Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Early Years' started by mancminx, Jul 20, 2011.
Is there a difference or are they the same lists of words?
High frequency words are words that are used often and appear frequently in texts. Many of these are decodable - mum, in, on etc. Some do not decode easily and have a 'tricky' element to them, eg 'said' - /s/ and /d/ are fine, but 'ai' says /e/ and so makes 'said' a tricky word. Teaching children the 'tricky' bit as they blend helps with spelling as well as reading. Hope this helps.
<font size="3"></font> <font size="3">they, </font><font size="3">been, here, see, came, made, make, like,</font><font size="3">our, out, about, </font><font size="3"> new, over, old.</font>
<font size="3"></font> <font size="3">he, the, I, of, to, was,</font><font size="3">all, be, are, have, one, said, we, you, by, my, call, before, come, could, do, down, into, look, me, more, now, only, other, right, she, some, their, there, two, when, want, were, what, where, which, who, your.</font>
I have analysed the 300 most used words that way too, but am going away for a week.
U might like to look at
PS "I" is not really tricky either and should be with 'like'.
Sorry! It 58 pretty straightforward and 42 tricky.
What utter rubbish. All written text is encoded sound. All words are entirely decodeable if you learn the code.
Please could you develop that into a logical and self-explanatory paragraph. On its own it doesn't make much sense to many people.
I do understand what you are saying, but even then it is not helpful. Even if one had learned all the code to which you are referring, which it is unlikely that any early years child will have done, it is still tricky for a child de-coding to know which alternative pronunciation to use for the particular grapheme they are reading at the time.
Perhaps you could back-up your argument with some examples to help the OP and show that there are therefore no tricky words in the early years.
Mystery the word was has a tricky part but when it is introduced the teacher teaches why it is tricky and the code.
So the child may say /w/ /a/ /s/ but the teachers teaches that the letter "a" when following the sound /w/ (whether wriiten "w" or "wh") represents the /o/ sound (was want wand what ...)
Just to prove that others beside masha can make lists
wasp, wash, swatch, swat (flies..), swan, swap, swallow, swamp, swab, watch, waddle, squabble (don't forget that 'u' can spell a /w/ too), quarrel, squad, quad (+ several related words),squat, quantum, quantity, qualify, quality, equality, quash, squash, squander...
So it's not even an uncommon piece of 'code'.
I think what teejay is saying is that words existed long before writing systems and our writing system has been developed by using letters to encode the individual phonemes used in spoken words. So the alphabetic code 'works' from sounds to letters, not the other way round. The English code is more complex than that of other languages because of our long history of 'borrowing' words from other languages but retaining the 'code' of the originating language. It is quite an efficient system, despite being more complex, as it enables English speaking people with a huge variety of accents to be able to read a word in their own accent, yet still be able to ascribe to it the same meaning as someone with a completely different way of pronouncing it. A very simple example is the 'a' in words like grass, glass & pass. Southern English people would pronounce these as glarse, grarse & parse (sorry, parse is a real word, different meaning, different pronunciation) while Northern English people pronounce the 'a' as the 'a' in 'cat'. Neither is more 'correct' than the other.
Those who wish to 'simplify' the spelling system don't seem to quite grasp this or to recognise the immense difficulty implicit in simplifying spellings in such a way that all English speakers would still be able to recognise discrete words and access their meaning.
I have no idea why you state that 57 of the 100 are entirely decodeable and that the others are not. What you seem to be doing is accepting some alphabetic code as being decodeable (e.g. n-o-t =not and f-ir-s-t) but failing to recognise other parts of the code and calling those words which contain them not decodeable (e.g. why can you not decode "all"? al is code for /or/ in many words (talk, walk, stalk, tall, ball, hall.....)) (why is "come" not decodeable? c always says /c/ before o, o says /o/, /oo/, /oa/ or /u/, m says /m/ and e is usually silent on the end of a word. Teach children this code and they will have a choice between pronouncing the word as - com, ***, coam, coom. Clearly two are not words. It will not be difficult to work out whether the word is come or comb.
Oh, come on, teejay..I don't think she has any idea, either.
Anyway, she's away for a week, so won't be <strike>infesting </strike>on TES for a while. You'd get no coherent reply from her if she weren't away; masha doesn't do replies, only lists
Surely the words are tricky because you have to learn an exception to the basic code to decode them. For instance with the 'wa' thing, you have to become aware that 'a' does not behave the same way when it follows a 'w' as it does following most other consonants (but there are times when it does of course, and when it follows other rules). The code exists of course, but it is complex. It doesn't help knowing the code if there is only one word which follows a particular 'rule' or, I would argue, only one common word (as we are talking about children in the early stages of learning).
I can think of only a handful of words where "a" following /w/ represents the /a/ sound which means they are the exceptions and the tricky words. I disagree that the code is complex and if it has been taught early most children don't have any difficulty.
wagon and wassail
I have always pronounced it wossail!
I dont know, how about in 'come, John, come, I'm having a very bad hair day', said Janet?
On a more serious note, isn't it important that children are taught these words more for spelling rather than reading purposes? At this stage, someone will be listening to children read and can keep them right, but mis-spellings can easily become entrenched.
I'm sorry but only one is not a word, although it is a common prefix; coom is a word, though normally spelt combe.
you are right
so I'm down to wagon as a tricky word
What about wag or even WAGs? The only other one I can think of is wax.
So have I. I thought everyone did!
In the case of 'wa' there are at least 3 words children are usually introduced to 'early' , was, want and what. So why not teach the code then and be done with it? (Though, personally, I don't think there should be too much emphasis on these HFWs in the early stages, however useful they might have been for writing reading schemes)
Oh dear. I can think of another one, but it wouldn't get past the rude word filter...