Phonology On My Mind

I am currently engaged — with great joy — in an etymological Renaissance, in the company of Doug Harper and those who study with us around the world. But phonology — phonology is also on my mind.

Last Friday, I spoke at the Peoria County Teacher Institute Day at the Civic Center. Folks came to hear about dyslexia, and they did, but of course they also got an earful about spelling, about morphology and relationships between words. They studied the concept model of English orthography developed by Real Spelling, and they saw evidence that countered their previous conceptions of what a phoneme is.

The phonology question came up, as it always does, this time from an ESL teacher. “Do you still think that phonology is important to teach with the younger kids?”

I used to dread this question and not want to answer it, but now it’s a dialogue I appreciate being able to engage in. My answer hits three main components:

1. Of course I think phonology is important to study! And this is not just an opinion; it’s an understanding based on the fact that phonology is one aspect of language structure that is represented by the English writing system. In fact, I think that studying phonology is SO critical that we had better get it right. At this point in history, pedagogically speaking, we really don’t get phonology right, because we start with it instead of understanding it inside of its morphological framework, because that’s how English works. So yes, by all means, study phonology with your students, but make sure you are studying it with an understanding properly rooted in the defining and delimiting structures of morphology.

2. I encourage educators to stop thinking of phonology as something that you “teach.” Rather, make it something that you *study.* You cannot possibly be better at teaching something that you are willing to roll up your sleeves and study it yourself. Study it with your students. Be willing to admit that your own understanding of phonology is always evolving. It’s not something you can open a teacher’s manual and impart; it’s an important part of the structure of language that is represented in the writing system. Phonemes are not “the smallest unit of speech!” Rather, they’re mental representations of minimally distinctive units of pronunciation. Phonology includes phonemes, but also (allo)phones, and understanding this is critical to studying the writing system. Phonology also includes stress, which plays an interesting role in English spelling. Syllables, however, have far less significance in English orthography than the purveyors of phonics would have us believe. Moreover, where syllables do matter in English, stress is often an important factor. For example, an unstressed syllable can be reduced to a zero vowel, but the syllable is still written: Family is typically pronounced /’fæmli/ — two syllables — but it retains three written syllables. We can see why when we consider its sister words familiar or familial. Ultimately, phonics, in all its permutations, is pedagogical, not linguistic, and it has little to do with an accurate understanding of phonology and phonemes.

3. It doesn’t matter how old someone is (or what their native language is or whether they have dyslexia): the writing system works the way it works. Like any other physical phenomenon — like rocks, or sound waves, or orbits — writing systems are physical things that can be studied. It is not the case that the writing system is more phonologically-driven when you’re 6 than it is when you’re 40. And it’s a conceptual question, not a developmental question. Trying to teach or study phonology without consideration of morphology is like trying to teach addition without working in decimal concepts: ones, tens, hundreds. Would it be okay to tell little kids that the sun revolves around the earth just to reinforce their natural developmental egocentrism? Of course not. But teaching children — or adults — of any age that phonology is the most important aspect of the writing system is an equally pre-Copernican understanding of orthography. In her 1990 book, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print, Marilyn J. Adams makes the claim that morphology is best studied with older students. In spite of the fact that this is a scientific book, Adams provides no scientific evidence for this suggestion. Let’s not spend another 25 years laboring under this misapprehension. (Hat tip to Pete Bowers for this understanding of Adams’s mistake and its footprint).

Phonology is in our heads, and linguists are hard pressed to prove things about phonology articulatorily speaking. Phonemes are understood to exist (psychologically) in spite of their quite different phonetic (physical) realizations as well as because of their similarities. The writing system is where we can actually see phonemes represented physically. But we can’t do that without attending to the morphological structures: there’s no <th> digraph in fathead, no <ea> digraph in react, no <ie> in cried.

Phonology is in our heads, and on my mind. Of course I think it’s important.

 

 

18 Comments

  1. Kelli says:

    Of course I love this! We spent quite a bit of time discussing this yesterday – perfect timing. Merci beau coup!

  2. I especially love this: “…. it’s a conceptual question, not a developmental question.” But the whole post is just terrific. Would it be OK if I out a link to this post in our online course on the Structure of Written English??

  3. Felicia says:

    Gina, this is absolutely fantasti! Keep up the good work.

  4. Perfect! Thank you for this succinct exposition, Gina. I am currently trying to convey to those in positions of pedagogical authority and influence that their attempts to hang morphology and etymology on the coattails of phonics is backwards and self-defeating. But (as usual) they hear what I do not say: that I think phonology is unimportant. What I struggle to do coherently is define the difference between “phonics” and “phonology.”

  5. Old Grouch says:

    Adding any comment to this jewel of exemplary concision and authoritative clarity feels rather akin to gilding the lily. I can only reassert the pivotal imperative that you have formulated so crisply:

    “by all means, study phonology with your students, but make sure you are studying it with an understanding properly rooted in the defining and delimiting structures of morphology.”

    Brava, bravissima!

  6. marymcbride101 says:

    Gina: Thanks for the wonderful post. I look forward to a Lexinar on phonology! “Be willing to admit that your own understanding of phonology is always evolving.” Mary

  7. Dick Briggs says:

    Gina, are there any lists of the “zero vowels” like family, temperature, warrior? I’m building a spelling tool using syllable count. Having a list like this would be very helpful. Any resources. Thanks, Dick (Last spring workshop in Eureka).

    • Hi Dick, I’m afraid I don’t keep track of any lists, but have you tried googling it? If you’re counting syllables, I’d encourage you to make sure you are clear about whether you’re counting phonetic syllables or phonological syllables, and in whose pronunciation. For me, the word ‘warrior’ does not have a zero vowel.

      • Dick Briggs says:

        Hi Gina, Thanks for the response. I included “warrior” because Dictionary.com shows two and three syllables. I did a quick search on Google with very little luck. I’m using zero vowel syllables. Any suggestions for search terms?

        Dick

      • Gail Venable says:

        In case you don’t have these, Dick: every, chocolate, evening, different, separate, and all words ending in ‘-ically’

      • Dick Briggs says:

        Gail, this was very helpful. When I first read it, I checked my ically words and thought “what the heck – I’m confused” on words such as chemically when looking up on Dictionary.com

        With your mention of “bracket” and Gina mentioning ” counting phonetic syllables or phonological syllables”, I did a little Google and found this link:

        https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/180/whats-the-difference-between-phonetics-and-phonology

        It discusses:
        Phonetic transcriptions are done using the square brackets
        phonemic transcriptions adopt the slash

        Here is my Catch 22 – do I populate my tool with both syllable counts, or would most people use the lesser count (phonetic) to look up a word?

        Here is a link to the tool that I’m developing. To find the ically words:
        Click 1 – click on the THREE picture
        Click 2 – click on the JELLY picture
        Click 3 – click on any of the Beginning Sound pictures
        Click 4 – click on syllable count and look for words with ically. Note: This syllable count is the reason that I’m asking the question.

        https://3clicksspelling.com/3ClicksSpellingHTML/Spelling%20Home%20Phone.html

        Thanks for your thoughts.

        Dick Briggs

        • Hi Dick. In general, I have an enormous distrust for Google’s command of phonology and phonetics. I’m afraid that in terms of your question about your list / tool, I have no answer for you. I don’t deal in lists. I’m not sure I see the purpose of equipping people with a list but not with an understanding. The word ‘technically’ has 4 phonological syllables, but 3 phonetic ones. People aren’t making decisions about whether to look up a word by their phonetic syllables or by their phonological ones; they don’t know the difference. You may want to consider taking my Syllables LEXinar next time it is offered.

          • Dick Briggs says:

            Hi Gina,

            The tool that I’m developing is kind of “Thinking Out of the Box”. The students I work with have a lot of trouble spelling. But, if they can isolate the last sound, then the first sound, it narrows the possibilities. I then apply a third filter – syllable count. This really narrows the words to find. The last filter is the Level Count being the frequency of use. Here the students work Level 1 to Level 10.

            Most elementary students would find their word in Levels 1 – 3.

            In most cases, if the student miscounts syllables, they just have to click one number higher and/or lower. This last week, I had 3rd – 5th graders finding multi-syllable words within 20 – 60 seconds.

            It is the “0 vowel” and the words Gail provided that made me review these patterns and started my discussion. Just today, as I was populating my tool, I ran across alien. It has 2 and 3 spoken syllables. I now put it in both syllable count lists.

            In terms of lists, if people have them, are organized on different skills, patterns, concepts and are documented as such. One program, Words Their Way, does a pretty good job in explaining the patterns.

            In terms of Gail’s response, I can now go back an look at all of by “ically” words in my Excel and organize them appropriately.

  8. Peter Bowers says:

    Well, it looks like I came late to this post Gina. Just had to highlight some of gems that caught my eye:

    “I think that studying phonology is SO critical that we had better get it right. At this point in history, pedagogically speaking, we really don’t get phonology right, because we start with it instead of understanding it inside of its morphological framework, because that’s how English works.”

    “You cannot possibly be better at teaching something that you are willing to roll up your sleeves and study it yourself.”

    “Like any other physical phenomenon — like rocks, or sound waves, or orbits — writing systems are physical things that can be studied.”

    Yup.

    Some day we need to chat more about these oral and written syllables. I still don’t understand what a written syllable is. Recognizing that I don’t understand something that keeps coming up is usually a good sign that it’s time has come to study it a bit! I don’t know if I’ll come to the same conclusion about them as you, but I know that I would gain from the discussion.

  9. Dick Briggs says:

    As others read this discussion, I want to make sure that I am a firm believer in structured spelling programs. However, during a student’s creative writing/editing process, they need a tool to help quickly look up the word.

    The same would be true if during a discussion, a word comes up that they don’t know what it means, they could quickly look it up. But, I remember the days when I was a struggling speller and people said “Look It Up”. Not a clue where to start.

    In summary, the tool is helpful when the “spelling skill” has already been introduced and they hadn’t mastered it yet, or the “spelling skill” has not yet been introduced. Moats states that many dyslexics dumb down their writing vocabulary because they don’t know how to spell the word that is in their speaking vocabulary. I’m trying to help bridge this gap.

    Dick

  10. […] « Phonology On My Mind […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *