it's as easy as 'mat'. What's difficult for young children is that the sound 'o' in 'was' is spelt with an . And, as you say, Singersgirl, this is a fairly common pattern in the language in that, after the sound 'w', we often but not always spell the sound 'o' with the grapheme . Interestingly, it also works in 'quad', 'quantity', 'qualify', etc., where the letter represents the sound 'w'.

Thanks guys I think I understand but have had very little sleep and will need to re read later.

In discussing the phonetic analysis of the word cupboard, delosreyes suggested that the digraph represented the sound 'b' as the digraph does in a much greater number of words. But cupboard is one of those relatively rare words where both pronunciation and spelling have chnged over time. As with many two-syllable words it was formed from two one-syllable words, cuppe and bourd (both of which had many different spellings prior to the 18th century. In pronunciation the 'p' gradually became obscured by the following 'b' sound and had 'disappeared' from the word by the 16th century when, in general writing, the more 'accurate' spelling cubberd was generally used. Unfortunately, in the 18th century. the political correctness of academic etymologists placed the phonetically incorrect spelling cupboard in the English dictionary to the annoyance of most of their ancesters. So what we really have is a word that, for historical reasons, is not spelled as it sounds and exhibits that rare feature of English, a letter that is not representing a sound any more, ie rather like Wednesday. Fortunately, and especialy for beggining readers, these words are relatively rare and do not constitute a barrier to accurate phonic tuition.

Hmmm, no wonder people are put off by synthetic phonics. I'd hazard a guess that anyone with only GCSE English would struggle to follow this! Given we're looking for a strategy that will help the 25% of children who struggle to learn to read it is scarey that those who advocate this cannot provide simpler explanations?

I wholeheartedly agree Elsynora. Many of these words are anomalies. But, Ladymuck, in one sense you are quite correct: in order to teach phonics to children successfully from the start or as a catch-up, teachers and teaching assistants, not to mention educational psychologists and literacy support teams, need proper training. However, if it is taught from simple to complex over the period of KS1, then dealing with what are really quite easy questions such as 'answer', 'cupboard' and other historical relics is a piece of cake.
Opponents of SP always pick on the most difficult problems to justify not teaching it, but you can't allow the exceptions to dictate how you teach the norm: ie the 90% regular stuff.

Sorry, Elsynorah! Obviously a historical anomaly.

OK, so for an "average" parent - how do you teach the word "said"? Given the rules that would be taught in reception?

Ladymuck. If the child had already got started on learning the basic one-to-one correspondences, you'd point to the and say, "This is 'e'! Say 'e' here". And the child says, "'s' 'e' 'd' -> 'said." If the child is only just beginning, I'd tell the child that, in this story, some words are yours and you can say the sounds and read them and some words are mine. When you get to the 'said', you say, "This is 'said'! Say 'said' here."