Phonic sounds in because

[maydaychild]

Could one of you wonderful MNetters help me with 'because' as Dd has it in her high freq this week

What is making the or sound and is the e magic
Thanks

mrz, about the brain breaking down words thing. I know I do it subconsciously! But have had lots of discussions with sis (a primary teacher!). She knows she doesn't do it, because presented with new words (usually names) she will naturally just have a guess, using the letters in it. If she is reading just for enjoyment, a novel, then she wouldn't bother trying to figure it out properly. I would always spell it out to myself. She finds spelling difficult, as does my dh as they get overwhelmed trying to spell out whole words rather than breaking it into syllables as I would do.

Another question: if the brain naturally breaks down words in this way, does the way you are taught make any difference?

'... using the letters in it'

Another one who knows she uses a phonics approach then; I wonder why she a) denies, even to herself it seems, that she does this and b) doesn't do it well enough to read the word plausibly?

The brain imaging research shows that is what happens in good readers MerryMarigold but not in poor readers.
It also show that those good/excellent readers are doing this whatever they are reading even if it is as something as simple as The cat sat on the mat. So most people would like your sister say I never sound out words ... however their brain does.

So RhinosDontEatPancakes can you read my words with just one missing letter in the sentences?

I saw the c*t in my room.

Put it on the t*p.

I've always thought I read like Rhino. I'm a very very fast reader, and have a tendency to read in chunks. It made supporting my son with his dyslexia incredibly difficult because I don't consciously sound words out, I just sort of absorb them. But this is mostly because I have a very very large vocabulary (because of the excessive reading ) and don't very often come across new words (and when I do I'm more interested in figuring out meaning than how they might sound). When I look at non English words I do sound them out (badly I'm sure) and so then I'm using my phonic knowledge much more consciously.

For ds without learning the rules he really couldn't read. Words like saw and was muddled him no end (he was taught using mixed methods, just before phonics became compulsory and is dyslexic). After synthetic phonics tutoring he just flew and his reading is now excellent (one of the best in his school, and more importantly something he really enjoys - his books stack has about 20 books in it right now).

But if they sound out words properly (as I do), why would they look at a word like "Winkworth" and read "Whitworth". They have looked at the word as whole, seen the letters in it and made a guess based on a name they already know. Edith, using the letters in the word, but sometimes re-ordering them or adding ones which are not there to make a similar word, is NOT USING A PHONIC APPROACH. My dsis and dh do this all the time. I would very rarely make mistakes like that (not saying I'm great, but just that my brain works differently in this area).

I'm always a puzzled that some people find it difficult to believe that we process all the sound-spelling correspondences in words in milliseconds - in fact so fast that it happens below the level of conscious attention.
Analogies are never quite the same thing but, if people who find this difficult to accept think about what happens when they meet someone for the first time. They assess (again very often below the level of conscious attention) in milliseconds what the person might be like from a huge raft of sensory information: clothes, hair, sex, age, accent, etc, etc - it's easily possible to compile a long list. They do this and then, if they maintain contact with the person, they check against the original instantaneous assessment whether or not they're right. People are able to do this because they have had in their lives masses of experience of doing it. The same is true of reading: the more it is practised, the more overlearning takes place, and the more automatic the processing.

www.canucklehead.ca/_Media/ghotisticks-3.jpeg

I'm always a puzzled that some people find it difficult to believe that we process all the sound-spelling correspondences in words in milliseconds - in fact so fast that it happens below the level of conscious attention.

I suppose I must be one of those people that puzzles you SoundsWrite, so I have had a think why it doesn?t quite ring true to me and have come up with the following:

1. While I am of an age where I don?t often encounter a new word, on rare the occasions that I do, I probably process it just as slowly as a beginner reader. How can I process all the sound-spelling correspondences in familiar words in milliseconds and those in unfamiliar words in ? well, seconds, I suppose?

2. We can scan down a passage and pick out a particular word. If we didn?t recognise the word as a whole, would we not have to process every word on the page to dismiss it before we come to our chosen word?

3. We can recognise and continue to recognise words without having to process the sound spelling correspondences. Say, with recognising names in a Russian novel, if we don?t have to say them to anyone else so we don?t have to pronounce them, but it doesn?t stop us recognising them.

4. We can both read and pronounce words like Taoiseach even though we don?t really know how the phonics actually works in these words.

I think we have moved on a bit from 'because' here.

CecilyP, agree. My sis says that's what she does with names in novels, just recognises them. I have to know how it sounds as well, but I read out loud in my head.

I've said it before, but PLEASE MRZ move up here and be my dyslexic dd's teacher? Neither of her primary schools have used a structured synthetic phonics program beyond using Jolly Phonics in the early months of P1.

You know what I'd have always said that too, but reading Cecily's post I did stop on Taoiseach, which is a word I know in theory how to say, and tried to puzzle it out because I couldn't quite remember.

I'm also not sure that we use the same technique reading for pleasure and scanning for specific words. I'm certainly not particularly good at word searches

Nooka, you can have a clue for Taoiseach - Eamon de Valera became Taoiseach in 1937.

When I was referring to scanning for a specific word, I was thinking more of finding something in a report. When reading for pleasure, I would also read all the words in the order in which they are written.

Okay okay hold up...wtf is the T words? Now now that's a totally new word on me, but subconsciously or whatever I saw part of a word I thought I recognised and thought 'search' then used my phonic knowledge to attempt the first part which I guessed at tow. So using two methods, I got tow-search in a natter of seconds. Now in assuming that's wrong anyway..but only one of the methods was phonetic.

Witty, I am guessing you weren't around at the time of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 when, as far as I am aware, I heard this word for the first time. It is actually pronounced something like teesha.

I was 'around' a rural reservation in Quebec, mustnt have hit our headlines lol. I'm pretty out of touch with UK unless it happened in last 4 years lol. So, how the hell do you get teeshirt out of toaisisrrch?

No idea, that was my point!

Taòiseach is a Gaelic word which is why the graphemes represent different sounds to those in English

Yes, I know that mrz, but people know what it says despite not knowing the Gaelic phonics.

Only if they have seen the word written and heard the pronunciation.

Witty Title didn't know it...

Please don't judge me as average person

I can read this though

Wàwàckèci