INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

Xerox University Microfilms , 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor. Michigan 46106 NICHOLS, Gilbert William .1930- A GRAPHB1IC AND PHDNBHC ANALYSIS OF PRIMARY LEVEL WORDS.

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1973 Education, theory and practice

University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan

© Copyright by

Gilbert William Nichols

1973 A GRAPHEMIC AND PHONEMIC ANALYSIS

OF PRIMARY LEVEL WORDS

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University

*

By

Gilbert William Nichols, B.A., M.A.

*****

The Ohio State University 1973

Approved by

Advisor Early and Middle Childhood. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is fortunate when one can identify and acknowledge the influences which have molded one's work and thinking.

My gratitude is extended to the following for their assis­ tance and inspiration in my graduate work.

The faculty at Ohio State University and my family have expressed confidence, provided physical and academic attributes and a tolerant climate for completion of this dissertation. A few persons have contributed so directly to the work that special mention of their influence is appropriate. Charlotte Huck and Martha King revealed the beauty of the English language in literature and every day discourse. Edgar Dale inspired thinking by asking meaningful questions, by restructuring and manipulating ideas which appeared to be answers to generate still deeper thinking. Jim Kerber taught me to be specific in everything I thought or stated. Robert Emans caused me to question the obvious, to refine, reexamine and remain dubious about apparent linguistic insights. Joan Nichols worked beside me as a research assistant, typist and morale officer during the entire project. Without these people, this work never would have been created; with them, however, it was difficult not to succeed. .. Gil Nichols VITA

June 11, 1930 Born - Granby, Missouri

1952 • • • • B.A. in Education and English, Drury College, Springfield, Missouri

1952-1957. . Private Industry

1957-1961. . Elementary Teacher, Kansas City, Missouri Area Schools

1961 . . . M.A., University of Missouri at Kansas City, Missouri

1961 • . • N.D.E.A. Institute in Physics and Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University, College Park, Pennsylvania

1961-1964. Instructor, Wayne State College, Wayne, Nebraska

1964-1971. Associate Professor, Iowa Wesleyan College, Mt. Pleasant, Iowa

1969 . . . E.D.P.A. Institute in Mathematics, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas

1969-1971, Reading Fellowship Program, Teaching Assistant, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1971- Associate Professor of Education, Fort Hays Kansas State College, Hays, Kansas

PUBLICATIONS

"Outdoor Education". Conference Proceedings, Nebraska Academy of Science, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1962.

"Innovations In Teaching - Hardware and Software". Faculty Lecture Series. Iowa Wesleyan College, Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, 1965. FIELDS OF STUDY

Undergraduate Major Areas: Education and English

Graduate Major Areas: Elementary Education

4 Developmental Reading

Related Areas of Emphasis Language Arts

Children's Literature TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... ii

VITA ...... iii

LIST OF TABLES ...... vi

Chapter

I. STRATEGIES FOR SIMPLIFICATION OF WORD RECOGNITION INSTRUCTION...... 1

Purpose of the Study Exploration and Synthesis of Word Recognition Research The Spelling Pattern Analysis Technique The Degree of Difficulty Analysis Definitions Significance of the Study

II. WORD RECOGNITION GENERALIZATIONS IN LEARNING TO READ ...... 22

Word Recognition Generalizations Word Studies Done With Children The Study of Words and Learning to Read Summary

III. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ...... 93

Selection of the Corpus of Words Selection of the Dictionary Procedure of Analysis Spelling Pattern Analysis Degrees of Difficulty Summary

IV. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS. . . . 108

Spelling Pattern Analysis Description of Syllables Analysis of the Phonemic Characteris­ tics of the Corpus of Words Comparison of the Graphemic and Phonemic Respellings Summary of Spelling Pattern Analysis Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty Summary V. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION 151

Review of Word Recognition Literature Analysis of Spelling Patterns Discussion Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty Implications for Practice in Research Limitations Needed Research Indicated by the Present Study Conclusion

APPENDIX...... 206

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 424

* LIST OF TABLES

Basic Word and Syllable Counts......

2 Table of Spelling Pattern Classifications . .

3 Graphemically Spelled Words by Number of Syllables With Spelling Patterns ......

4 Distribution of Graphemically Spelled Sylla­ bles by Spelling Patterns. All Possible Cases Classified As R-Controlled , ......

5 Distribution of Graphemically Spelled Sylla­ bles by Spelling Patterns. All Possible R-Controlled Cases Reclassified ......

6 Rank Order of Spelling Patterns by Number of Orthographic Syllable Cases, Including Z e r o ......

7 Phonemically Respelled Words by Number of Syllables With Spelling Patterns......

8 Distribution of Phonemically Respelled Sylla­ bles by Spelling Patterns, All Possible Cases Classified As R-Controlled......

9 Distribution of Phonemic Respelling of Sylla­ bles by Spelling Patterns. All R-Controlled Cases Reclassified, If Possible ......

10 Rank Order of Spelling Patterns by Number of Phonemic Syllable Cases, Including Zero. All Possible Cases Counted As R-Controlled. .

11 Distribution of Spelling Pattern Syllables Reclassified Into Phonemic Respelling Patterns

12 Spelling Patterns Which Exceed 75% Grapheme- Phoneme Correspondence......

13 Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty......

vi Table Page

14 Distribution of Words by Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty Classifications. . . . 236

15 Distribution of the 132 Most Frequently Used American-English Words by Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty Classifi­ cation...... 237

16 Identification of Spelling Patterns and Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty Rankings for Dale List of 3000 Common W o r d s ...... 238

17 Dictionaries Used In Related Word Recognition Studies ...... 423

vii CHAPTER I

STRATEGIES FOR SIMPLIFICATION

OF WORD RECOGNITION INSTRUCTION

The reading process is a composite of word analysis skills, comprehension skills, and reaction skills which range from the simplest to the most complex cognitive, affective and psychomotor functions. It is the intertwin­ ing of these facets of the reading process that makes teaching a child to read, such a difficult task. Attempts at simplification of any complex process, like reading, are confronted with problems of explaining activities which involve the total organism. In the present study, a narrow strand of this complex of skills was isolated to facilitate an in“depth study of the decoding features of a selected corpus of primary level words.

The present study was an exploration of word structure features related to phonic instruction and word recognition generalizations to determine if a simpler, more organized approach to the teaching of word recognition could be designed by maximizing use of the grapheme-phoneme charac­ teristics of tnese words.

1 2

The grapheme-phoneme correspondence procedures of the present study were influenced by a number of recent studies which have utilized comparable techniques in word analysis explorations. These studies used techniques of analysis of the phoneme to grapheme processes as in spelling, and the grapheme to phoneme processes of decoding in reading.

The comparison studies conducted by Hanna and Moore (1950) and Hanna, Hodges and Rudorf (1966) were particularly use­ ful. Both of these studies were based on Bloomfield's

(1933) assumption that large numbers of American-English words contain consistent*phoneme-grapheme relationships, and that the American-English writing system is essentially an alphabetic structure.

The present study was also influenced and abetted by

Venezky's (196 3, 196 7) work in establishing orthographic patterns, particularly as these patterns relate to phonemic patterns and provided applicable data and suggestions for possible pitfalls when dealing with morpheme boundaries.

Another idea from Venezky which was useful in designing the study was his insistence that the written form of

English is more systematic than has been generally accep­ ted. The premise for this position is that writing is more than a mirror of speech and that deviations from a perfect letter-sound correspondence are not necessarily

"irregularities" but are functional parts of a unique and 3

highly predictable graphic system. The system of writing

is not necessarily a letter by letter system, but letters,

as sounds, cluster and are modified by adjacent letters

and positions within words and syllables. This supposition

was borne out in many facets of the present study. The

irregularities or inconsistencies of American-English

orthography are abetted by the words of non-Anglo-Saxon

origin which constitute a majority of the lexicon, still

discernible spelling patterns exist. For example, in words

absorbed into English directly from Latin with an initial

h (hold, hurry) the h is*sounded; if the word is of Old

French origin (heir, hour) it is silent (Durkin, 1962).

The apparent problem is further expanded in that the spel­

ling of some borrowed words is retained (contralto), where­

as with others the spelling has been adapted (religion).

The influences on the Anglo-Saxon language following the

Norman Conquest (1066) resulted in the respelling of many

words which might otherwise be more consistent with

American-English orthography and thus more easily encoded

and decoded.

Other factors that complicate the phoneme-grapheme

relationships of American-English, and consequently contri­

bute apparent orthographic inconsistencies include the

Anglicized pronunciation of borrowed words without graphe- mic alterations; changes in inflections; regional dialects; 4

social dialects (Shuy, 1964); and deletions and/or addi­

tions of alphabetical symbols coupled with changes in

graphemic values (Neilson, 1954; Downing, 196 9; Fries,

1962; Furness, 1959).

This investigation vas an attempt to utilize findings

of linguistic principles regarding phoneme-grapheme rela­

tionships with a primary level word list (Hanna and Moore,

1953; Hanna, et al., 1966; Venezky, 1967). There was a

concerted effort to retain a utility factor as designed by

other studies of word generalizations (Clymer, 1963;

Bailey, 1967; Emans, 196 7) and actual word usage (Dale,

1960; Rinsland, 1945; Kucera, 1967; Dolch, 1942). 5

Purpose of the Study

In the search for an explanation and simplification

of word recognition skills, three major areas for the study

were identified. These areas provided the threefold pur­

pose of the study. The first part was to synthesize the

results of scattered and segmented pieces of word recogni­

tion research into a paradigm indicating previously unsta­

ted relationships of ideas offered in reading theories and

reported research results. This part of the study suggests

the need for further research in specific facets of the

reading process. The second part of the study involved the

application of a spelling pattern formula to a selected

corpus of primary level words. This technique of word

analysis was developed by Emans and Harms (1971) in a study of words beyond the primary level. The technique was modi­

fied to accommodate the word patterns which emerged from the present study. The third part of the study was to de­

sign and apply a degree of difficulty scale to the same

corpus of words that was analyzed with the spelling pattern technique. Each of the three parts of the study will be described in greater detail in the following sections. Exploration and Synthesis of

Word Recognition Research

The first portion of the present study was devoted to identifying research related to word recognition generali­ zations and combining findings and implications into a structure revealing relationships and areas lacking in empirical research. The ability to read relies on a set of fundamental skills and abilities, a number of which are usually classified as word recognition skills. Recognizing word symbols is one of the first steps in a complex of acts that comprise the act of’reading. Without decoding, the transfer of graphemic symbols to sound elements, the other features of the reading act cannot occur.

The broad definition of word recognition offered by

David Russell (1961) was useful in organizing an overview of this cluster of skills. Russell referred to word recog­ nition skills as being predominantly visual (clues from pictures, general patterns and configuratin, familiar parts and sight words) or basically meaningful (clues from context and compounds of known parts) and analytical (phonic and structural analysis and dictionary aids). Russell's clas­ sifications were used to identify the literature in the first section of this study which is a review of word recognition studies and position articles that range from treatments of sight words to those which discuss innovative 7

orthographies. The content from this literature has been

rearranged into three general groups for this study. This

arrangement of studies implements the discussion within

the design of the present study. The first group treats

studies of words, the second group is concerned with

research conducted with readers and the third group is

concerned with summary studies which have marshalled re-

search findings into organized patterns.

The studies of words category includes studies of

controlled vocabularies, frequently used words, phoneme-

grapheme correspondences,, phonics generalizations, words used in and out of context, words with emotional overtones, readiness training, linguistic similarities and innovative orthographies. The research conducted with readers usually centers on problems of the beginning or mature readers, comparisons of materials, methods or combinations of varia­ bles and measures of word recognition generalizations used in some facet of the reading process. The summary studies are compilations of the findings and ideas of several people. They are eclectic in scope and usually are struc­ tured into strands that lead to a somewhat logical conclu­ sion. The review of many of the major studies is handled in greater detail in Chapter II. The Spelling Pattern Analysis Technique

The second part of the study involved the application

of a spelling pattern formula to a selected corpus of primary level words. The Dale List of 30Q0 Common Words was selected as the word corpus. The Merriam Webster New

Collegiate Dictionary, second edition, was used as the authority for the spelling and phonetic re-spelling of the words. The spelling patterns were applied to the orthogra­ phic spelling and phonological re-spelling of each word by three researchers working independently of each other in coding and comparing the relationships between the two spelling structures. The primary concern of this portion of the study was to determine the possible utility of spel­ ling patterns as a technique in word recognition.

The rationale for this portion of the study is embed­ ded in the problems of American-English orthography and the act of reading. English orthography is a complex system of symbols representing the sounds of oral language. Twenty- six symbols represent approximately forty-five sounds.

Most symbols represent more than one sound, e.g., a, e, and s. Many sounds are represented by more than one symbol,

and k. There is no simple one to one corres­ pondence between sound and symbol.

In helping children to learn how to read, teachers must guide boys and girls in their understanding of this complex system. In the past this has been done by teach­

ing, inductively or deductively, a series of rules and

generalizations. In the recent past a number of studies

(Bailey, 1967; Burmeister, 1966, 1968; Clymer, 1963; Emans,

196 7; Oaks, 1952) have investigated and questioned the

validity of these generalizations. The entire concept of word recognition generalizations has come under attack.

In its place a number of linguists (Bloomfield, 1933, 1942,

1963; Fries, 1962, 1966, 1970; Halle, 1956) have proposed the use of spelling patterns as the initial techique of teaching. .

The basic patterns of spelling used in this study were derived from a study conducted by Emans and Harms

(19 71). In that study the words analyzed were the random sample of words list developed by Emans for his replication of Clymer's study and were used in developing the Emans-

Harms Spelling Patterns Analysis. Emans' sample is com­ posed of ten per cent of the words (1,944) beyond the primary level (grade four) in The Teacher's Word Book of

30,000 Words by Thorndike and Lorge (1944). The New

Collegiate Dictionary (Webster) was used to record the spellings, phonological respellings, and syllabic division of the words.

Parts One and Two of the Emans-Harms (1971) study included the development of a list of word patterns. The word patterns were derived from four sources:

(1) Fries, Charles, Linguistics and Reading, 196 2.

(2) Merrill Linguistic Readers, Books 1-6, by Charles Fries, et al. (196 6)

(3) The list of vowel combinations given in Chapter 5 of Phonics and the Teaching of Reading, Delores Durkin (1962)

(4) Patterns which emerged from the primary tabulations of the first part of the study.

The generalizations of the spelling patterns were categor­

ized as primary, secondary and tertiary. The initial

check of the first part of the study was to match the

syllables of the spellings and phonological respellings

of the words against the word patterns.

The second part of the study involved the tabulation

of the number of the phonological respellings which corres­

ponded to the word patterns. The criteria for applicabil­

ity developed by Clymer (196 3) was used with some modifica­

tion in the Emans-Harms (1971) study. The Clymer criteria w e r e :

1. The word list must contain a minimum of twenty words to which the generalization might apply.

2. The generalization must have a per cent utility of at least 75 (p. 2).

The Emans' list was 75 per cent as large as Clymer1s list,

thus a minimum of 15 words to which the generalization might apply was deemed a substantial criterion rather than

the 20 word minimum. 11

The third part of the study was an analysis of the

stability of the vowel sounds in the ending phonograms.

The procedure for analysis of the Dale List of 3000

Common Words for the present study utilized approximately the same procedure of analysis as the Emans-Harms study.

These patterns devised by Emans and Harms were modified

as needs arose. As the analysis of words progressed, patterns other than those used in the Emans-Harms group emerged from recurring syllable structures. The modifica­ tions were expansions of existing patterns by peripheral

changes to the environment of basic patters as the initial r controlled vowel consonant (vrCo), and the addition of patterns that were not treated in the Emans-Harms word sample, as the gu and silent letter classifications.

The Degree of Difficulty Analysis

The third part of the study was to design and apply a degree of difficulty scale to the same corpus of words analyzed with the spelling patterns technique. The degree of difficulty scale was constructed from preliminary observations and results of the spelling patterns analysis.

This data was combined with the assumptions that multiple syllable words are more difficult to decode than single syllables (Courtney, 1953; Groff, 1962; Balmuth, 1966;

Spache and Spache, 1969), and that the beginning reader would experience a greater degree of difficulty in 12

recognizing words that did not follow a simple grapheme to phoneme pattern (Deighton, 1959; Balmuth, 1966; Winkley,

1966, 1970; Umstattd, 1965). The spelling pattern analysis proved a very useful method for determining the variances between the orthographic and phonological spelling. The observations of particularly erratic or troublesome fea­ tures of the words as observed and recorded by the resear­ chers were also useful in designating the decoding diffi­ culties. The hierarchial structure of the scale of difficulty evolved from analysis and introspection of the first and second parts of the present study. A primary concern of the third portion of the study was to delineate the minimum knowledge of the grapherne-phoneme relationships needed to decode a word likely to be encountered by a beginning reader.

Definitions

Each author or researcher's definition of reading is paramount in determining a writer's positions on word recognition generalizations. Reading may be defined at its inception level as the process of learning to read, begin­ ning reading or the skill acquisition phase. An author may choose to define reading at a later and more mature level as the using of skills to learn from the materials being read. In brief, a definition must determine if reading 13 involves learning to read or reading to learn (Dale, 1971).

Failure to designate the level of reading being discussed creates areas of misunderstanding in the professional literature and an overburden of confusion in the already muddled writings of the pseudo-educators.

Fries (1962) directed attention to the problems of terminology that exist between linguistics and reading educators with particular attention to the use of the words phonics, phonemics and phonetics. For the linguists, phonetics is concerned with the sounds of language, with the articulation that produces and accounts for sound distinctions, not with the ways these sounds are spelled nor their role in the reading process. Phonetic analysis, which is a pedagogical technique more accurately called phonics, is a method of teaching reading that emphasizes the relationships between graphemes and phonemes. To help avert confusion of similar terminology, the following definitions were used consistently in the present study.

The term reading was restricted to the level of word recognition or decoding. The importance of comprehension in reading was recognized and held to be the eventual goal of all instruction in reading. However, comprehension in reading was not an entity in the present study of word recognition generalizations applicable to a selected corpus of words. Harris (1970) stated the rationale for this 14

definition that the "...inability to recognize most of

the words can effectively block comprehension. Efficient

reading requires both that most words can be recognized

immediately at sight and that the reader can work out the

identification of unfamiliar words (p. 315)."

Phonetics is the scientific study of the production,

transmission and reception of speech sounds. Phonetic

analysis is often used inappropriately to describe phonic

analysis, which is a pedagogical technique in which chil­

dren are taught the relationships between phonemes and

graphemes.

Phonic analysis is the use of knowledge of vowel and

consonant sound clues to produce sounds, hopefully the

correct pronunciation of a word, phonics is a method of teaching reading that emphasizes the relationships between

graphemes and phonemes.

Word analysis is any process using structural or phonetic features of a word, singly or in combination, which assist in pronouncing the word.

Phonemic respelling was used to designate the diction­ ary sources’ graphic interpretation of the phonological structure of the word including diacritical markings in addition to the letter substitutions. Graphemic spelling or representation refers to the standard spelling of a word in traditional orthography. 15

The term grapheme was restricted to the conventional

letters of traditional orthography since the study was

concerned with analysis of words as they are usually

represented in printed material. Phoneme was used in the

usual sense of representing a sound element in oral

language.

Spelling pattern designated the sequences of letters

which were used to represent the sequences of phonemes of

a word. Consistent sequences were placed into categories

of similarity and numbered for more efficient processing

methods. However, abbreviations using v for vowel, c for

consonant and the like were deemed more meaningful for

discussion purposes, thus the basic spelling pattern of

the initial consonant-short vowel-consonant pattern was

designated 1.01 (Co v Co or v Co). The complete listing

of the basic spelling patterns used in the study is in the

Appendix.

Word family was used to describe groups of words with

the same spelling options, whether arbitrary as in weight

and eight or whether there is a source of commonality historically or etymologically. This is a popular usage term rather than a linguistic usage.

Word recognition generalizations refers to the rules which govern the practices of accentuation, consonant and vowel sounds, and syllabication of American-English words. 16

In the review of the related literature, it was noted that

these word recognition generalizations have been referred

to as phonic generalizations, phonic rules and phonic

principles.

Utility of word recognition generalizations was used

to describe the percentage quotient of the number of words

or syllables in a given sample that follow a pattern

divided by the total of words which could follow a general­

ization or pattern.

Silent letters were defined as those letters, not a part of a blend or digraph, which are not heard when a word is pronounced. It is recognized that some authorities

contend there are no silent letters since all letters serve as a part of the total grapheme. However, for this study the concept of silent letters was accepted since this investigation is concerned mainly with the learning to read process. 17

Significance of the Study

Our society has determined reading to be one of the

most important and essential skills that a child must

learn. Deficiency in reading determines that a child

cannot be successful in school. The disadvantaged person

is almost by definition a nonreader and any nonreader is

working against a severe handicap. The history of reading

instruction reflects the enormous value placed on reading

in the English speaking world. However, the pressure of our society for successful teaching of reading has probably

dictated the design of many studies toward seeking some

immediate solutions. Immediate solutions and direct an­ swers to the problems of teaching a complex of skills involving divergent aptitudes and competencies which are

further complicated by the great differences that exist between, as well as within, individual learners are not easily acquired.

For a long time the investigators of reading instruc­ tion have attempted to identify the characteristics of the most effective reading program. This is a worthy endeavor but there are numerous uncontrollable difficulties and variables which plague an investigation of the relative merits of two or more reading programs. The most extensive and sophisticated of studies of this type conducted by

Bond and Dykstra (196 7) in an eclectic effort of 27 18 investigators failed to disclose the over-all superiority of any one type of program. The summaries of both advo­ cates and detractors of this type of investigation agree that, above all, it is the teacher who has the greatest effect on pupil achievement. Other features are not empirically meaningful, thus the knowledge abort what is being taught is not advanced by this type of study. There­ fore, it is possible that the questions regarding the characteristics of the most effective reading program need to be redirected toward different features of the reading process which may provide more specific answers and impli­ cations for instruction. The most valuable contribution from these studies may be the demonstrated need for explicit and specific variables in reading research.

Several recent studies have been directed toward exploration of the basic functions and characteristics of the learner and what is to be learned. These studies have posed questions and introduced descriptions and experimen­ tal work which has led to new approaches to the problems of reading. The areas of psychology and linguistics have contributed richly to these new approaches, particularly in the exploration of the basic processes of decoding. The present study is a phase of this contemporary exploration of the structures of the language. 19

Decoding, translation from grapheme to phoneme, has

been one of the basic problem areas of reading research

for many years. The exploration of the processes of

translation from letters to sounds is different for the beginning and the mature reader. The present study was

restricted to the beginning level of reading where the

child is learning to read.

The linguistic features used in the analysis portion of the study were not created for arbitrary research purposes. They were applications of ideas which may have been presented as part of the almost omnibus term of

"phonics". The teaching of reading has always depended on the use of word recognition generalizations which show the correlation between the graphic symbols and the sound system of the language. The utility studies of the 1950's and 1960's questioned the usefulness of what was being taught about how to recognize words. Many of the word recognition generalizations were not found to be functional when applied to words in print. During the same period several studies were directed toward exploration of the regularities of American-English words to determine what regularities, if any, could be used in the one-way rela­ tionship of sound to symbol. The present study was de­ signed to provide an exhaustive study of the symbol to sound, grapheme to phoneme, relationships which character- 20

ize the structure of approximately 3000 words which a

child learning to read probably would encounter.

The results of the study have implications for

program design and classroom instructional practices. The

word analysis data reveals the spelling patterns which

dominate the selected corpus of words. This data discloses

a number of spelling pattern features which are functional

for decoding and conversely suggests the limitations of

using an isolated spelling pattern technique for decoding

purposes. The Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty has

potential for identification of word features which may

be modified by use of this scale to determine difficult

words. The word exploration purposes of this research

were accomplished by several analyses of the relationships

between the graphic symbol system and the phonological

system which it represents.

The review of the literature portion of the present

study may be useful to other research for purposes of

identification of the type of research which may be most useful in the future. The trends of word recognition research of the past were useful in designing the present

study which has identified areas which need still further exploration. The conclusions should help avert explora­ tions of areas which hold little promise for fruitful findings in the understanding of reading. 21 Overview of Subsequent Chapters

The present study is described in greater detail in subsequent chapters. The first part of the study was a synthesis of studies treating word recognition generaliza­ tions in the learning to read process. This portion of the study is presented in Chapter II. Chapter III is a de­ tailed description of the design and methodology used in the analyses of the 3000 word corpus. The findings, results and statistical analyses of the present study are presented in Chapter IV. Chapter V includes the summary statements about the various facets of the study, some implications for use of the findings of the present study, and some suggestions for areas where further research might be most useful. CHAPTER II

WORD RECOGNITION GENERALIZATIONS

IN LEARNING TO READ

The first part of the present study was a review of the literature germane to word recognition generalizations and the role of word recognition in learning to read. The purpose of this chapter was to organize studies and theor­ ies about word recognition generalizations into clusters of related elements. The ideas and conclusions expressed in the documents reviewed present a profile of word recogni­ tion. This synthesis was accomplished by organizing the literature into categories of eclectic studies based on other research findings, reader action studies and word analysis studies.

The first group reports the ideas composed and synthe­ sized by authorities in summarizing the data and findings of related studies regarding word recognition. The scholar­ ly efforts of the authors reviewed in th^s section influ­ enced the present study not only in its conception and de­ sign but throughout the word analysis portions of the study.

The second group of studies was organized around elements of reader participation and is presented in the

22 23 section entitled "Reader Action Studies". In the third major category, studies were selected because of a contri­ bution to the field of information about words and word analysis.

The initial screening of materials was conducted by using David Russell's (1961) broad definition of word recognition which was based on the three overlapping classifications of studies concerned with visual clues, studies emphasizing meaning, and studies concerned with analytical clues. Russell states:

Even though a child knows the meaning of a word it does not follow that he can identify it the first time he is asked to read it or rec­ ognize it even after he has met it a few times on chart or in book. In addition to understand­ ing he must have some skills in "unlocking" new or partly known words. In other words, he must develop the ability to "attack" verbal symbols so that he can pronounce them correctly and clothe them with some meaning. He must develop abilities in word perception which lead to auto­ matic recognition of words previously studied, and also in the ways of working out unfamiliar or partly known words. ...(the) methods of attack may be summar­ ized in three overlapping categories:

Predominantly Visual Clues 1. Picture aids 2 . Sight words 3. General pattern or configuration 4. Peculiarities in appearance 5. Familiar parts Emphasis on Meaning 6. Context clues 7. Compounds of known parts 24

Mainly Analytical Clues 8. Phonetic (phonic) analysis 9. Structural analysis 10. Dictionary aids to pronunciation

This list of ten methods suggests that word recog­ nition abilities may be complex. It shows, more­ over, that a skillful reader, even by the second or third grade, has several strings to his bow— he does not rely exclusively on one method of attack for all kinds of words (1961, p. 294).

These word recognition skills overlap in teaching situations as well as in classification systems. This has propagated numerous listings of word recognition skills and techniques for teaching them. There is a consensus that in learning to read, pupils use unique arrays and combinations of skills; however, the techniques can be generally classi­ fied into visual, meaning and analytical categories (Singer,

1969) .

The documents identified and reviewed with Russell's

(1961) screening criteria were reclassified into the schemata for this chapter which emerged from the findings of the studies and the goals of the present study. The intent of this chapter was not to structure a theory, per se, but to determine the relationships of some reading research which has been declaimed as being too frequently "fragmen­ tary and unrelated (Scott, 1954)." The next three sections present documents reporting research and opinions within the framework as previously described. 25

Word Recognition Generalizations

The most comprehensive study of word recognition

studies in reading research in general conducted to date

.was presented in Jeanne Chall's Learning to Read: The

(jlreat Debate (196 7) . Chall and her associates carefully

reviewed the majority of the research studies involving

word recognition features conducted during the fifty years

preceding 1965. Her carefully prepared critiques of the

literature about research efforts and the results of word

recognition studies presented relevant and sometimes astoun­

ding data in meaningful constructions, frequently in chart

and tabular formats. The conclusions stated by Chall do

not always concur with those stated by the authors being

reviewed, which may cause some discussion about interpreta­

tion of research findings. However, her summaries and other

observations are informative and offer insight, often by

asking questions about basic problems confronting educators.

In her summary of the word recognition literature,

Chall concluded that the majority of the studies indicated

that formal or systematic phonics programs and programs

emphasizing decoding in the initial stages of instruction

have been measured to be superior in reading achievement

results in comparisons with programs which emphasize

integrated phonic analysis approaches. This summary con­

clusion has influenced approaches to early reading 26

instruction which have been published since 1967. Reading

text books published after 1967 include more structured

phonics in word recognition skills than was formerly advo­

cated by the proponents and authors of basic developmental

programs (Spache and Spache, 1969) . It is quite likely that

Chall's logically organized study of studies was the impetus

for the reincarnation of previously discarded approaches to teachinq word recognition. The dearth of information about word structures and recognition features provides many inad­ vertent opportunities for word recognition instruction of limited usefulness. There is a generally recognized need for instruction about the*phonic structures of the language, but the limited data about the reading features of American-

English orthography inhibits the development of program con­ tent and sequence. The need for the findings of the present study and other such exploratory research is clearly illus­ trated by this situation.

Chall's (1967) conclusions concur with a similar position assumed by Helen Murphy (1962). Her paper was a review of thirty years of research related to the rela­ tionship of children's knowledge of letter names and sounds and their success in learning to read. This research sum­ mary included studies made to determine what skills children possessed when entering first grade, studies of pre-school experiences reported by parent interviews and school 27

adjustment as evaluated by teachers. The profiles of

experimental and control groups involved with letter

recognition projects were presented and compared to reading

readiness programs and basal reader programs. Murphy's

study of the literature revealed a positive correlation

between letter and sound facility and reading achievement.

She further concluded that these skills can be taught and

designed an inservice program for teachers who were not

competent in knowledge of word recognition skills.

A second publication by Murphy, Reading Achievement

In Relation to Growth In Perception of Word Elements In

Three Types of Beginning Reading Instruction (1965), ex­ plores the research and offers suggestions for utilizing research into classroom practice for three areas: the relationship of perception of word elements to sight vocabulary growth, the effect of early teaching of a speech based phonics program on reading achievement, and the value of writing emphasis in a speech based phonics program. A complete analysis of the programs used, the measurement of the groups and detailed explanations of the results were interestingly presented. The results of Murphy's second study further substantiated her position as presented in the preceding paragraph.

The "History of Phonics" by Emans (196 8) illustrated that there has been much controversy about the teaching of 28

phonics. The controversy has resulted in the inclusion

and exclusion of phonics instruction at various times.

Reading instruction has experienced cycles or periods where phonics instruction has become very widespread, only

to diminish in practice as other word recognition tech­

niques have become the dominant practices. At times

phonics instruction has practically disappeared, only to

reappear at a later time, but each reintroduction of phon­ ics into the classroom usually witnesses a revision of it

into something quite unlike the discarded program.

This summary does npt propose the superiority of a particular method of instruction but is an objective endeavor toward presentation of the historical development of the role of phonics.

The pros and cons of word recognition instruction of the present have historical counterparts. Emans synthe­ sizes the arguments about phonics which have permeated the educational scene since 1534. In this article the strands of logic and emotion which have been responsible for or resulted from the phonics controversies have been identi­

fied and plaited into the patterns of instruction of the past and present.

Emmett Betts' (1956) article, "Phonics, Practical

Considerations Based On Research", is an interesting survey of research investigations related to phonics as an essen- tial element in learning to read. The historical develop­ ment of phonics instruction from 1534 to 1955 was traced by combining information from some 199 documents. While this article is now somewhat dated, it is a useful summary of the period that it covers. The discussion is limited to phonics in reading rather than in listening, speaking or spelling, but several of the investigations reviewed were specifically designed for these related areas. Betts discussed several points of view about the role of phonics without advocating a particular position. He did reiterate the difficulty of attempting to make a decision about an area which has not been adequately researched and suggested that the answers might reside in experimental research in methodology. Such exploration may be needed but almost impossible to validate at the present. The first questions need to be directed toward exploration into the basic structures of what can be taught about word recognition.

More data about what is useful when a child is decoding a word must precede valid and meaningful explorations into method superiority.

A review of word recognition comparable to the Betts

(1956) article was prepared by Paul Witty and Robert

Sizemore (1956). Their article, "Phonics in the Reading

Program: A Review and an Evaluation," was prepared as a retort to Rudolph Flesch’s Why Johnny Can't Read (1955). 30

They left few stones unthrown in their response to Mr.

Flesch. The article was an extremely detailed critique

of 29 research studies on word recognition and phonics

instruction that were conducted from 1912 to 1954. On the basis of the studies reviewed, the authors recommended

readiness programs for phonics and concluded that phonic

approaches were valuable for very poor readers. They

further observed that phonic systems can lead to a tendency to recognize words piecemeal. The failure of phonics instruction per se to utilize other techniques to bring about quick, accurate word recognition was noted and cautioned against.

In her article "Selected Word Analysis Generalizations for a Group Approach to Corrective Reading in the Secondary

Schooli" Burmeister (196 8) summarized six utility studies and compared the findings for stated generalizations to identify those generally found to be most useful. She compiled lists of word recognition generalizations which were being taught. The generalizations were identified with high and low utility factors. Many of the generaliza­ tions in the then existing programs had low utility when applied to words. This article was based on her 1966 dissertation conclusions.

Huelsman (1967) examined five utility studies and generated a list of forty high utility word recognition generalizations by examination and interpretation of the 31 reported findings. It is interesting to note the partial

agreement between the lists compiled by Burmeister and

Huelsman, particularly since they examined different

utility studies in their eclectic works.

Spache and Spache (1969) presented the more notable

word recognition research in Chapter 12 in their second

edition of Reading in the Elementary School. Some ques­

tions and comments were phrased about the principal prob­

lems in word recognition investigations. Several sections

of the chapter were devoted to instructional practices that

may be helpful in teaching word recognition generalizations.

They used the results of the utility studies of Clymer

(1963) , Emans (1967) , and Bailey (1967) to generate a list of sixteen highly useful word recognition generalizations.

They also identified nine phonic principles to be taught

at the pre-primer and initial instruction levels and

seven structural principles to be taught in the elementary

grades. However, Spache and Spache (1969) frequently stated reservations about what was being taught and stated that further research should modify the practices advocated in their book.

Several interesting findings and interpretations of research findings were published in an eclectic study by

Postman and Rosenzweig (1957). They analyzed twelve studies related to perceptual recognition of words and concluded that the evidence from the studies substantiated 32 the assumption that the recognition of verbal stimuli was influenced by the verbal habits of the: perceivers, that speed of recognition was related to previous experiences with the word, and that word recognition skills could be improved through strengthening and differentiating verbal habits.

The summary studies have generally indicated the almost shameful emotionalism which has shrouded the academic ef­ forts of the research which has been attempted in the area of word recognition. The Jack of objectivity has been an immeasurable detriment to word recognition study. Perhaps the potentially more meaningful facets of word recognition have yet to be explored, the most useful questions to be asked and the most applicable findings and interpretations to be stated or recognized. Nothing should be detracted from the past efforts and findings, rather the knowledge of the results and errors of the existing research should di­ rect current efforts toward the unsolved problems, unanswered questions and unknown ingredients for successful reading instruction.

The summary studies clearly illustrate that throughout the past, numerous ideas concerning the best way to teach a child to read have been proposed and debated. The history of the ideas and debates reflected'uncertainty, indecision and conflicts which understandably arise from 33

the pressures for success because of the enormous value

placed on reading in a symbol manipulating society. Many

of the programs and methods have been devised and advocated

as having been well thought out and carefully researched

in every detail, when unfortunately they were based on

intuition, with meager or no measurable data to substanti­

ate or justify them, wholly or piecemeal. Social needs and national concern, especially since Sputnik in 1957, have provided motivation for research and development of all

facets of education. Reading, including early reading

instruction, has received careful consideration. The effort to decrease poverty also has been an impetus to reading research since a disadvantaged person is almost by defini­ tion an inept reader. These social forces have combined with other factors to create a climate for greater accept­ ance of instructional innovations, of contributions from disciplines and persons who are not reading specialists, particularly from the disciplines of psychology and linguis­ tics, and for increased support of research.

The summary studies support the need for decoding facility in the learning to read process. The current question is not whether phonics should be a part of word recognition instruction; the central problem is, rather, what features of the language should be taught? This probably has been the major problem during all of the 34

past discussion and debate. The solutions were sought

through comparisons of methods of instruction, time of

instruction and sequence of content. Tt appears that the

potentially more promising research endeavors will be in

the areas of direct study of the language and the learners

of the language.

The studies and other documents reviewed in the fol­

lowing section have elements of the learning to read

process encompassed in activities with children which usu­

ally have provided some empirical data about word recogni­

tion functions. The next two sections of the chapter review

research and other works which were directed toward explor­

ation of what is being taught about word recognition and how

the teaching is taking place. The first of these sections

treats the findings of studies conducted with children; the

second deals with studies which were concerned with word

elements and word analysis.

Word Studies Done With Children

The studies described in the following paragraphs are

related to the learning conditions and the content of words used in word acquisition programs that may suggest

another dimension to word recognition generalization understandings. It is difficult to discriminate between the effects of a method of instruction and the reaction of the learner to a stimulus that may be an unnoticed, 35

unintended or incidental stimulus. The impact of the

peripheral influences which are often unaccounted for in

research designs is illustrated in the following paragraphs.

King and Muehl (196 5) found that the type and combina­

tion of sensory cues needed by kindergarten children to

recognize similar words (like ball, bell) was the reverse

of those cues needed for dissimilar words (gate, drum).

The rank ordering of cue efficiency for similar words

was listed as picture, picture plus auditory, picture

plus auditory and echoic, auditory plus echoic and, least

effective , auditory. The intuitive judgment of teachers

that similar words need cuing in addition to that of the

spoken word was verified. The effects of the potency of

perceptual modes utilized in reading appeared uncertain in

many respects. Katz and Deutsch (1964, 1963) suggested

that modality functions among disadvantaged readers of

low socioeconomic status was unevenly developed, thus mak­

ing cross-modality shifting difficult. Wayne Otto (1961)

found evidence that the preferred mode tended to vary with

age. Staats (196 6) concluded that a learning theory which integrates instrumental and classical conditioning could serve as a basis for a comprehensive theory of language acquisition and function. He maintained that word meanings were acquired via classical conditioning, but that emotion­ al words function within the individual according to principles of instrumental conditioning. 36

A study conducted with British college students (Mor­

ton, 1965) indicated that words shown by a tachistoscope

under highly predictive context conditions were more

readily forgotten than isolated words shown without any

• context. Mason (1965) conducted instruction in word recog­

nition by use of the television screen. His subjects,

rated as good, average or poor readers, read words as they

appeared on the screen as a post test. He concluded that

poor readers learn less well from television than do good

readers and that television viewing led to some mislearn-

ings such as "Coke" for "Coca-Cola" Harris (196 7).

was unable to identify a positive superior learning pattern

or classification data in a study of the rate of acquisi­

tion and retention of interest-loaded words. His subjects

were low socioeconomic kindergarten children. Two meth­

ods of instruction were used to teach four words on two

successive trials. One method was seeing, hearing and

saying the word. The second method was seeing a picture

representing the word, hearing and seeing the word, and

seeing and saying the word. Retention of words was not

significant for sex, word type, ability or method of presen­

tation. Olson and Pau (1966) found significant differences

favoring the learning of emotionally toned words such as

kiss and hate over such neutrally toned words as come and

keep. Their work was with kindergarten children. Jones

(1965) found that nursery-school children experienced at 37

least three times as much difficulty in matching black

letters and black words as when matching colored letters

and words. Samuels and Jeffrey (19 66B) found support for

their hypothesis that learning speed and the tendency to use letter cues was significantly related to the word

lists used in teaching paired-associate words to kinder­ garten subjects. Marchbanks and Levin (1965) studied the cues used by 50 kindergarten and 50 first grade students in recognition of nonsense words. They found that specific

letters were the most salient cues, the first letter being most frequently used; the final letter was the next most important. In three letter words the last letter was the most salient cue. Total shape of the word was the least used cue.

The correlational studies based upon the measurement of students' abilities in one area to indirectly assess the values in another area, as reading programs, teaching methods, the content of stories, and numerous other varia­ tions, abound in the literature. The next several para­ graphs include some of the better known studies which have used this technique. Some studies were selected as repre­ sentative of a type of correlational study that has been pursued by several researchers or because it contained some unique feature.

The correlational studies related to word recognition skills conducted between 1938 and 1963 were summarized in 38

C hall’s Learning to Read: The Great Debate (1967, pp. 140-

159). All of these studies used one or more measures of reading achievement for comparison with the subject’s knowledge of phonics or letters. Chall's statements about word recognition skills derived from the findings of these

studies were used to organize some tenable generalizations about the research through 1963. Data from recent studies were synthesized to substantiate and refute Chall’s generalizations of the earlier works.

It is sometimes hypothesized by reading authorities that the knowledge of the names of the letters prior to learning to read facilitates the early reading process, regardless of the method of initial instruction. Samuels

(1970) challenged this idea and reported that training with four artificial graphemes did not facilitate his subjects’ abilities to learn to read words constructed of geometric forms. He suggested that the social-economic status of a child may explain the meaningful relationship found between letter-name knowledge and reading ability acquisition as stated in other studies, including one he conducted in 1967.

Wheelock (1965) investigated the effects of letter form training on the development of instant responses to capital letters with kindergarten children. She found kindergarten children capable of making instant responses to letters but 39 the ability had little effect on the experimental group's ability to learn ten sight words, thus the skill was of limited transfer value.

Muehl (1960 and 1962) found that learning letter names interfered with word recognition and was directly reflected by the frequency of omissions in verbal responses. He further concluded that kindergarten children may not have the language skills necessary to utilize letter-name labels.

Diack (I960) and Bloomfield (1963) advocated that children read letters, recognize the sounds they represent and translate the letter.sounds into words. Spache and

Spache (1969) deride this approach by demonstratig that children and adults use numerous cues in the readig process.

These dichotomies of opinion and research findings appear to result from different definitions of reading used by the individual authors. Some restrict reading to the skills involved with "learning to read" and others include "reading to learn" in their definition (Dale, 1971, p. 2) . Resolu­ tion of the definitions of reading does not eliminate all discrepancies. However, the value of direct instruction about letters in word recognition is not as definite as some proponents of phonics instruction acclaim after the terminol­ ogy is refined.

Discussions of the value of instruction about sound factors of the language and reading achievement occur frequently in the word recognition literature. Chall (1967) stated that auditory discrimination and letter

sound values also contribute to early reading success.

Harchham and Hagen (1970) measured the effects of a phonics

oriented kindergarten program on auditory discrimination

and reading readiness during 1966-69. They found that the

phonics program enhanced the readiness scores of children

in the experimental group. The group that received phonics

training as part of a readiness program not only rejected

the premise of increased auditory acuity but the results

were contrary. Marmon (196 7) found that an instructional

program of alphabet recognition and auditory training

f resulted in higher scores on word recognition tests in

lower economic areas, but such training had no effect on the

scores of children from middle-class areas. Jackie Evans

(1965) also determined that students with poor auditory

discrimination derived more benefit from a tape-recorded

program in auditory discrimination than did those with

good discrimination. There is an apparent threshold for effectiveness of this type of instruction. Auditory dis­

crimination instruction is valuable for some students but

relatively valueless for those with minimal skills. Chall expressed this idea stating, "Not everyone may need such training, but it can probably help those who do not dis­ cover the correspondence for themselves (1967, p. 117)."

The results of a study of perceptual style on word discrimination abilities of kindergarten children by 41 Rosenfield (196 7) concurred with the minimal threshold of

skills idea. She found greater improvement in a group of nonanalytic boys who received discrimination training than

in the analytic boys and both analytic and nonanalytic

girls, when measured with a word discrimination test.

The relationship between mental prowess and reading

achievement has been investigated to some extent. There

appears to be a higher correlation between letter or phonic knowledge and reading achievement than between mental

abilities and reading achievement. This correlation is greater when the initial reading instruction is a code emphasis program. The relationship between phonics knowl­ edge and reading achievement is positive beyond the third grade (Chall, p. 150). Data regarding these assump­ tions were derived from studies that compared test results.

Several recent studies contribute further supportive data to these assumptions.

A high correlation between word analysis skills in pronunciation of unknown or nonsense words and words in context in a word identification situation was reported by Benson (196 8). She studied all fifth grade students in

Greeley, Colorado,in her correlational study to determine the relationship of phonic knowledge to functional reading situations.

Balmuth (1966) found a high correlation between the ability to blend phonemes of nonsense syllables and silent 42

reading ability at all levels, grades 1 through 6. Sex

did not influence the relationship, but older children

were better phoneme blenders than younger children.

Umstattd (1965) called attention to the needs of efficient

reading skills in the upper elementary grades as increas­

ingly lengthy assignments and informational reading tax

perception skills, which she identified as phonetic,

structural analysis and syllable phonics skills.

Shea (196 5) reported a high correlation between the

Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test and other tests of

visual discrimination and the author's word recognition

tests. Her data suggested that the instrument constructed

for the study was also a more valid predictor of reading

readiness than the Metropolitan Reading Readiness Test.

Grimes (1961) tested the correlation between phonics skills and intelligence, reading skill and school achieve­ ment. He concluded that phonics skill seems to predict success in reading, that children possess traits other than those measured by intelligence tests that greatly influence school success, and that there is no indication that all children benefit from a formal phonics instructional pro­ gram in grade one.

Silberberg (1965) found that pattern analysis of the

Wechler Intelligence Scale for Children and scores of the

Bender Gestalt Test provided virtually no clues as to the nature or extent of reading deficiencies in primary grade 43

childrenf nor input necessary for visual reactions.

The reader probably uses a minimum of the visual

information on a page of print. Smith (1971) determined

as little as 25% of graphemic representations were used

* by average readers when processing 200 words per minute.

The economy of reading words with limited visual input

indicates the use of multiple cues which contribute to

decoding of clusters of letters (Johnson, 1971)• The

division of words into letter clusters has been a feature

in recent studies about the utility of word recognition

skills.

The usefulness of accent generalizations has been

examined by various researchers. Their findings have

rendered limited support to the utility of accent generali­

zations or to the actual applications made of them by

mature readers. Winkley (1966) used Gray's eighteen

recommended accent generalizations as the basis for con­

struction of an instrument to measure the usefulness of the

generalizations for matched groups of fourth, sixth and

eighth grade subjects. One group received accent generali­

zation instruction, another was instructed in the pronunci­

ation of words which had marked accented syllables. She

found that the accent generalization group was superior at

the end of grades four and six, but not at the end of grade

eight. She suggested that seven of the generalizations of

of her study be included in instructional programs. 44

Winkley reaffirmed her position on teaching accent

generalizations in subsequent work in 1970, because "...

there is a definite need...since the vowel principles are

applicable in accented syllables (p. 616) . "

A distinction between the skill acquisition phase of

reading and the application of the skills is documented

by several studies of accent and syllabication conducted

with mature readers. Courtney (1953) observed the apparent

decreasing value of knowledge of accent and syllibication

generalizations as readers matured beyond the elementary

grades. Spache and Spache (1969) found that college

freshmen students 1 knowledge of syllabication rules had

little relationship to their ability to divide 50 difficult words into syllables. Groff (1962) also questioned the

value of teaching accent and syllabication generalizations in the upper elementary grades. However, the general usefulness of syllabication knowledge may be such that it is a skill that is assimilated by the mature reader into the ability to recognize words in an omnibus fashion.

Deighton (1959) had suggested that the goal of syllabica­ tion and accent is approximate rather than specific, that its function is to stimulate recall of auditory memories of words encountered in context.

These studies of accent or syllabication utility beyond the learning to read level are useful in assessing the con­ tent of the primary word generalization programs in view of two currently unanswered questions. Is it necessary to verbalize or otherwise demonstrate knowledge about a skill before it can be applied to reading situations? Is it possible that some skills, learned under specific situa­ tions to enable a child to learn to read, then may be forgotten or assimilated into generalized skills for functional reading? Rosso (1971) found a higher relation­ ship between knowledge of word recognition generalizations and word analysis skills than between the word recognition generalizations and comprehension skills of fourth grade students. Her data suggested that word analysis instruc­ tion may be more closely related to learning to read on the skill acquisition level of reading them it is to the use of reading at higher levels.

Louise Beltramo (1954) formulated an alphabetical approach "for helping first grade children develop indepen­ dent word-attack skills useful in identifying words in their everyday reading (p. 2290)." From her study, Beltramo concluded that children who received the additional word recognition instruction for twenty minutes each day during the first semester and twenty-five minutes three times each week during the second semester, made higher scores on reading tests but that the results were not statistically significant. She also stated that spelling ability was helped by the experimental procedures. 46

Watkins (195 4) measured normally progressing children

in grade three and children in grades 4, 5, and 6 that were reading at the third grade level for knowledge of

phonic skills. She concluded that '’Retarded readers seem

to possess more phonetic knowledge than the normal progress

group, but the retarded readers do not apply this knowledge

to reading situations (p. 644),»

Bedell and Nelson (195 4) measured the effectiveness of

direct instruction in word attack by use of phonic analysis with "...superior intellectual ability and high socio­ economic level" fourth, fifth and sixth grade students.

They concluded that the procedures used with the experimen­

tal group produced superior results in the post test at all grade levels.

A detailed study of the relationship between verbal habits and the visual recognition of words was conducted by Postman and Conger (195 4). College students were measured by a tachtistacopic procedure of recognition of 27 three-letter words. The results indicated (1) that there was no relationship between the recognition thresholds and the trigram frequency of words, (2) that verbal habits were important determiners of the speed of recognition of letter sequences, and (3) that subjects responded with relatively frequent (high usage) words for incomplete stimulus cues. It was concluded that speed of recognition for letter sequences varied significantly with the strength

of the subject's verbal habits that he associated with the

graphemic stimuli. There were no effects of sheer

frequency of exposure to the mastery of the vocabulary.

In a later publication Postman and Rosenzweig (1957) anal­ yzed twelve studies related to the perceptual recognition of words. Their synthesis of conclusions further substan­ tiated the assumption that the recognition of verbal stimuli is influenced by the verbal habits of the perceiv- er, that past experience with a word increases the speed of recognition of the word, and that word recognition skills can be improved through strengthening and differen­ tiating verbal habits.

Spielberger and Denny (196 3) conducted a study compar­ able to the Postman and Conger (195 4) work. They used college subjects to determine threshold levels for recog­ nition of visual stimuli as related to verbal ability and word frequency. The subjects from the upper and lower twenty per cent of scores on the ACE Linguistic Scale re­ sponded to the twelve words selected from the Thorndike-

Lorge (1944) word list. As hypothesized, the high ability subjects recognized low frequency words more rapidly than the low ability subjects.

Another study that substantiated the assumption that high frequency words were more readily recognized than 48

infrequently used words was conducted by John Hall at

Pennsylvania State University (1954). His study utilized

college students, the Thomdike-Lorge (1944) word count

and five second presentations of the selected corpus of

twenty words. The results of the recall counts confirmed

that, within limits, the more frequently a word appears in

the language, the more readily it is recognized. Hall

suggested that the Thorndike-Lorge vocabulary could be

used to calibrate words used in learning experiences.

McGinnies, Comer and Lacy (1952) investigated word

length in addition to word frequency for neutrally-toned

words. They determined that word recognition thresholds

were lower for frequently used words, higher for longer

words. However, the data analysis also revealed a signifi­

cant interaction between frequency and word length.

Frequently used long words were more easily recognized

than frequently used short words. The converse also indi­

cated that low-frequency words of increased length were more difficult to recognize than shorter low-frequency words.

Word recognition by visual analysis was described by

Tinker and McCullough (1968) as a pupil's ability to

recognize a printed word by simply looking at it. Sight recognition means recognition of the word or phrase by a quick gestalt (Burmeister, 1970) so speed of recognition 49 was assumed to be a factor in sight word recognition. If a reader does not immediately recognize a word, he may resort to other cues as pictures in the text being read or familiar or unusual characteristics of the word form to reduce his uncertainty about a word or meaning. Dawson

(1971) recommended direct instruction in the use of word recognition cues to be used with words not in the reader's sight vocabulary. A word must have been seen at least once in print and decoded in some way at that time to be included in a reader's sight vocabulary; however, a sight word may or may not have meaning for the reader feurmeister / 19 7 0) . A child may be capable of pronouncing a word that is not in his register so verbalization with­ out meaning may occur (Dale, 1971).

The knowledge that some children read before they were given minimal instruction, and certainly before formal instruction in school, has contributed interest and specu­ lation into the area of when and what word recognition skills were used by the very young reader. The assumption was that these skills should be presented to children early in the initial instruction in reading. Durkin's

(1966) research supported the tendency to be more concerned with materials and methods and less concerned about matura­ tion, mental age and readiness testing. She suggested reexamination of the common practice of postponement of 50

formal instruction in reading until first grade. Gates

offered this same suggestion in 192 8. In The Process of

Education, BrUner (1960) emphasized the necessity for

considering the "structure of knowledge" in all curriculum

planning, and instructional procedures. How and what to

1 structure1 and when to introduce the components of the

'structure' of reading instruction as related to word

recognition was discussed with Mathews (1966) observations

of reading methods. The interpretations of the role of

words extends into, or possibly originates from, the

philosophies and theories of the various approaches to

initial instruction or readiness for reading.

The role assigned to words has been a dominant factor

in all methods of reading instruction (Harris, 1962).

Mitford Mathews (1966) described three lucid evolutions

of reading methods in his book Teaching to Read: Histori­

cally Considered. His exposition was a linguist's and

lexicographer's perspective of the history of reading in­

struction. He described three fundamental approaches to

reading instruction which have generated during various periods of time in man's attempt to teach other men to

read. The first and oldest method was introduced by the

Greeks, adopted by the Romans, exported to and used almost

universally in English and German schools until the 18th

Century. It was a synthetic, alphabetic "letters-to-words" 51 method fraught with the serious limitations of a purely alphabetic method of instruction for reading the ortho­ graphy of a language that was not purely alphabetic. Math­ ew’s second method developed in Germany during the 17th and

18th Centuries and was imported into the United States late in the 18th Century. It was basically a "words-to- letters" method, later reduced to the "word" method, in which whole words were used for the purpose of analysis of sounds and letters (phonemes and graphemes). The words were vehicles of instruction and were not used for the development of sight vocabulary. This second method was a modification of the synthetic or alphabetic method from which it evolved. The third method, according to Mathew's analysis, was a "words-to-reading" method that developed during the 19th Century in the schools in the United States.

This method was usually referred to as the "look-say" method and dominated most reading instruction in the United

States during the first five or six decades of the 19th

Century (Harris, 1969). In essence, the "look-say" method aimed to propel the learner's thinking from the whole word to its meaningful context and thus develop a sight vocabulary prior to acknowledgement of letters.

Mathew's work stressed that the differences between methods of initial instruction in reading were essentially distinctions as to the time and procedure used in present- 52 ing the letters of the alphabet of the language. He contended that English was an alphabetic language and implied the virtues of utilizing these features in initial instructional methods. Mathews summarized the thinking of Carroll (196 4) from the field of psychology, and other linguists as Fries (1962) and Bloomfield (19 33, 1942) with his prophetically phrased statement that "...no matter how a child is taught to read, he comes socner or later to the strait gate and the narrow way: he has to learn the letters and the sounds (1966 , p. 208).11 Mathews further contended that early instruction in the use of letters and sounds was a superior method of instruction; however, he substantiated this position by citing a lack of evidence for not teaching in this fashion.

Theodore Harris (1962) suggested the desirability of distinctions similar to Mathews (1966). He suggested that synthetic programs (discrimination-first methods), in which letters were taught early in the program, be evaluated with criteria different from that used for analytic pro­ grams (meaning-first emphasis methods) in which letter discrimination was somewhat delayed. It m.ay be helpful to use Harris 1 suggested criteria in evaluation of studies of words and word elements as well as approaches to reading instruction. 53

The dissention among reading educators about word

recognition instruction is no longer restricted to the

need for such skills, but to which skills have the

greatest potential for decoding American-English orthogra­

phy. Competence in reading depends on the ability to

recognize words in graphic form and to transfer the

printed symbol to a known aspect of cognition. A reader

without an "effective means of identifying and recognizing

words for his own level of advancement, will be handicapped

in all other aspects of reading (Bond and Tinker, 196 7, p. 303)."

Word recognition skills and techniques have been

identified as an integral part of learning to read. This

level of reading does not end in the primary grades as sometimes assumed. Tinker and McCullough (196 8) admonished this position stating that

To acquire skill in recognizing words and to keep improving in doing so constitutes one of the main tasks in reading instruction in the primary grades. And teaching to perfect the various techniques for doing this continues throughout the intermediate grades (p. 52).

Some recent studies suggested the training in word recognition skills be extended into high school and college level courses. The possibilities for advanced instruction in word recognition produces the same dilemma which thwarts the activity at other levels. What to teach must be determined before practical decisions can be made about 54

when and how to teach the currently nebulous content of

any program. The expansion of primary level word recogni­

tion practices into advanced grades holds limited promise

for improving the reading abilities of older readers.

The research evidence about how to teach word recogni­

tion features contains limited implications for instruction­

al practices. The research appears to be fragmentary and

isolated in many respects. Desirable methods of instruc­

tion cannot be developed without adequate information re­

garding "what to teach" in word recognition. Data about t the features of the language to be read must precede

identification of the elements of what to teach. Identi­

fication of the content of word recognition instruction may resolve the sequence of instruction issues and create

feasible positions for appropriate methods of instruction.

If the content and sequence problems can be resolved,

this area of how to teach word recognition will become a more meaningful area of research than is possible at this time.

The results of any word recognition research eventually must be tried in situations involving children in the learn­ ing to read processes. However, solving the problems of what language features to teach by examining the person learning the language is limited in many ways. The next section is a review of the literature about more direct 55 studies of words and word characteristics. Word features have received an increasing amount of attention in research conducted in recent years. These studies have been direc­ ted toward unlocking the decoding process by word feature analysis techniques. To comprehend the relative benefits and expense of the alphabetic principle to a reader, the amount of knowledge needed to read the language must be determined. The extent of congruence between the ortho­ graphy and phonology may be a help or a hindrance to the reader. A word feature may be difficult to learn due to an irregularity between the systems, but serve as an exact­ ing identification for reading the word on subsequent exposures.

Some of the popular earlier writings about word recognition have shed more heat than light on reading instruction. Unfortunately, other writings of the same periods were virtually ignored when published and only recently have been influential in reading research. The various publications in this section of the study were included to illustrate the emotional and other barriers to research evidence and the tenacity factors which inadver­ tently create bias within research personnel even during an objective endeavor. 56

The Study of Words and Learning to Read

The study of words encompasses the study of the ortho­

graphic features of English which have attracted the atten­

tion of concerned educators for several hundred years.

John Hart described "the vices and faultes of our writing:

which cause it to be tedious and long in learnying: and

learned hard, and evill to read" in The Opening of the

Unreasonable Writing of Our English Toung in 1551. (p. IVa) .

Leonard Bloomfield (1933 and 1942) reincarnated Hart's

objections to the difficulties in learning to read English but centered his criticism on how the language was being

taught. Bloomfield urged acceptance and exploitation of

the structural and orthographic features of English to maximize learning. Following Bloomfield's contentions of

the consistencies of English language features, Hanna and

Moore (195.3) explored the extent of the similarities and

discrepancies between American-English orthography and phonology. Their study introduced a more exacting explora­ tion of word study than had been attempted during the 400 years that separated Hart's derision of English orthography and the initial analytic study of grapheme and phoneme

correspondences (Hanna and Moore, 195 3). Several subse­ quent studies conducted under the aegis of Hanna at

Stanford University and Venezky at Cornell have used the 57

grapheme and phoneme correspondence analysis technique

initiated by Hanna and Moore.

Most linguists suggest an approach to the teaching of

reading that would teach children to analyze words by using words that exhibit regularity in their grapheme-phoneme relationships. Fries (196 2) designed a program that pre­ sents the regular spelling patterns of American-English in a carefully structured sequence. He suggested that teachers provide the beginning reader with sufficient practice in recognizing the regular spelling patterns and

i in contrasting the syllables and syllable parts to insure facility with them.

An idea related to use of the regular features of the language prompted an analysis of the approximately 9p00 polysyllabic words in the Rinsland word list by Worth

Osburn (195 4). He attempted to rank the frequency of occur­ rence of the syllables in materials which children read and write. The study was designed to contribute to the devel­ opment of techniques for teaching spelling and reading.

No direct usage of the frequency scales was discovered in the reviews of other documents. It appears that to date the syllable frequencies disclosed by Osburn have not been incorporated into actual programs. This study occurred in the wake of the Hanna and Moore (195 3) study which attracted most of the attention of those concerned with word analysis 58

at that time and during the following decade.

The studies that descended directly from the Hanna and

Moore study were usually addressed to the exploration of spelling features of the English language. Since the

1950 's there has been a steadily increasing interest in the issues of letter-sound relationships with respect to the process of learning to read (Clymer, 1963; Bailey,

196 7; Emans, 196 7; Venezky, 1967) along with the sound- letter relationships of learning to spell (Hanna and

Moore, 1953; Horn, 1957; Petty, 1955; Hanna et a l , 1966).

The Hanna and Moore study was a phonemic analysis of

3,000 words "most common in children's usage and those taught in the first eight grades (1951, p. 19)." They concluded that the English lexicon examined contained phonetic categories which teachers can utilize to advan­ tage in teaching spelling. The results of their study indicated that four-fifths of the phonemes of the words analyzed were represented by regular spellings. Almost three-fourths of the vowel phonemes were spelled by their regular letter representations from 57 to 99% of the times they occurred.

The conclusion of Hanna and Moore that the American-

English writing system is essentially an alphabetic structure attracted criticism from many authorities of spelling instruction. In 195 7 Ernest Horn conducted 59 another analysis of American-English orthography and

published his serious doubts of the findings of Hanna

and Moore, or at least doubts regarding the interpreta­

tions of their findings. Horn's study revealed less

consistent relationships between the phonological and

orthographic systems of an American-English lexicon than

those indicated by Hanna and Moore. In a later article,

Horn (1960) elaborated on the weaknesses of the theories

regarding the regularity in American-English orthography.

The positions taken by Hanna and Moore and by Horn repre­ sented antithesis perspectives of American-English spelling.

The dichotomy evolved from the beliefs that (1) American-

English spelling has a considerable degree of regularity or (2) that the irregularities were so prevalent that

American-English cannot be considered to be an alphabetic language. These positions originally represented ideas about spelling of the language but they soon exerted considerable influence on research in the teaching of reading. Subsequent studies of these positions have con­ tributed linguistic data which has benefited all language areas.

Paul Hanna recognized some weaknesses and inconclusive segments of his study with James Moore. In 1966 he direc­ ted a study in cooperation with the United States Office of Education that was designed to further explore the degree of consistency between phonemes and graphemes of 60

the American-English lexicon. An extensive cybernetic

analysis of the phoneme-grapheme relationships of 17,310

words was based upon "standard Midwestern" pronunciation

of 22 vowel and 30 consonant phonemes. The percentages of

incidence were different from the Hanna and Moore study,

but the general evidence of the alphabetic principles of

American-English were essentially congruent.

The assumptions of the Stanford studies (Hanna and

Moore, 1951; Hanna et a l , 1966) for establishing generali­

zations were based on three factors that may diminish the * usefulness of the studies in teaching spelling. These

features also must be considered when attempting to reverse

the analysis technique to grapheme-to-phoneme relationships

for reading procedures. The first factor evolves from

differences among linguists about what represents a "stan­ dard" pronunciation. The basic axiom of these studies resides in the validity of the pronunciation system that

regulates the relationship of the phonemes and graphemes.

The second assumption for the analysis procedure was that the reliability of the resulting generalizations would not be altered by regional and social dialects or by words with multiple pronunciations. The third assumption rekindled the question of the extent to which students can use generalizations in learning processes. 61

The eventual impact of the Stanford studies on spelling and reading instruction is yet to be assessed. These studies opened new perspectives regarding the consistencies of the phonology and orthography of American-English and the implications for educational practices which result from utilization of such consistencies. Of course, most of these implications were suggested by Leonard Bloomfield as early as 1933. Of special interest were his suggestions that

Initial instruction in reading should be based upon learning those words which consistently rep- resented in graphemic forms the phonemes of speech. Once the regular forms of English writing are attained, gradually introduce the irregular forms into the reading and writing vocabularies (p. 501)

Further interest in this type of analysis was evidenced by Weir (196 4) when she designed a study of grapheme- phoneme correspondence rules that could aid in the teaching of reading. The study objectives were :

(1) to analyze 5,000 English words to find the underlying patterns in the spelling-to sound relationships, (2) to develop a model for mapping spelling-to-sound correspondences which not only displays in an economical fashion the underlying spelling patterns but also reflects the spelling-to-sound habits of the mature reader, (3) to formulate all the necessary rules, based on the model, to predict the pronunciations of all the words analyzed, and (4) to abstract rules and suggestions which could aid in the teach­ ing of reading. The data and model which were developed provided implications that simple grapheme-to-phoneme correlations are not only unproductive for prediction of sound from spelling but also are in conflict 62

with the underlying system of orthography. It was recommended that both morphology and syntax be considered in the selection and arrangement of words to be used in the design of teaching materials for the first three or four grades (p. 7).

In 1966, Venezky and Weir designed a study of spelling-

to-sound patterns that involved a linguistic model for ex­

ploring facets of English orthography which might relate to

the reading process. The orthography was analyzed through

the grapheme-phoneme relationships, relational units,

markers, and graphemic alternations. Tentative implications

pointed to the possibility of teaching the different pronun­

ciations at the same time, working with pairs of words which

showed the different pronunciations. It was felt that the potential generalizations derived from this differentiation

approach should effect better results than the simple-

sequence method.

Levin and Biemiller (1966) concurred with the idea of presenting contrasting pronunciation forms simultaneously.

They interpreted the results of their study of the effects of correspondences between spelling and sound on reading achievement by second, third and fourth grade pupils to justify the simultaneous presentation. The subjects respon­ ded with the single pronunciation pattern, the most common sound of the initial letter in a word, and had difficulty with other patterns. Levin had expressed this idea earlier

(1962, 1964) acknowledging that it would be more difficult to 63 teach the variable grapheme-phoneme correspondences in the initial work with a relationship but the greater transfer ability would be worth the extra time involved.

An earlier study by Lee (1960) in England and Ireland concluded that the relationships between the spelling irregularities of English and reading difficulties were significant. Irregularly spelled words were more difficult to read both in context and in isolation than the regularly spelled words.

A study of the effects of instruction in variant word endings taught to first grade children (Hanson, 1965) indi­ cated no significant difference in reading progress for students that received the special instruction. They showed increased abilities in processing variant word end­ ings on a test designed for the study. Goodman (196 5) sug­ gested that children be taught the structural signals with which the language conveys meaning. He included inflection­ al changes, word order patterns and the position of function words as structural signals. This area of instruction may hold greater potential than has yet been explored and re­ vealed by the studies.

Gibson, Osser and Pick (1963) urged maximizing of instruction by developing the grapheme-phoneme generaliza­ tion process that developed in their subjects contrariwise to the method of instruction presented for reading three- 64 letter words and trigrams. They discovered that even though a child was presented with whole words and encour­ aged to associate the printed word as a whole with the spoken word, he still began to perceive some regularities of correspondence between the printed and spoken terms and transferred generalizations to the reading of unfamiliar items.

Ruddell (196 5) also disclosed that first grade reading programs possessing a high degree of consistency in grapheme-phoneme correspondences produced higher reading achievement in the 24 first grade classrooms he investigated.

The reading programs were ranked in the degree of regularity of grapheme-phoneme correspondences programmed into the vocabulary and the emphasis on language structure as related to meaning. Reading achievement was based on word reading, word study drills and regular word identification. Students in programs using consistent grapheme-phoneme corresponden­ ces produced significantly higher achievement than the students in other groups.

The ideas about the regularity of words, word parts or the language spiral into controversies about which regular­ ities are important enough to be taught and how "regularity" is to be determined. Much of the controversy about regular­ ities of the language, which are transposed into generaliza­ tions, has polarized around the teaching of phonics. A 65 revival of emphasis on phonics instruction occurred in the

1950's and steadily increased through the decade of the

1960's. Criticizing beginning reading instruction, partic­ ularly the lack of phonics instruction in the then existing programs, was a popular activity in the 1950's. Following the publication of Rudolph Flesch's Why Johnny Can't Read

(1955) almost anyone with a desire to write a derogatory article about reading instruction could find a publisher

(Terman and Wolcutt, 1958; Conant, 1963; Ward, 1969). Witty and Sizemore (1956) came to the rational defense of reading instruction stating that "Mr. Flesch, we believe, has over­ simplified the problem of reading instruction in a manner similar to that of writers who have sometimes placed the blame for juvenile delinquency on a single factor such as the reading of comic magazines . 11 McDowell (1953) had offered a sagacious comment early in the rekindling process that was prophetic of the following years. He said

The revival of this strict phonetic approach to reading has been viewed with alarm by some and joy by others...Some have vigorously maintained that the phonetic method is not only a way of teaching reading, but the way. Some write about it as though it were a new discovery never before attempted, or as if phonetic training has never had any role whatever in primary reading (p. 506).

Arthur Gates (1964) commented about all the phonetic

(phonics) methods in the 196 2 Office of Education Conference of Teaching Reading: 66

Most of the ideas and systems so vocifer­ ously advocated recently have had a century of trial during which their values and limitations have been considered repeatedly in theory, in practical tests in classroom work, in individual remedial instruction, and in various experimental situations■(p. 105).

Flesch aroused considerable concern and interest in the

teaching of reading among educators and the general public.

However, his major role and contribution was to serve as a

catalyst in an already overly reactive and socially reflec­

tive discipline. It is difficult to assess the impetus of

one book or idea that is added to an already apparent trend which had begun in the 1950's. The trend continued into

the decade of the 1960's. By 1963, Austin and Morrison had

completed a national survey of reading practices that was presented as a study of The First R,and Barton and Wilder

(1962) had completed a smaller but well structured survey

of the status of reading instruction in the United States.

Both studies indicated a general agreement that educators

considered phonics as an integral part of reading instruc­ tion; however, there was no agreement as to what, how or when the phonic portions of the programs should be accom­ plished. During this period, the content of a phonics instruction for word recognition became a major concern of educators.

Dolch (1955) described three basic methods for teaching phonic word generalizations that have been used at different 67

times. He identified them as the total-memorizing method, the parallel method and the developmental, or discovery, method.

In the total-memorizing method which characterized many early systems, the reading instruction began with mastery of phonic elements,and reading in context was deliberately postponed. Learning the individual phonic elements dominated the first few weeks of school. After mastery of many of the phonic elements the child would read word lists and specially structured sentences. The use of

* the skills in reading books was the final phase of the program.

The parallel method used basal reading programs concom­ itantly with a phonics workbook and special drill periods that were designed to develop mastery of isolated sounds.

Little effort was devoted to synchronization of the content or activities of the two programs.

The discovery or developmental phonics was comparable to the methods incorporated into many contemporary basal- reading programs. The first phase of instruction was con­ cerned with acquisition of a sight vocabulary. The second phase attempted to develop phonic generalizations by noting similarities and dissimilarities in words. The phonics skills and understandings were integrated into the content of the total program and the word recognition generaliza- 68 tions were developed through the analysis of whole words used in context. The work of Arthur Gates during the

1920's provided the basis for this approach (Gates, 1928).

The historical development of phonic instructional systems also may be classified as synthetic or analytic

(Bear, 1959) . Several of the earlier phonic systems emphasized the blending of word elements. Instruction began by teaching the smallest word elements, then combined these elements to form larger units. The techniques varied but the evolution of the systems was from instruction in the sounds of the individual letters of the alphabet to the synthesis of those sounds into larger units.

The analytic method delayed instruction in phonics until a sight vocabulary of about 75 words was acquired.

The phonic elements common to the sight vocabulary were then introduced— such as the initial consonant sound of boy, bell, ball and bat. The most notable distinction of the analytic system was that the sounds were never learned in isolation from a word and the analysis of parts of the known words was compatible with the implications from experiments reported by Gates (1928).

The analytic approach was an outgrowth of the reaction and criticism of the over-emphasis of the silent-reading period in the years following World War I. W. S. Gray

(1948) described this period as one of reaction to the 69 phonics instruction methods of the first part of the century. These earlier highly systematized synthetic systems had been criticized for the reasons CD Reading was reduced to a mechanical process with only one major method of word recognition, (2) The teaching of isolated sounds was detrimental to comprehension, to normal articulation practices and, thus, had limited value when transferred to other reading activities, (3) The use of phonics alone as a word recognition technique slows reading rates and deters interest, and (4) The English language was not phonetic in its entirety and thus restricted the usefulness of the approach by beginning readers and the letter-by-letter type of phonics did not lend itself to polysyllabic words.

The objections and the increased interest in silent reading during the 1920's ushered in an anti-phonics period that nearly expurgated phonics instruction from many school curriculums through the next several decades. Gray (194 8) later lamented this practice as resulting in the ineptness of many high school students in using efficient methods in both reading and spelling. The pendulum had swung to an extreme point away from phonics methods of instruction1 with only scattered protests from advocates of intrinsic phonics.

Thus the stage was set for the experiments and theories of

Gates (1928) and the inauguration of the analytic method of 70 phonics instruction. This method dominated instructional practices during the next several decades.

The role of phonics in word recognition became a focal point of much interest but little investigation during the

1950's. There was general agreement on a need for some phonics instruction but there was no general concensus as to what phonic content should be included or when and how it should be taught. Oaks examined the word recognition generalizations that were being taught in basal readers by analysis of the "...vowel and vowel combinations which I appear in certain basal readers designed for use in the primary grades (1952f p. 604) From her analysis of the vowel situations in a selected sample of the basal reader vocabularies eight principles were derived that seemed to be functional in word pronunciation, but two of the prin­ ciples were eliminated when applied to the representative vocabulary.

In 195 7, Edward Fry produced a phonic system of instruction, but he also was concerned with the frequently used words that did not track in any of the phonic programs that were available. He produced a list of "...300 instant words...so functional and necessary to communication that they should be taught without regard to phonetic or word generalization rules (p. 215)." He prepared a series of filmstrips for a sequential presentation of these instant 71 words; 100 to be taught in each of the first, second and third grades. In 1964 Fry produced a frequency approach to phonics that was based on his and other research data as to the rank order of frequency of phonics principles.

Fry reduced the number of useful phonics word generalization rules to the schwa sound, seven combinations of the long vowel sounds and stressed the importance of the R and Y rules. He contended that the other generalizations were so infrequently used that they were not worth teaching to beginning readers. Fry's programs represent the type of

» activity which directly influenced instructional practice during the 1950's and 1960's.

The premises of word recognition advanced by Flesch

(1955) were investigated by professionals in several disciplines. Daniels and Diack (1959) analyzed the ideas of the gestalt psychologists meaning for "the immediate whole" and refuted the notion that it was synonymous with the "whole word" theory of perception of a word by a skilled reader. They directed attention to the variation skills used by a mature reader and those available to a child learning to read. Most of the ideas disclosed by their research were summarized in refutations to the premises of

Flesch, which was the stated purpose of their analysis.

The early 1960's was a period of recovery from the extreme criticism and medicine show claims for instant 72

success in reading. Many schools adopted some type of

phonics program to enable them to respond with a positive

'yes’ to survey questionnaires and parents concerned with

phonics instruction. The questions raised by Oaks and other

researchers of the 1950's as to how effective phonics word

generalization rules were when applied to actual words had been muffled and lost in the turmoil regarding phonics

instruction.

Assumptions of the "utility" of word recognition gener­

alizations were seriously questioned by Clymer (1963) in his

analysis of the utility of selected phonic generalizations.

The corpus of his phonics generalizations was 121 different

generalizations gleaned from four primary level basal

reader series, Clymer's "utility" was to check the general­ izations by applying them to words • If a generalization was applicable to 20 or more of the words on his 2600 word list with at least 75% utility, the generalization was considered useful and left in the corpus. Generalizations not netting the 75% utility criteria were eliminated. Clymer first reduced the 121 word recognition generalizations to 45 by eliminating those which could not be checked by applying them to words. Only 18 of the 45 generalizations met the

75% utility criteria. Clymer*s findings were the impetus for further utility studies. 73

Emans (1967) replicated Clymer*s study by using the same 45 generalizations but he applied them to words beyond the primary level. He found that (a) 13 of his high utility generalizations agreed with Clymer*s 18 generaliza­ tions, (b) five generalizations found useful by Clymer at the primary level were not found useful beyond the primary level and (c) three generalizations not on Clymer*s list were found useful above the primary level. In a second study, Emans (196 7b) demonstrated that some of the low utility generalizations could be modified to result in increased utility. He also suggested that syntactical modifications of some generalizations with .relatively high utility could make them even more useful. The study implied that low-utility generalizations need not necessarily be discarded, but examined, analyzed, and possibly modified to increase their utility. Bailey (1967) also replicated and extended Clymer*s study. Her list of 5,773 words was taken from eight different basal series for grades one through six.

She used Clymer*s 45 generalizations and his criteria for utility value. Bailey found Clymer*s 18 generalizations were of high utility in her study plus three more for a total of

21 generalizations of high utility. Clymer*s first rule,

"When there are two vowels side by side, the long sound of the first one is heard and the second is usually silent

(p. 256)" was investigated by Burrows and Laurie (1963). 74

They determined that this rule had less than 50% utility.

The utility of phonic generalizations presented in

four basal reading series was investigated by Maresh (196 9).

Each series was examined and comparisons were made among

the series. The vocabulary and phonic generalizations of

each series through the third grade were compiled. The

words were respelled phonetically using two dictionary

sources and then applied to the phonic generalizations of

that series. Comparisons within and among the series

concluded that only one of the basal reading series examined met the author's 70% utility generalization maxim. Maresh

suggested that the phonic generalizations presented in the other three series be modified as they were too broad to be utilitarian.

Burmeister (1966) examined the utility of word recog­ nition generalizations in materials prepared for fourth grade and above and combined generalizations she had devel­ oped in her own teaching experiences. The vowel generaliza­ tions were applied to a sample of words from the Thorndike

Lorge Teacher Word Book (1944) . The generalizations tested reached a 90% utility level in all cases except those for adj acent vowels.

In a later study, Burmeister (1968) reversed the pro­ cedure of phoneme-grapheme correspondence used by Hanna, et al. (1966) and studied the grapheme-phoneme relationships 75

of 17,310 words from the Thorndike-Lorge Teache r1s Word

Book (1944) that were used by Hanna, et al.(1966) and

2,026 others considered relevant to the study of a "common

core" vocabulary. The reversing procedure produced four

categories for vowel pairs as, (1) dominant first vowel,

(2) blends, (3) new sound is created (as ei=a), or (4) the

vowels may separate. As a result of subsequent study,

Burmeister (1970) suggested 12 particularly useful grapheme-

phoneme relationships in a phonics program: four related to

consonant graphemes, five for vowel graphemes, and three

related to syllabication.

Paula Fuld (196 8) studied single vowel sounds that precede pairs of consonants with short sounds with a rever­

sal of the Hanna, et al.(1966) study, similar to Burmeister's

technique. She found that the number of words with short

vowel sounds preceding two consonants was greater than usually assumed and the chance of such occurrence is greater in multiple-syllable words than in short, single syllable wo r d s .

Vowel principles were also investigated by Affleck

(1967) by applying six vowel principles to vowel situations in the first 6P00 words in the Thorndike-Lorge Teacher's

Word Book (19 44). Five of the six principles used in the study had a utility of 75% or above. The vowel principles of this study reached a much higher utility than those repor- 76 ted in comparable studies of vowel generalizations.

Huelsman (196 7) examined five studies of the utility of word recognition generalizations and synthesized a list of 4 0 generalizations reported with high utility. Lesiak

(196 8) applied the 40 generalizations compiled by Huelsman to words and found 18 of the word generalizations useful as stated. Ten of the generalizations were modified and eight were combined to produce four revised or combined ones. Four of the original 40 were eliminated with the criteria check. Thus, 32 generalizations met the criteria for utility established for the study.

In 1969, Kuhne examined the 40 high utility rules com­ piled by Huelsman (196 7) by applying them to unfamiliar words selected from the sixteenth, twenty-first and twenty- sixth thousand most frequently used words as a sample of

2060 words beyond the elementary grades. The criteria of a minimum of 30 words and 75% utility was used. Of the

40 word generalization rules examined, four were eliminated, two were combined, and 14 were modified in some way. The study produced 35 generalizations that met the utility rules as stated.

Carol Winkley (1966) approached Gray's 18 accent generalizations with a utility check like those done with the word recognition generalizations. From her findings, she determined that 12 of the generalizations were worth 77

teaching. She found that these 12 generalizations could

be modified to yield a useful list of seven accent

generalizations.

Durrell had questioned the wisdom of teaching phonetic

(phonic) skills in 1956 and again raised the question in

19 70 (Wylie and Durrell, 1970). Based on a study of 900

first grade children, they advocated the use of phonograms

for teaching vowels in the primary level vocabulary because

"Ending phonograms appear to stabilize the vowel sounds for

the beginning reader (p. 787)." The ending phonograms that

they found most useful were -ack, -ail, -ell, -est, -ick,

-ill, -op, -ot, -uck, -ug.

Betts (195 7) and DeBoer and Dallman (196 4) concurred

with Bloomfield's (1933) position that word generalizations

developed by children from language experiences were better

understood and applied than rules that were given to be

memorized and recalled. Hildreth (1958) suggested assisting

formulation of word recognition rules after students have

been exposed to an adequate number of words with recurring

sound patterns to make the rules meaningful. Durkin (1966)

recommended an inductive method but cautioned that "...

(word recognition) generalizations ought to evolve from

direct learning, not incidental induction (p. 29)." She suggested that generalizations be specific and immediately

applicable to other reading situations. 78

The assimilation of graphemes into meaningful decoding

processes has been under intensive investigation. The

minimal amount of visual stimuli necessary for reading a

printed page is relevant to word recognition practices,

particularly to perception of orthographic features. Stud­

ies in visual perception hold great potential for possible

solutions to decoding problems. The goal of such studies is

discovery of the most efficient way to perceive print.

Many educators look on instructional practices that involve

any activity other than a straight course to proficiency as

a luxury that can no longer be afforded. The pursuit of

proficiency has produced unique paradigms and innovative

practices for simplification of decoding processes. Some of

these contemporary practices have been selected for review

in the next several paragraphs.

Lott (1969) constructed a model of word recognition

processes and offered suggestions for incorporating those

processes into reading instruction. Goodman's (196 9) model

of the reading process was produced with the cybernetic

format which was frequently used to explain the function of electronic computers. Models of reading usually identify word recognition as the beginning point of the process and

generally assume that perception occurs in an automatic fashion. The processes of perception, particularly in minimal quantities, for the grapheme-phoneme process to be 79

activated, is related to the explorations of augmented

alphabets in addition to traditional orthography features.

McClenathan (196 7) studied the effects of using three

alphabetic media in teaching the same reading content to

kindergarten children during the final 12 weeks of the

school year. She used the prepriirers of the New Basic

Reading Series published by Scott, Foresman (196 4), but the

alphabet design was the variable. Each of the experimental

groups used the Initial Teaching Alphabet (i/t/a) or the

Adjusted Traditional Orthography (a.t.o.) and the control group used Traditional Orthography (T.O.) Both i / t / a and a.t.o. were significantly superior to T.O. in facilitating independent word analysis but there was no significant difference between the three groups in ability to recall familiar words or word identification. Word recognition in

T. 0. was not impaired by the early training in an experi­ mental alphabetic media, which suggested that letter dis­ crimination may not be as acute in early instruction as is suggested by studies of cues used for word recognition.

An attempt to determine relative merit of an orthogra­ phic modification which used traditional symbols superim­ posed with graphemic-phonemic regularity markings was compared with traditional orthography by Sam Sebasta (196 4) .

After instruction in 70 lessons, identical except for the orthographic features, there was no measurable difference 80

for the female pairs of first grade pupils in word recogni­

tion, but the male subjects in the modified orthography

group showed significant achievement in unfamiliar word

recognition abilities over the control group.

A study to determine whether redundant color cues

would help disadvantaged children learn four letters

simultaneously was conducted by Ernest Washington in 196 8.

Colors were inadequate for teaching the four letter task,

but the group using color and letters made fewer errors on

transfer tasks than the group that had received instruction

in letter form only.

Britain's John Downing was one of the pioneer proponents

of the Initial Teaching Alphabet. Downing (1969) concurred

with Hildreth (1958) and Durkin (1966) that teaching verbal

rules prior to a child's experiencing and arriving at the

generalization "reverses the natural order of development

(p. 227)". Downing and other advocates of the augmented

alphabets were concerned with early success in real reading

experiences. A limited number of studies, with adequate

controls, have been conducted making comparisons of the

augmented alphabets with traditional orthography.

The usefulness of word recognition generalizations as

related to augmented alphabets appears to be a mute area or one that needs further research. Jeanne Chall (196 7) sum­ marized the position of augmented alphabets with her view: 81

But even if ITA goes the way of the past alphabet reforms, the experiments will have made an important contribution. They gen­ erally confirm that an early emphasis on learning the code produces better results ...although ITA was offered as a way out of the old look-say versus phonics debate, the ITA experiments may ultimately help settle the controversy by facilitating the return to a stronger code emphasis— but with the traditional alphabet (p. 125).

The role of words and letters in initial instruction

in reading determines the readiness or pre-reading features

of a program. Contemporary programs have assumed widely

divergent positions which illustrate the relationship of

the early stages of reading.

Readiness for the Merrill Linguistic Readers (Fries,

et al., 1966) involves several facets that are well known

to teachers, including two that are related to word recog­

nition instruction. Pupils must be able to identify all

letters of the alphabet, upper and lower case, and they

must recognize that words are separate units. These same

aspects of reading readiness are reaffirmed by Bereiter and

Englemann (196 6 ) in their program developed for disadvan­ taged children. The assumption is that disadvantaged children are lacking in readiness skills needed for success­ ful performance in school situations because of the limited types of stimulation found in their home environments.

An antithesis position to the Fries and Bereiter and

Englemann approaches to reading was assumed in the design 82

of Martin's (1966) Sounds of Home series that stresses the

inseparability of the words in the text by emphasizing

that the words in the title were "...not to be taught as

three separate words. It is a unified sound with its

special meaning (p. 6 )." Martin assumed that an instruc­

tional system that relates individual sounds to individual

letters was not as functional as a system that accepts the

environment of letters and words (Brown, 1970) .

It is doubtful if anyone would advocate a strict letter

•by letter instructional method without due attention to the

letters' environment. However, classroom instruction about

segmented bits and pieces of the sound and symbol systems

have indicated a cleavage between theory and practice.

Smith (1971) described this practice as "alphabetic

Puritanism" which has become strong enough to make phonics

a subject in its own right, quite independent of reading

for both the teacher and the learner. Distinction between

the process of the acquisition of skills of reading and

application of the skills to reading has placed barriers to

the flow of ideas between theories of reading and instruc­

tional practices. Fortunately, it seems to be generally

accepted that in American-English, the phonemic representa­

tions reflect the context of the grapheme; consequently,

the letters operate as units which can be mapped to phone­ mic clusters, or they may function as markers or connections 83 for other phonemic units. Venezky (1967) explained this mapping as an underlying structure which regulates poten­ tial letter combinations and the sound repertoire of each grapheme. This linguistic theory is germane to readiness for reading for several reasons. One reason is illustrated by consideration of speech as a continuum, broken by occa- sionalpauses which result from the overlapping boundaries of phonemic clusters. When listening to an unfamiliar language, as is the case for a disadvantaged child in a typical classroom, this continuum does not sound like the compilation of separate sounds perceived in a familiar language because of the unfamiliarity with the vocabulary syntax and semantics. Facility in the language to be read appears necessary before any other accomplishment may be expected (Goodman, 1969; Smith, 1971). Several other barri­ ers to decoding have been directed to the attention of reading specialists. Hass (1969) disclaimed the ability of any graphic representation system to depict total sound continuum. Gleason (1961) pointed to the shortcomings of standard print in conveying pitch, stress and juncture.

Bloomfield (1933) had expressed that "Words in print are representations of words in speech (p. 497)" and that prin­ ted words are an imperfect mirror image of speech.

The current programs referred to (Bereiter and Engle­ mann, 1966; Fries et al*, 1966; and Martin, 1966) were three 84

methods of instruction each of which were designed to pro­

vide a child with the necessary "structure of knowledge" to

allow success in learning to break the code of graphemic

.representation of a language. These approaches have some

characteristics in common; they have viewed reading as a

code-breaking process; they have provided sequential prac­

tice on the phonemically-regular language elements; and

they have caused reading materials to be devised which maxi­

mized the regular elements and avoided use of irregular

words as much as possible while attempting to retain adequate

sentence structure.

The importance of letters or whole words becomes in­

volved with the multiple influences of syntax and content

(Chomsky and Halle, 196 8 ) and the cognitive patterns of

the learner as he employs knowledge of the word recognition

skills he may have or may choose to use in a particular

reading situation. Erdley (196 7) studied eye movement

patterns of average readers in grades, two, three and four

to determine the extent of letter consideration in the

learning of new words. He discovered a wide range of

interfixational movements from word to word which was in­

fluenced by word length and that a return sweep of the entire

word was a frequent practice at all grade levels. The

significance of eye movements and other perception character­

istics has become interwoven with some word recognition 85 features just as the meaning of a communication has caused concern for other features.

The linguistics reading programs stressing the close relationship between graphemes and phonemes were criticized by Chomsky and Halle(196 8) as they called attention to the deeper phonological structures of relationships between the phonological and orthographic systems of American-English, particularly with emphasis on the syntactic and semantic influences of the language. Chall (196 7) concluded that the implications of Chomsky and Halle were probably more useful at the more advanced stages of reading and should not be confused with instructional practices for the beginning read­ er. The distinctions of definitions of reading, particularly the reference to the skill acquisition level or an advanced level has been a constant pivot point for much of the disa­ greement in reading research. Even the most elementary act­ ivities of pre-reading or reading readiness continue to be discussed with various definitions, but more relevant for forming a true difference of approach would be the role of words and letters.

Recent publications have suggested that readiness be considered as reading in its earliest phases and not as a separate activity. Spache and Spache (1969) termed readi­ ness as "...a gradual development from nonreading to begin­ ning reading (p. 62)," or as Wilson, et al.(1938) had stated earlier, readiness is reading progress in the early stages 86

of learning to read. Tyler (1964) expressed readiness as a

matter of transfer from lower to higher levels of a struc­

ture. This interrelatedness of specific stages of develop­

ment was compatible with Piaget's perspective of the

establishment of cognitive structures as a sequential

patterning of stages which evolved from both experiences of

the environment and internal dynamics of the individual

(Maier, 1965}. Early behaviors were regarded as lower

forerunners of higher structures. Early behavior was a

component of subsequent development and behavior. A somewhat different perspective was advanced by Bruner, et al.(1967) which restricted Piaget's notions of develop­ ment with a heavier emphasis on internal or biological factors. They were not willing to accept the dominant role of internal development. The Cognitive Center at

Harvard, under Bruner's direction, preferred to view cogni­ tive development as a matter of internalizing technologies

(especially language) from the culture. It is possible for educators to profitably use either of these concepts of sequential development without knowing whether the forces which produce the sequences originate from biological or experiential situations. When more specific data is availa­ ble, it may be possible to structure more meaningful pro­ grams of instruction. 87

There is a dearth of research on techniques to improve

the conditions of learning word recognition skills, with

either environmental or content features. Many environmen­

tal manipulation programs and projects have been publicized

but few such programs have operated for a period of time

that would enable measurement of long-range effects from the

instruction; however, many of the environmental programs

were highly structured and may offer useful empirical data

about specific word recognition skills and abilities if such

measurements are ever made. The conditions of learning ap­

pear to be akin to content and motivation— two areas of

great concern to publishers of children's books and reading

programs. Jeanne Chall said, "The producers of some begin­

ning reading programs are in a dilemma about content, above

all for the first grade...too many people are making too

many recommendations about content without any proof what­

soever (p. 311)."

The emotionalism in education in the post-Sputnik era

climaxed in Flesch's Why Johnny Can't Read (1 9 5 5 ) . His oversimplification served as a balm for most Americans who believed that all of the problems of learning to read and education in general (since reading was vital to all other

aspects of learning) could be solved if phonics instruction

could be included in the curriculum. Many educators were

caught up in the emotionalism of the times and they were 88

forced into positions which made it necessary to defend

existing programs or seek more effective ones. This was a

period of intense activity when decisions aboit academic

procedures were made with the basic premise that the final

• product must satisfy the immediate needs of society. Finan­

cial support for education was provided in unprecedented

amounts. A profession that had been struggling to provide

instructional programs with minimal expenditures suddenly

was inundated with support for the generation of the best

programs it could envision.

The urgency of making decisions for immediate results

was detrimental to the total effectiveness of the programs.

Decisions had to be made with insufficient information.

However, a number of reading authorities responded to the

need for improved instruction with some of the most note­

worthy surveys of reading practices that have been produced

(Betts, 1956; Witty and Sizemore, 1956; Austin and Morrison,

196 4; Daniels and Diack, 1969; Murphy, 1962, 1965; Chall,

1967, Emans, 1968). The late 1950's and 1960's abound with

critiques of word recognition studies which followed a

pattern illustrated by an article by Paul Witty and Robert

Sizemore (1956). They first cast derogatory glances at

Flesch (1955), proceeded to reyiew research studies to

illustrate the merits of certain methods of teaching word

recognition, with particular emphasis on phonics skills.

The summary discussed statements about the values of phonics, 89

and the research did not support Flesch's contentions.

The denouement acknowledges that there are some shortcomings

in the existing programs but phonics has been an integral

part of instruction though frequently taught in disguise,

and the future will witness improved programs when more

attention is paid to direct phonics instruction.

Summary

This chapter and first phase of the present study may

be very much like the conclusions of the Witty and Sizemore

(1956) article: Some shortcomings of the status quo of

readinq instruction were obvious, the relationship between the graphemic structures and the phonological structures which they represent is an ancient interest, no reading pro­ gram has been designed without this relationship as an element to be taught at one time or another, and research of the future must devote itself to detailed study of this relationship. The role of words in reading and letters in perceiving words must be determined prior to other decisions.

To accurately assess the merits and costs of the alphabetic principle to the reader of American-English orthography, there appears to be a need for more information than is presently available about the underlying structures for transferring information between the symbol and sound systems of the language. Spelling, the actual arrangement of letters to form a word, has received continually increas­

ing amounts of attention in recent reading research. Spel­

ling has been identified as the most viable link to study

for answers to the problems which exist for transferring

data between the phonological and orthographic systems.

Unfortunately, the research results about this correspondence

have been meager in quantity and have not made extensive

contributions to reading instruction. The potential for

future use of the research in this area has been promising.

This is partially due to the care with which the research

has been conducted and reported. Complete descriptions of

analysis techniques and lexicon selection characterize

these studies. Also, the authors have exerted efforts to

use well-defined terms in reporting results of their studies.

These precautions have produced several worthwhile studies which can be easily replicated, compared and contrasted.

The distinctions between the processes of reading by

a mature reader and those of a young child learning to read

continue to be major problems, both in research and general discussion. Procuring information about the problems of early reading is difficult for several reasons. One of these barriers is because the person involved with learning to read is usually not capable of providing substantial feedback about what was beneficial to the learning process.

Research personnel have expressed a lack of certainty about 91 what they have measured in comparative studies, the mater­ ials and program content or characteristics of the learner.

Another barrier to information gathering results from the temporary status of the learning process. Unfortunately for reading researchers, the conditions for acquiring skills, and perhaps the skill which appears so vital to learning to read, may be discarded or severely modified once proficiency with the skill has been attained. What is taught about word recognition may be a phase of development which is very quickly assimilated into an advanced level of reading ability.

Reading research and theory is somewhat removed from the practice in at least one crucial area. The consensus in theory appears to favor a minimum amount of training in word recognition generalizations and skills. The assumption has been that threshold proficiency is adequate for success­ ful performance. Some notions have been advanced that ex­ cessive training in a skill may result in negative reactions.

The ability to recognize adequate threshold achievement for an individual reader for promotion into the next level of activities has emerged as the paramount need for instruction­ al practices. Adequate information about the learner and the language have not been disclosed by past research, but many of the studies have suggested some principles about word recognition generalizations that could provide direction 92

for the design of useful strategies for teaching decoding

processes. The results of the literature study certainly

reiterate the relative merit of the word analysis portions

. of the present study.

The design of the word analysis procedures is described

in the next chapter, Chapter Three. The findings and re­

sults of the several analysis activities is discussed in

Chapter Four, and detailed descriptions and tables of the

analysis have been included in the Appendix. CHAPTER III

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

The word analysis portion of the present study was divided into two major sections. The purpose of the first section was the analysis of the grapheme-phoneme relation­ ships of a selected corpus of primary level words. This analysis was accomplished by application of the Spelling

Pattern Analysis technique developed by Emans and Harms

(19 71) to the Dale List of 3000 Common Words. The second section of the word analysis involved the construction of a scale of difficulty that emerged from the grapheme- phoneme comparisons and from conclusions of research as reviewed in the first portion of the present study.

Selection of the Corpus of Words

The words to be analyzed were taken from the Dale List of 3000 Common Words as printed in the Dale Chall Readabil­ ity Formulas check lists {Dale-Chall, 194 8). The Dale List of 3000 Common Words is a title for a group of words that were found to be known by 80% of the fourth grade children sampled in a study reported in 194 8 . The list has been checked since the original publication and is still a 93 94

representative and functional list (Dale, Havener and

Helm, 196 3). The list is not an exact word count but is

reported as "...The Dale list of approximately three

thousand words (p. 5 ) Approximation of word count is

inherent in any list of American-English words as they are

subjected to the flexibility of affixes. For example, the words ache and aching, act and acts and arrive and arrived

all appear on the list. These words were used in the anal­ ysis, but aches, ached, acted, acting, arrives and arriving were not used. The latter group are logical derivatives but it was felt that the1 list would be too cumbersome if

all of the affixes possible were added to the list as printed and that little analytical insight was to be gained by the repeated processing of the affix classification.

The use of a selected word corpus, such as the Dale

List of 3000 Common Words provides for analysis of the words most frequently used in American-English rather than being a sample of words that would appear when one consid­ ers the potential list of words in the American-English lexicon. A minor part of the study was the comparison of the Dale list with the word lists from other studies.

This analysis was accomplished by checking each word of the

Dale List of 300 0 Common Words against the Dolch List of

220 Words (1942), the Fry List of 300 Instant Words (1957),

The Rinsland First 100 Words (1945) and also by recording 95

the rank order of usage as reported in the Kucera and

Francis Computational Analysis of Present Day American

English (1967). The comparison of the Dolch, Fry and

Rinsland lists reveals that all of the words on these

three lists are included in the Dale list. All except

109 words of the Dale list were used at least one time in

the one million running words of the Kucera and Francis

study of adult word usage. After consideration of these

usage studies it appeared that the Dale list was an ade­

quate sample of primary level words which could provide a

manageable but meaningful corpus for both word analysis

portions of the study, parts two and three.

The decision to use a selected word list was based on

the assumption that the high frequency of usage of words

should be considered somewhat equivalent to a high utili­

tarian value of a word recognition generalization or stra­ tegy necessary for decoding these words in the beginning

reading process. The decision to use a selected word list

was also influenced by similar decisions by other related

studies (Clymer, 1963; Bailey, 1967; Emans, 1967; Burmeis-

ter, 1968). The selection of the word list reflected a

composite of findings regarding the words most often used

in American-English in order to contribute data that may

be assimilated into the existing knowledge of word

generalizations. 96

The requirements for selection of the corpus of words

are satisfied with the Dale List of 3000 Familiar Words.

The words are in the vocabularies of children. It also

contains the most frequently used words encountered in

reading present day American-English (Kucera, 196 7). A

list smaller than 3000 words would not allow for the devel

opment of patterns to be used in the analysis and a larger

list would probably contribute a limited amount of data

presumably in the form of larger numbers rather than in

new concepts.

Selection of the Dictionary

To facilitate the compatibility of this study with

earlier related studies (Bailey, 196 7; Clymer, 1963;

Emans, 1967; Emans and Harms, 1971; Hanna, et al., 1966),

the spellings, phonetic respellings and syllabic divisions

of the words used in this study were recorded from Web­

ster's New Collegiate Dictionary, second edition (1951).

"The pronunciations given in this dictionary are based on those of the New International Dictionary, second edition,

and reflect the large body of first-hand information specifically gathered for that work from scores of persons in all parts of the United States and elsewhere in the

English-speaking world (p. V)." In most of the words used in this study the dictionary pronunciation seemed to be 97

'standard' for the midwestem dialect of the examiners.

Standard pronunciation is a flexible term because there is no uniformity of pronunciation throughout the English- speaking world, though there is a very large ratio of practical uniformity for many words. A few of the words of this study were affected by the difference in midwestern enunciation of the examiners and the pronunciation recorded in the dictionary which tended to be more eastern in accent, e.g., aunt, laugh, half. There was occasional disagreement about enunciation between the three examiners who all spoke basically mid-western dialect. These disagreements were discovered in the reliability checks of the data from each examiner's work sheets. Numerical discrepancies were traced back to the source of differences and the results were reconciled to accomodate the distinctions. The number of words with notable differences was too small to be con­ sidered as a factor in the study (some nine or ten words of the approximately 3000 word corpus) except for the expendi­ ture of time in reconciling the data.

It should also be recognized that words read in isola­ tion are sometimes pronounced differently than when said in the context of a sentence. This altered pronunciation is comparable to the public reading of an authoritative work, as the Bible, a Prayer Book or a legal document. Such readings are frequently in a rate of speech that is much 98 slower than ordinary conversation, the consonants are articulated more distinctly, the vowels are often of greater length and otherwise unaccented vowels may sound as if they had a secondary accent. Such irregular enuncia­ tions were hopefully avoided through the conscientious efforts of the examiners to use the words in sentence context at a normal rate of speaking when coding the words.

The results of the analysis of the spelling patterns used in this study probably would vary with the use of another dictionary as the source of the phonetic respelling of the words.

The dictionaries used in other word recognition studies are summarized in Table 17 in the Appendix.

Procedure of Analysis

The procedures of analysis consisted of three distinct approaches. The first was an analysis and synthesis of the literature pertaining to word recognition generaliza­ tions. This section of the study is presented in Chapter

II. The second part of the study was an analysis of the grapheme-phoneme relationships of a primary level word corpus by use of a spelling pattern analysis technique.

The third part of the study incorporated findings and observations of the first and second parts of the study.

A scale of reading features which are encountered by the 99

child learning to read was designed into a degree of

difficulty hierarchy. Each of these word analyses proced­

ures is discussed in greater detail in subsequent sections

of the chapter. The next few paragraphs present informa­

tion regarding the general procedures of analysis and data

collection which was followed in both of the word analysis

portions of the study.

Each word of the corpus was treated as a syllable or number of syllables. The actual classification and count­

ing of the syllables was accomplished by three examiners working independently of, each other. Comparisons of their

classifications produced different data for a few words.

In cases of discrepancy of tabulations, the data was always

checked for arithmetic errors before initiation of a search

for any other cause, as a difference in classification or pronunciation. Each word was treated a minimum of three times; the words with discrepancies were discussed and giv­ en special consideration by at least two of the examiners.

A manual procedure of handling each word and syllable was found satisfactory to the investigators. Some occasional insights occurred during the manipulation of the word cards which probably would not have happened had a cybernetic classification program been utilized as was considered at the beginning of the research. 100 Each of the 29 43 separate words as stated on the

Dale List of 3000 Common Words was entered onto a 4 x 6

inch filing card. Only the suffixes included on the

printed list were entered into the corpus of words for

this study. The words as spelled in the Webster's New

Collegiate Dictionary were entered on the left-hand side

of the card and the phonetic respellings, including the

diacritical markings, were placed on the right-hand side

of the card.

The first step of the analysis was for the investiga­

tor to say each word in isolation and then in the context

of a sentence to identify sound patterns and to classify

each syllable of the word with a spelling pattern as

presented in Table 2 (See Appendix) or to decide that no

pattern existed. The investigator was not to look at the

phonetic spelling or diacritical markings during this

stage of the analysis. Thus the enunciation characteris­

tics of the investigators became a factor, but as evidenced

in the final analysis approximately ten words became

issues of enunciation (aunt, half, rather) and then the

issue was between the first stated pronunciation in the dictionary and the midwestern dialects of the examiners, which was usually the second stated pronunciation. The dictionary favored an eastern enunciation pattern, thus causing a difference in these few words. After coding each syllable with one of the spelling patterns, the words 101 were reviewed to see if a second classification was possi­ ble. For example, many r-controlled patterns could be

reclassified under the vowel pattern using r as in any

consonant grapheme.

A problem of classification resulted from the enuncia­ tions which could follow more than one of the spelling patterns. The word quarter could be classified as a pat­ tern for gu or the pattern for the ar. Although the decis­ ions were arbitrary, an attempt was made at consistency and the probable approach that would be used by a reader not thoroughly familiar with the word. After the first classi­ fication and the tabulation,the words were examined again for all other possible classifications, and tabulations were made for the second classifications.

The cards were processed into as many sortings and tabulations as were necessary for the number of classifi­ cations for each syllable. The physical manipulation of the cards into specific categories required another exami­ nation of the consistency of these classifications and the examiner's enunciation. The manipulation into the numeri­ cal spelling pattern produced data for the analysis.

The procedure for processing the phonetic respellings was essentially the same as that for the spelling patterns.

Each classification for both the orthographic and phonolog­ ical analysis was marked with a color code for the spelling 102

patterns. This color coding helped expedite the sorting

and counting and probably lessened the possibility of

error. After all the tabulations were made by one inves­

tigator, the cards were then checked by a second investi­

gator for verification of classification, proper sorting

into classifications and accuracy of counting and tabula­ tion. The cards were then ready for the next syllable

count or classification sort.

The comparison of the orthographic patterns with the phonological patterns is presented in Table 11. (See

Appendix)

Spelling Pattern Analysis

The spelling patterns used in the initial stages of the present study were derived from a comparable study by

Emans and Harms (19 71) which analyzed words beyond the primary level. Their spelling patterns were derived from four sources:

(1) Fries, Charles. Linguistics and Reading, 196 2,

(2) The Merrill Linguistic Headers, Books 1-6, by Charles Fries, et al„ 196 6 ,

(3) The vowel combinations in Chapter 5 of Phonics and the Teaching of Reading, Delores Durkin, 1962,

(4) and patterns which emerged from the primary tabulation of the first part of their study. 103

The spelling pattern analysis is a technique for

demonstrating the relationships between the writing or

spelling systems and the phonology of English words. The

dissimilar features of English grapheme-phoneme correspon­

dence necessitate separate descriptions for phonemes and

their patterns, phonology, and the basic writing units

(Gleason, 1961). This technique incorporates many environ­ mental factors of letters in words on the assumption that

the isolation of sounds and letters does not provide a

system as functional as one which accepts the influence of clusters of letters. The spelling pattern analysis technique can be used to reflect and measure the corres­ pondences between the phonemic and graphemic constructions or representations that supercede single letter-sound relationships. An orthographic system which utilizes a series of symbols is limited because no graphic system can depict a total sound continuum (Haas, 1969). This limita­ tion is compatible with Bloomfield's (1942) notion that

"Words in print are representations of words in speech

(p. 14 2)." These limitations constantly recurred to the researchers in the initial phases of the present study.

The Emans and Harms (.1971) spelling patterns were modified after the first classification was completed. The spelling patterns finally used were generated from the

Emans-Harms list and the recurring syllable structures of 104

the words being analyzed. Two types of modifications were

necessary for the present analysis. One involved expansion

of existing patterns by peripheral changes to the environ­

ment of basic patterns, as in the addition of patterns for

the silent e, the initial r-controlled vowel-consonant

(vrCo) and the r-controlled vowel-silent e^ (vre) configura­ tions. The second type of modification was the addition of patterns that did not occur in the Emans-Harms patterns.

The patterns to cover cases of silent letters as in autumn, climb and tack, the gu patterns and certain double vowel cases, e0 , ofi, and i^, were added to the original list of spelling patterns.

The spelling patterns used in the present study are presented in Table 2. (See Appendix)

Degrees of Difficulty

At the conclusion of the spelling pattern portion of the study, a number of items of difficulty had been recor­ ded by the researchers during the processing of the words.

These observations were combined with the analysis of the grapheme-phoneme relationship revealed by the spelling pattern analysis to produce a collection of word situations and graphemic structures that were obstacles to decoding the printed words. These difficulties to the decoding process were described and illustrated with word examples 105

from the lexicon of the study. It was assumed that if a grapheme-phoneme difficulty was encountered by a researches using a mature set of reading skills, that a child learning to read would probably have some difficulty with the par­ ticular situation. The items that were identified as dif­

ficult situations in word recognition were incorporated into a list of difficult features. For example, words composed of single consonants and single vowels (man, go) would be more easily decoded than words containing blends or consonant digraphs (grandchildren). (See Appendix,

Table 13)

The questions that could then be asked were directed at the skills that were necessary to decode a word with these specific features. What skills are needed to suc­ cessfully complete the grapheme-phoneme process of decoding a word having one or more of these features? What is the minimum knowledge of the grapheme-phoneme relationship of

American-English that a reader could employ in breaking the sound code of this word? Edgar Dale (19 71) said that

"To learn to read, children must break both the sound code and the meaning code. When the letter-to-sound code has been mastered, the child can then pronounce the word and get its meaning if he already knows it (p. 2 )."

The concern of this portion of the study was to struc­ ture the skills that are needed in breaking the sound code. 106

If the "...task of beginning reading instruction is to

teach them to read words (Chall, p. 259)," then what

skills offer the most direct solution to reading the words of the study? Is it possible to evaluate or rank words with a scale of difficulty based on the degree of congru­ ence with the grapheme-phoneme relationships of the word?

Gibson (1964) referred to spelling patterns as the "smal­ lest component units in written English (p. 329)." It was assumed that such a ranking was possible and the latter section of this study was directed toward the rating of the words that had been used in the spelling pattern analy­ sis. The strategies for decoding that evolved from analy­ sis and introspection of the spelling pattern study were ranked into a hierarchical structure as a scale of diffi­ culty, as shown in Table 14.

This table incorporates the following assumptions:

(1) Single syllable words are more easily recognized than multiple syllable words. Therefore, the numerical rating of 1 to 5 (or whatever number may be needed) indi­ cates the number of syllables in the word (Courtney, 1953;

Groff, 1962; Bormuth, 196 8; Spache and Spache, 1969).

(2) The more consistent grapheme to phoneme corres­ pondence words or syllables are easier to decode than words or syllables that contain an element that does not follow an exact grapheme to phoneme pattern. The deviations from 107

the grapheme to phoneme relationship vary in degrees of

complexity and require a hierarchy of skills (Deighton,

1959; Umstattd, 1965; Balmuth, 1966; Winkley, 1966, 1970).

(3) In addition to syllabication and the grapheme to phoneme correspondence, one must consider the blending of sounds and the environmental changes in enunciation that result from the internal structure of the words (Weir,

196 4; Weir and Venezky, 1965; Williams, 196 8 ; Brown, 19 70;

Wardhaugh, 19 71).

The scale was then applied to the same corpus of words as used in the spelling pattern analysis, Dale's List of

3000 Common Words.

Summary

The word analysis procedures described in the preced­ ing pages of Chapter III were implemented and conducted.

Each procedure produced data which are presented in tabular form in the Appendix.

The results, conclusions and summary statements of the tabulations of each of the previously described procedures is presented in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

This chapter includes the results of each of the word

analysis procedures described in Chapter III and a discussion of these results. The chapter is divided into sections which briefly review the questions posed for the present

study, the analysis techniques used for exploring possible

answers to these questions f and the results of each of the

analysis procedures. The detailed findings of each word

analysis tabulation is presented in the Appendix. Summary tables and those which illustrate a specific point in graphic form have been included in the text of the chapter.

A section in the latter part of the chapter is a review of the development of the Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty, the tabulations and a discussion of the results of the use of the scale of difficulty with the Dale List of 3000 Common

Words.

The purposes of this study were to identify and apply the elements of a spelling pattern schemata to a primary level word list by exploration of orthographic or graphemic spelling and phonemic respelling structures. A second purpose was to develop and apply strategies for word

108 109

recognition purposes as they appeared useful from the

spelling pattern analysis and from other sources, and to

compare and contrast the spelling pattern schemata and

.other methods as word recognition generalizations.

A number of questions were asked prior to this study:

1. Do the orthographic spellings of words lend themselves to consistent patterns?

2. What is the relationship of the graphemic representation of words to their phonological structures?

3. If there exists significant patterns in the spelling structures of words, are these pat­ terns consistent enough to be used to devise word recognition strategies?

4. If strategies of word recognition can be projected from linguistic feature analysis, is it possible to arrange them into a hier- archal sequence to use as a discrimination of difficulty index?

The answers to these questions were sought through the

techniques described in Chapter III; the results and find­

ings comprise the balance of this chapter.

Analysis of the data collected in the study was defer­

red until all statistics were gathered and processed. This

was done to avert the research investigators from working

toward preconceived principles, targets or ideas.

Spelling Pattern Analysis

The answers to the question "Do the orthographic

spellings of words lend themselves to consistent patterns?" 110

were sought by use of a Spelling Pattern Analysis technique

previously described as used by Emans and Harms (1971).

This technique was used to analyze each syllable and word

in the Dale List of 3000 Common Words.

As the investigation progressed, it was found that the

syllables being studied often possessed characteristics

which were dominant enough to warrant grouping, yet the

syllables did not fall within the boudaries of the patterns

established by Emans and Harms (1971). Certain patterns

were then expanded to include logical additions of similar

words. For example, the short vowel spelling patterns

which had a single consonant at the beginning of the sylla­

ble or word were modified to include syllables and words

which begem with a short vowel. Spelling pattern 1.01,

single consonant-short vowel-single consonant (cs v Cs) was

modified to include the short-vowel-single consonant pattern

(v Cs). This modification made it possible to identify words like man and an within the same classification.

Spelling patterns 1.02, Single consonant-short vowel-conso­ nant blend (Cs v Cel) and 1.03, Single consonant-short vowel-consonant digraph (Cs v Cd) were the other patterns

affected by this modification.

A second area of modification of the Emans and Harms

Spelling Patterns was the addition of the classifications

19.00 to 19.06 to accommodate syllables and words with Ill

silent consonants, such as autumn, climb and flight. The

high frequency of silent letters and the probable effect

they would have on the beginning reader was observed in the

initial classification work. The addition of these pat­

terns made it possible to include the analysis of a greater

number of words than would have been possible without the

extra patterns. In like manner, the spelling pattern 20.00

was added to accommodate the qu configuration. Almost 6%

of the syllables of the words analyzed were classified into

the spelling patterns which were added to the original list

of Emans and Harms (1971).

After the initial classification of each syllable of

the 2£43 word corpus, a basic arithmetical count was done

to establish the balance figures for all other analysis

tabulations. The 2£43 words contained 4,532 syllables; how­

ever, 34 of the words in the corpus were not included in the

dictionary source. The count of words actually in the dic­

tionary was 2,909 , with 4,485 syllables. These balance fig­

ures , plus rationalizations for a few special case words

were used for all subsequent tabulations. Rationalizations

were necessary because some tabulation had to account for

the differences between the number of syllables in the

orthographic spellings and phonemic respellings of words

like Mr., Mrs,., and prayer. The detailed account of the word and syllable count is presented in Table 1 of the 112

Appendix. The 2^4 3 word count and 4)532 syllable count was

used for all orthographic spelling tabulations. The 2,909

word count and 4/185 syllable count, plus the stated differ­

ences, was used for all other tabulations.

Description of Syllables

Over 54% of the words analyzed were single syllable

words. As stated in Chapter III in the discussion of the

development of the Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty,

and in previous statements in Chapter II (Umstattd, 1965;

Balmuth, 1966; Spache and- Spache, 1969; Durkin, 1962/, it

was presumed that the difficulty of reading a word increa­

ses as the number of syllables in a word increases. While

it may be assumed that syllabification generalizations

diminish in usefulness as a reader matures (Bormuth, 1968;

Winkley, 1966; Spache and Spache, 1969), it appeared

reasonable to assume that the additional task of dividing

an unknown word into syllables increases the difficulty of

decoding for the beginning reader (McGinnies, Comer and

Lacey, 1952; Winkley, 1966; Durkin, 1962). Two syllable words comprised approximately 38% (U.16 words) of the cor­ pus analyzed, and only 7.5% or 224 of the 2,94 3 words had three or more syllables. The complete description of words by number of syllables, with and without spelling pattern congruence, is presented in Table U of the Appendix. 113

No discernable spelling pattern was recorded for 10.4% or 4 72 of the syllables analyzed. Many of these cases contained three similar factors. The foremost characteris­ tic of these No Pattern or 0.00 classification syllables was the one-letter case in which no environment existed to suggest whether the vowel sound would be long or short.

The word a or the whole syllable a as in about were examples of this characteristic. A second factor which placed syl­ lables into this category was the case of digraphs being preceded by another consonant, such as in the word fifth.

A third characteristic of words of this classification was irregularity of the sound of a letter to the extent that no predictable pattern existed. The letter o in come, which sounds like u, exemplifies this characteristic.

These factors have been discussed to a greater extent in subsequent sections pertaining to silent letters and r controlled vowels.

The Most Frequently Occurring Patterns

The spelling pattern 1.01 {Cs v Cs or v Cs) which was used to classify single consonant-short vowel-single conso­ nant or short vowel-single consonant spelling configurations dominated the patterns of orthography of the corpus of words of the present study. Slightly more than one-fifth, 20.4%, of the syllables analyzed conformed to this simple pattern. 114

This finding was not surprising since it substantiated

Heilman's (1964) reasons for teaching the short vowel

sounds first in beginning reading instruction. This most

frequently occurring spelling pattern so dominated the

corpus that it required the sum of the next five most fre­

quently occurring patterns to equal the 1.01 pattern. The

second place rank order of syllables was the 0.00 or No

Pattern classification with 10.4% of the cases.

The third and fifth place rank order of syllables was

of particular interest. The r-controlled and silent letter

cases had been particularly troublesome to the researchers

in the classification of syllables and had, as previously

described, necessitated the second classification and tabu­

lation of the words containing r's. The spelling pattern

6.02, any consonant-er or er (Co er or er) included 5.7%

of the total cases. The spelling pattern 2.01, consonant-

long vowel-consonant-silent e (Cs v Cs ^ or v Cs f£) inclu­

ded 4.3% of the cases. Of the 1603 single syllable words examined, 827 or 51.6% had at least one silent letter. The ratio was higher for multiple-syllable words where 763 of the 1,340 words or 57% contained at least one silent letter.

The 2,943 word list contained 1,590 words with silent letters which affected 54.1% of the total number of words analyzed. The significance of these percentages is inclu­ ded in a subsequent section. Detailed descriptions of the 115 rank order of syllables by spelling patterns have been in­ cluded in Table F in the Appendix.

The prevalence of some few spelling patterns is illus­ trated by the rank order table. Only 20 of the spelling patterns identified more than 1% of the 4,532 syllables.

Summary and Observations Recorded During the Analysis of Graphemic Characteristics'

The researchers observed that the manipulation of the lexicon cards into spelling patterns created "families of words" with rhyming characteristics. For example, in many of the classifications whpre only a small number of cases were found, all syllables included in the classification rhymed. Spelling Patterns 16 107 (flood and blood) and

Pattern 16.0 8 (should, could, would and other ould words) illustrate this situation. In larger classifications such as 1.01, several families of rhyming syllables were found.

For example, rat, cat, hat, bat would follow the same spelling pattern as men, pen, den, hen. Therefore, it appears that the spelling pattern alone is not an adequate identification for words to be taught in family situations if rhyme is to be an element in addition to the word patterns.

A second observation resulted from tabulation differen­ ces when it was noted that some syllables could be classi­ fied correctly into two categories. For example, quarter 116

could be a spelling pattern 20.0 0 because of the qu or a

6.01 because of the ar situation. Only in the case of

r-controlled vowels did this double classification phenome­

non result in enough cases to pose a significant statistical

difference. As previously reported the r-controlled envir­

onments constituted a source of concern which resulted in

the modification of the basic spelling patterns and required

a review of all of the preliminary classifications and

tabulations.

Sources of errors were noted throughout the work.

Verification of the initial tabulations of the examiners

showed that the greatest manipulative error was the placing

of short vowels with identical environments in the long

vowel category, or vice-versa. This error was found in

an average of 20 cases per examiner in the classification

of the 4,532 syllables. It was felt that this was a result

of clerical error rather than mispronunciation. These

errors were found first in data comparisons between examin­ ers and again when the phonemic respelling data was compared

to the graphemic spelling. However, the errors were further emphasized by the "family" nature of the contents of the spelling patterns as discussed previously.

In only rare instances did the number of syllables in the word have any effect on the pattern into which the syllables fit. The primary examples of this were spelling 117

patterns 1.03, which included all words with the final

syllable ing (going), and pattern 6.02, which included all

words with the final syllable er (leader).

Identical repeating consonants at the syllabic division

of a multi-syllable word were handled in the graphemic por­

tion of the study as though each consonant sounded, e.g.,

S2 in bigger, the nn in dinner, and 11^ in gallon. This

treatment was indicated by the handling of syllables as

though they were individual words. There were approximately

200 of these words. Upon phonemic respelling, one consonant usually disappeared. In jnany instances, this alteration of spelling did not affect the pattern into which these words fell. This situation is presented in the next section of the chapter and discussed more thoroughly in the final summary section.

Analysis of the Phonemic Characteristics

of the Corpus of Words

The analysis of the phonemic characteristics was de­ signed to help determine the relationship of the graphemic representations of the words to their phonological struc­ tures. This relationship was posed as one of the questions of the present study.

The phonemic analysis procedure was essentially the same as that of the graphemic analysis. Each word card was treated as a separate case for every syllable of the words 118 analyzed. The phonemic respellings recorded from the dic­ tionary source were classified with one or more of the 97 spelling patterns presented in Table 2 in the Appendix.

A syllable was coded No Pattern, Pattern 0.00, if there was no discernible pattern. The phonemic respelling process eliminated all of the silent letters of the orthographic spellings. This elimination of silent letters was particu­ larly noticeable in words such as flight, which is respelled flit, or knife, which became nif.

Approximately 90% of the syllables of the 2,943 words had been classified with 9 7 different spelling patterns in the graphemic analysis of the syllables. The elimination of the silent letters in the phonemic respelling procedure reduced the number of spelling patterns from 97 to 26. The

26 remaining patterns accommodated almost 88% of the cases.

About 1.5% of the words were transferred to the No Pattern

0.00 classification, which increased from 10.4% in the graphemic analysis to 11.9% in the phonemic respelling analysis.

Many of the spelling patterns consisted solely of fea­ tures for syllables with silent letters. Spelling patterns

2.01 to 3.00 were used for the classification of words with a silent e, and 11.00 through 1.05 included double vowel classifications where one vowel was silent. The syllables classified with these and comparable spelling patterns 119 moved into other patterns when the words were phonemically respelled. This reclassification process eliminated all cases in 71 patterns. The 26 patterns which remained in­ creased significantly as syllables from the 71 eliminated patterns were absorbed. For example, spelling pattern 1.01,

Cs V Cs, increased from 20.4% of the graphemic cases to

26.6% of the phonemic respelling classifications. All data of this reclassification shifting and the statistical results was included in Table H in the Appendix.

Many of the characteristics of the phonemic respelling analysis were so similar to the graphemic results that they need only to be mentioned. The number of words with a given number of syllables did not change significantly, but those with such changes became special cases in all subsequent tabulations. The words Mr. and Mrs. were counted as one syllable since the abbreviated forms were on the corpus list, but the phonemic respelling changed both of these words to two syllables. Prayer was counted as two syllables graphe- mically, but as only one phonemically. Evening also changed from three graphemic syllables to two phonemically. The number of words which could be classified in the phonemic respelling analysis was reduced from 2,943 to 2,909 because

34 words on the Dale List of 3000 Common Words were not included in the dictionary source. 120

The importance of r-controlled vowels was emphasized

in the phonemic analysis. The spelling pattern 6.02, Cs

er, ranked third of the patterning syllables with 7.3% of

the total syllables. The number of r-controlled vowels did

not change significantly with the phonemic classification

although the elimination of silent letters reduced the

number of patterns. The effects of the letter r have been

presented in a later section of this chapter.

The researchers discovered that the classification of

the phonemic respelling syllables was a much less complex

task than the classification of the graphemic syllables had

been. Three reasons accounted for this simplification of

the task. First, the diacritical markings in the phonemic

respellings eliminated any decision making as to pronuncia­

tion, length of vowels, and other like factors. Second,

the reduction in the number of classifications that could be

used with existing cases expedited the work and complemented

the third reason, which was the effect of the phonemic

respelling on the analysis task that eliminated spelling

irregularities. The phonemic respelling reduced each sylla­

ble to its simplest element.

The same three factors which affected the ease of

classification, described in the preceding paragraph, also

affected the accuracy of the analysis procedures. There were virtually no clerical errors discovered in the

t 121 re-examinations of the phonemic classifications or tabula­ tions, Each of the researchers, all mature, adult readers, noted a tendency to pronounce the phonetic spelling of a word or syllable and then "read into it" the letters which they knew from experience were missing.

The "family" characteristic of rhyming words was still a factor in the phonemic respelling analysis as it had been observed and reported in the graphemic analysis. However, more "families" fell into each available pattern because the number of patterns was greatly reduced.

The observation of the effect of silent letters and the importance of the letter r in the environment of other letters was again noticed by the researchers. After these observations, it was decided to expand the analysis proced­ ure beyond the original design to explore these two factors, silent letters and the letter r, in greater depth. The results of these analyses have been included in later sec­ tions of this chapter.

The next section is a report of the findings of the comparisons of the graphemic and phonemic analyses.

Comparison of the Graphemic and Phonemic Respellings

In order to answer the question, "What is the rela­ tionship of the graphemic representation of words to their phonological structures?" and to determine the feasibility 122 of using spelling structures to devise word recognition

strategies, two comparisons were made with the analysis data. The results of these comparisons is reported in the grapheme-to-phoneme pattern correspondence and the grapheme- to-phoneme letter correspondence as described in the follow­ ing paragraphs.

The Grapheme-Phoneme Pattern Correspondence

After the analysis of the orthographic spelling pat­ terns and the corresponding analysis of the phonemic respelling patterns were completed, the results of the two were compared.

Silent letters were the first factor which influenced the correspondence between the patterns of graphemes and phonemes as stated in the discussions of several other tabulations. The role of silent letters in this comparison caused all words in the classifications which were specific­ ally established to denote silent letter cases to immediately fail to follow a pattern correspondence between grapheme and phoneme representations. The phonemic respellings had elim­ inated all silent letters, thus changing each syllable to a less complex spelling pattern. For example, the word aim was respelled am and moved from a classification pattern

11.01, Co a% , to pattern 5.06, Co ^ Cs or v Cs.

V 123

The syllable-by-syllable analysis of the grapheme-to- phoneme patterns produced a 46% positive relationship be­ tween the two systems. The most consistent patterns were identified by computing the percentage of words or syllables which remained in the same classification pattern with the phonemic respelling procedure. As previously reported, the

97 orthographic spelling patterns were reduced to 26 phone­ mic respelling patterns. The 26 patterns which appeared in both groups were analyzed by comparing each syllable in those classifications. Only 16 of these 26 patterns had a minimum grapheme-phoneme correspondence of 75 per cent.

These 16 spelling patterns appear in Table 9*

The first six of these patterns were classifications for the short vowel sound with simple consonants, blends and digraphs. These six patterns included over 31% of the total syllables analyzed. The next four patterns were com­ posed of the long vowel sound with the same environmental features as the first six patterns. Almost six per cent of the total corpus was included in this group. The pattern 6.02 is the er ending syllable as in leader and marker, and identified 7.3% of the phonemically respelled cases. 124

TABLE 1

Spelling Patterns Which Exceed Seventy-five

Percent Grapheme-Phoneme Correspondence

Spelling Pattern Description Percent Correspondence

1.01 Cs v Cs or v Cs 87 V 1.02 Cs v Cel or v Cel 95

1.03 Cs v Cd or v Cd 87

V 1.04 Cel v Cs 97

1.05 Cel v Cel 77

v-/ 1.07 Cd v Cs 84

5.01 Cs V or Cs v Co 95

5.02 Cel v or Ccd v Co 86

5.03 Cd 7 or Cd v Co 94

5.04 Co v Cel or v Cel 100

6.02 Co er 93

6.05 Co ur 87

15.01 Co oi 100

15 .04 Co ou 100

16.05 Co oo 98

16.06 Co oo 100

The combined totals of these 16 spelling patterns represent over 53% of the total corpus, phonemically re­ spelled. These patterns have minimum grapheme to phoneme 125

correspondence of 75%, with some isolated cases having a

100% correspondence. The feo combination in which both vowels are sounded (goods, cook) was very consistent, as was the long oo combination (pool, fool). The two dip- thongs, oi (oil, spoil) and ou (out, spout) also exhibited a high degree of correspondence.

The simplification of phonemic respelling caused 24 0 syllables which were not placed into spelling patterns with the graphemic analysis to assume spelling characteristics which made it possible to classify them within established patterns for the phonemic analysis. These 240 syllables moved from the No Pattern classification into regular v patterns. The words been, which became bin, wrapped which transformed into rapt, and prove, which became proov, exem­ plify such changes. The potential significance of this shift into patterns has been included in the discussion section.

Some syllables were not consistent in their grapheme- phoneme pattern correspondence because of the nature of one letter or a sound combination. All syllables with the letter x (fix, ax) were not stable patterns because the major sound of x as found in this study was the blend ks.

Therefore, each syllable containing an x changed to a different pattern. The graphemic spelling of words which contained the digraph nk (think, thank) were respelled 126

phonemically ngk, thus by definition of the dictionary

source (Merriam Webster's Mew Collegiate Dictionary, 1951)

these syllables could no longer be classified as digraphs

within a vowel environment since digraphs were defined as

"A group of two letters representing a single speech sound

(p. 232)

The grapheme-phoneme analysis reiterated the family

characteristics of many of the spelling patterns. The

majority of the grapheme-phoneme changes within spelling

pattern classifications went to the same phonemic pattern.

For example, in the graphfemic spelling pattern 19.05 (ght),

18 of the 22 cases changed to the phonemic respelling

pattern 5.01 (Cs v Co) as illustrated by the word fight

which was respelled fit. In graphemic pattern 2.01 (Cs "v

Co f£) , 179 of 195 words changed with the phonemic respelling

to pattern 5.01 (cs v or Cs v Co) as in make which trans­

formed into mak. The implications for reading instruction

of this apparent consistency which is contrariwise to a

correlation between the graphemic and phonemic patterns is

presented in the major discussion section.

The Grapheme to Phoneme Letter Correspondence

After the grapheme-phoneme pattern examination of each syllable was completed, the graphemic spelling and phonemic respelling of each of the 2,943 words were compared by use of 127 a letter-by-letter analysis. An exact correspondence for each letter in the graphemic spelling and the phonemic respelling was necessary for a word to be counted as having positive correspondence. The tabulation of this examination was done at the word level. Thus a word was marked as hav­ ing exact letter-by-letter correspondence or it was rejected and counted in the negative column.

The results of this grapheme-phoneme letter correspon­ dence is presented in the following paragraphs. Only 746 of the 2,943 words analyzed were represented by exactly the same letters in both graphemic and phonemic spellings.

This was 24% of the total corpus of words. Of these 746 exact letter correspondence words, 527, or 70% of the cases, were simple one-syllable words. The other 219, or 30% of the cases, were multiple syllable words with exact letter correspondence.

A partial explanation of these results was developed from observations recorded as the researchers were conduc­ ting this analysis. A large group of words was immediately obvious for negation on this count; all of the syllables which failed the grapheme-phoneme pattern correspondence check automatically failed to qualify for exact letter correspondence. The previously stated reasons for lack of congruence in the pattern analysis also were operative in the letter analysis. For example, the letter x was usually respelled phonemically as ks, thus-failing in both analyses. 128

Likewise, the silent letter situations and irregular di­

graphs, as nk respelled ngk, disqualified words containing

the syllables which had been eliminated on the pattern

analysis.

Several factors were unique to the letter correspon­

dence analysis that were not observed in the spelling pat­ tern analysis. For example, the graphemic spelling of the word cat was classified with the same spelling pattern as the phonemic respelling of kat. However, the shift from graphemic c to phonemic k was not the same in the letter- by-letter analysis. The letter c is a prime example of this factor of the analysis. As observed in this analysis, the letter c was phonemically represented by £ or k where it was used as a single consonant, and only maintained its own representation in phonemic respellings when it was combined with another letter as in the digraph ch. In a similar manner, the letter £ with £ sound was observed to be a major contributor to the failure for letter correspon­ dences .

In the letter correspondence analysis, the treatment of multiple syllable words as whole units rather than individual syllables, as was done in the pattern correspon­ dence analysis, further reduced the number of identical case possibilities. If just one letter of a three or four syllable word was not exact, the word was not counted as 129 identical. The apparent significance of the grapheme-to- phoneme pattern and letter correlations has been included in the discussion section of the chapter.

The Effect of Silent Letters on Grapheme to Phoneme Correspondence

It was observed early in the physical manipulation and classification of the word corpus that silent letters were the most frequently occuring symbols which caused major dissimilarities between grapheme and phoneme correspondence.

Subsequent tabulations revealed the magnitude of silent letters. Of the 1,603 single syllable words examined, 51.6%, or 82 7 words had at least one silent letter. Within the

1,340 multiple-syllable words, 57%, or 763 words, contained at least one silent letter. Therefore, the total corpus of 2,943 words contained a total of 1,590 words with silent letters, which affected 5 4.1% of the words examined.

To classify and analyze the words which contained silent letters more adequately than the original spelling patterns would have permitted, several modifications and addendums were made. The spelling patterns established by

Emans and Harms (1971), which were the nucleus of the patterns for the present study, contained several patterns for classification of syllables with silent letters. To those existing spelling patterns, the researchers added and amended patterns 2.01 through 3.00 for classification of 130

silent e_ situations. Patterns 11.00 through 14.05, which

included double vowels with one silent vowel, and patterns

19.00 through 19.05 to accommodate silent consonants were

added to the original spelling pattern thesaurus.

Silent letters were observed to be involved in all

but the simplest categories and in combination with other

spelling pattern features. In some cases, the researchers

judged that another more dominant feature justified the

classification of a word into a category which did not

reveal the silent letter feature. For example, the word

squeak was classified as a 20.00 (qu) but it still contained

a silent letter. Words of this type were not tabulated

into the preceding data for silent letters because it was

computed from classification totals.

Many of the words contained more than one silent let­

ter. The total number of silent letters per se would

contribute little to the understanding of the present study,

since other tabulations were for words or syllables. For example, one syllable words such as badge were phonemically

respelled in such a way that two letters were eliminated

(baj). Carelessness, a three-syllable word with a silent letter in each syllable, was counted only one time in this analysis.

One classification cluster of spelling patterns which contained silent letters indicated that the silent letter 131 may be in a predictable environment within a word. The cases in patterns 2.00 through 3.00 illustrated that e at the end of a word is almost always silent. Lesser examples of predictability were illustrated by ay in which the y was always silent, ee in which only one e was sounded, and ck, with a consistently silent c. Graphemic words in these patterns changed in families to simpler phonemic patterns in wholly predictable fashions.

In other cases, the predictability of the silent letter was not indicated by its environment. For example, in words which contained the vowels ai, either the a was silent

(certain) or the i^ was silent (paid). In words which contained the vowels ou, either the o was silent (rough) or the u was silent (dough, ought), or the two became a dipthong (out). Double consonant cases had the first letter silent (yolk), the second one silent (autumn) or both sounded as in any blend or digraph (trust). Ghost had a silent h, but both cjh were usually silent as in flight.

There were also what might be termed "random" silent letters which follow neither pattern nor family. Oh and guest are examples of this type of silent letter.

The number of silent letters, and their varying envir­ onments, indicates the magnitude of this feature in the reading process. 132

Observations of the Letter R

It became evident early in the examination of the

Dale List of 3000 Common Words that r-controlled vowels were a significant factor in any grapheme-phoneme correspon­ dence correlation. No other single factor caused the examiners as much difficulty in the classification task.

As the study progressed, many factors regarding the charac­ teristics of the letter r emerged.

According to Hanna-Hodges (1966), r was the most frequently used letter in the approximately 17,000 words they examined. A sampling of the words of the present study lexicon was taken by consideration of the multiple- syliable words as a group. The words which contained the letter r were counted. Analysis of the 1/340 multiple- syllable words yielded the following results: 149 words, or 11% contained an r not preceded by a vowel; 6 3 words, or

5% contained an r not preceded by a vowel and an r-controlled vowel or an j preceded by a vowel in the same syllable; and

406 words, or 30%, contained an r-controlled vowel or an r preceded by a vowel in the same syllable.

After this check of the role of the letter r in the multiple syllable words, it was decided to identify the single syllable words which contained an r. Separate tabulations were made for all words which contained an r. 133

All syllables with an r were classified into r-control cate­ gories, tabulated and re-classified into another spelling pattern if it was possible to reclassify them. The data presented in tabular form in the Appendix Tables D, E, H, I and J illustrated the tenacity of r in the environment of a vowel. The percentages of change in the syllables as a re­ sult of this reclassification exercise were negligible.

Patterns 6.01 through 6.05 identified single vowels with an r-control classification. There were a maximum of 5 31 cases in these spelling patterns. Reclassification of every syllable possible into another spelling pattern de­ creased this number by only 44, leaving 487 exclusively r-controlled cases in these classifications.

The control of the letter r was still greater in the

7.00 spelling pattern series which denoted double vowels and dipthongs. Only one case in 39 changed in the reclassi­ fication exercise. In spelling pattern 8.00 (Co vr ^), over 50% of the cases were logically reclassified, yielding a shift from 56 to 27 r-control cases after the reclassifi­ cation. Within all r-controlled spelling patterns, only

74, or 11.8% of the spelled words, and only 116 or 17.1% of the phonemic respellings were capable of being changed to a spelling pattern other than the r-controlled category into which they were originally classified. However, there were an additional 37 words which contained a pattern considered 134

more dominant than the r-controlled feature, and thus were

never considered as r-controlled potentials in the initial

stages of the examination. Quarter is an example of such

a word. A total of 626 (13.8%) of the spelled words and

678 (15.1%) of the phonemic respellings were classified

into r-controlled patterns.

In a few words, the graphemic r without a preceding

vowel in the same syllable assumed an r-controlled sound.

The words i/ron = i/em and a/cre = j / k e r are examples of

this phenomenon.

It was noted that some multiple-syllable words had two

or more r-controlled vowels. Everywhere, northern, over­

turn, and underwear are but a few of these words.

At this point it is necessary to briefly state the axioms of the findings of the word analysis procedures in the study because the results influenced the development of the Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty which was used in a subsequent analysis of the study lexicon.

Summary of Spelling Pattern Analyses

The results of the lexicon analyses by spelling patterns indicated that some linguistic features offer great potential for decoding words. However, the usefulness of a spelling pattern decoding technique relies upon the ability of the reader to apply the patterns to words with specific 135 constructions. The data obtained in the present study illustrate the probabilities of occurrence of some graphem­ ic and phonemic features, the potential difficulties of reading certain letter configurations, and the need for specific instructional practice if spelling patterns are to be used for word recognition purposes.

Almost 90% of the 4,532 syllables were identified with at least one of the 97 spelling patterns designed for the present study. However, only 20 of the 97 patterns were used to identify more than 1% of the study lexicon. A few spelling patterns were extremely dominant and were assumed to be salient cues for decoding purposes. Over 50% of the cases analyzed were contained in 11 of the spelling patterns.

The most frequently occurring pattern, spelling pattern number 1.01 (q S v Cs or v Cs)# was found in over 20% of the syllables.

In a few cases all of the words with identical spelling patterns rhymed and were referred to as a "family" with comparable ending phonograms. The data indicated that a spelling pattern decoding technique would be very effective when applied to these words. This technique did not appear to be as functional for decoding the dominant classifica­ tions where a single spelling pattern contained several fam­ ilies of rhyming words. In such cases, the need for a word recognition technique other than the spelling pattern was 136

evident.

The prevalence of silent letters and r-controlled vowels was noticeable in several of the analysis procedures, both in number and environmental control. The phonemic

respelling of the lexicon eliminated the silent letters.

Only 2 6 spelling patterns were needed to phonemically

classify the same portion of the lexicon which had re­ quired 9 7 patterns when the words were graphemically spelled. Elimination of the silent letters reduced the spelling patterns to their least complex elements.

The frequent use of the letter r and the effect it had on the other letters, particularly vowels, in its environ­ ment, was illustrated in several analysis results. The consonant-er spelling pattern 6.02 (Co er) ranked third in the syllable count. This spelling pattern contained 7.3% of the total syllables of the lexicon. The tenacity of r was demonstrated by the consistency of the number of cases and percentage of correspondence between the orthographic and phonemic spelling comparisons of the r-controlled cases. Approximately 12% of the graphemic spellings which were r-controlled situations could be reclassified into any other spelling pattern.

The predictability of letters and the transition features of spelling patterns were demonstrated with the analyses which compared the graphemic spellings and 137

phonemic respellings of the study lexicon. These regular

features were incorporated into the rationale for the

subsequent analysis procedures which used a scale that

ranked the difficult features for reading the primary

level word corpus.

One of the questions posed for the present study was

directed toward determining the consistency of the spelling

patterns or structures of the corpus of words and the

feasibility of using any consistent patterns to devise

strategies for word recognition instructional practices.

The selection of dominant spelling patterns and the organi­

zation of significant features into a scale of difficulty will be reviewed in the next section.

The Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty

The development of the Word Recognition Scale of

Difficulty centered on the premise that some words were more easily read than others. The questions of why this is so

and what features may be more difficult than others to de­

code were related to the fourth major question of the present study, "If strategies of word recognition can be projected from linguistic feature analysis, is it possible to arrange them into a hierarchal sequence to use as a discrimination of difficulty index?" 138

The Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty emerged from

the earlier phases of the study which identified the influ­

ences of word features that had been observed to cause

difficulty in the word classifications for the analysis

procedures. The words which contained complex features

that were easily neglected or features which had minimal

amounts of grapheme-phoneme correspondence were assumed to

be more difficult to decode than words composed of simple

spelling patterns or which exhibited a high grapheme-

phoneme relationship.

The actual arrangement of features in levels of the

scale assumed that the skills needed to complete the

grapheme-phoneme relationship of American-English words

were minimal in nature and once a threshold of recognition

was achieved, further knowledge at that level was super­

fluous. This assumption was compatible with Chall's (1967)

summaries of studies conducted in the phonics instruction

areas which generally reported that students with minimal

knowledge of word recognition generalizations did not profit

from additional instruction as did the students who were

lacking in these skills. The Word Recognition Scale of

Difficulty was a relational arrangement of difficult to

read word features. The rank of difficulty was based on the

degree of congruence of the grapheme-phoneme relationships within the corpus of words of the present study. 139

The Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty is presented in Table 13in the Appendix. It was applied to each of the

2,943 words which were analyzed with the spelling pattern analysis. Application of the scale of difficulty to a word resulted in a two-factor classification, a numeral and a letter with possibly a subscript for the letter. The first factor of the scale was a numerical rating of the number of syllables in a word. In the analysis of the corpus of words of the present study, the numerical ratings were from

1 to 5 because none of the words exceeded five syllables.

The numerical rating of syllables was based on the assump­ tion that single syllable words were more easily recognized by the beginning reader than multiple-syliable words. In fact, syllabication was a process of decoding which became more complex as the numer of syllables within a word in­ creased (Courtney, 1953? Deighton, 1959; Groff, 1962;

Umstattd, 1965; Balmuth, 1966; Bormuth, 196 8; Winkley,

1966, 1970; Spache and Spache, 1969).

It is generally recognized that syllabication, like any other word recognition skill, becomes internalized within the response patterns of the mature reader, but syllabication was delineated within this scale of diffi­ culty as a major word recognition feature for the begin­ ning reader. Thus, the larger the number of syllables 140 in a word, or, in most cases, the greater the length of the word, the more difficult the decoding process was assumed to be for the beginning reader (McGinnies, Comer and

Lacey, 1952).

The second factor of the rating description of the

Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty was a letter, or a letter and subscript, which denoted the level of the most difficult feature of a particular word. Letter ratings were used in the scale to identify nine levels of difficulty.

The levels began with A, which designated the most easily read features, and descended to Jiii as the classification for the most difficult to read constructions. The use of subscripts provided some flexibility within levels of the scale and made it possible to designate different word classifications which were assumed to be equivalent in difficulty.

Some examples of ratings with the Word Recognition

Scale of Difficulty illustrate its structure and function.

The word man was classified at the most easily recognized level, 1A, because it was a one syllable word, and contained single consonants with predictable sounds and a short vowel (Gibson, 1962; Williams, 1970). Words of this pattern were assumed to be more easily read than a word like came (Marchbanks and Levin , 1965) . Came was rated IE because it contained two features which required a higher 141

level of skill to decode than man. It contained a long vowel and a silent vowel. Came was a single syllable word so it retained a 1 numerical rating but other features made it more difficult to read than man. Thus the letter rating E designated greater difficulty than an A rating.

Although the letter c has two sounds, k and £, came contains its most frequently used sound, so the rating was not affected by this letter.

The most difficult feature of a word was used to establish the minimal skill needed to decode it. In the word came the silent e is the most difficult feature. The e in final position is highly predictable, but not sounding it is still a skill needed for correct enunciation of this word. The words library and knight illustrate other applications of the scale. Library was rated as a 3Fi, designating it as a three syllable word, and the Fi rank assumed that the most difficult feature was the r-controlled vowel factor. The word knight was rated as lGii because it is a one syllable word but it contained three silent consonants, k, £ and h.

As previously stated, this Word Recognition Scale of

Difficulty was based on the assumption that the closer the relationship between the graphemic and phonemic features, the easier the task of decoding for the beginning reader.

The use of the scale of difficulty in the present study is 142

described in the following paragraphs.

The same 2,943 words used in the spelling pattern

portion of the study were classified with the Word Recogni­

tion Scale of Difficulty by the same researchers involved

with the spelling pattern analysis. The personnel were

thoroughly familiar with the orthographic and phonological

features of the lexicon and were knowledgeable of the

special features involved with the design of the scale of

difficulty.

The original word cards, one 4 x 6 inch file card for

each word, contained the standard spelling, the phonemic

respelling including diacritical markings, and the coding

information from the spelling pattern analysis study. The

cards were coded and sorted into the 15 subclasses of the

nine levels of the Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty.

The coded cards were counted and filed under classifica­

tions which indicated the number of syllables in the words

and the difficulty level. Classifications and counts were

verified between two researchers working independently of

each other on the preliminary application of the scale.

The results of the classification of the 2,943 words by use of the scale of difficulty is reported in Table 14

in the Appendix.

The spelling pattern families discovered in earlier sections of the research disintegrated when words of the 143 same spelling pattern were rated into categories of difficulty classification. For example, still and will, part of spelling pattern 19.01, became separated into difficulty levels ID and ICi because of the blend and addi­ tional consonant. The 2,943 words did not fall into any discernable patterns in the Word Recognition Scale of

Difficulty. Over 10% of the words were classified into the most difficult level due to consonants which did not repre­ sent their major sound. Almost twothirds of the corpus were in levels D, E, F, and G. This classification indica­ ted that most common words contain features which may make them difficult to read. These most frequently encountered difficult features were blends, digraphs, predictable silent letters, r-controlled vowels, vowels which were neither long, short nor r-controlled, and unpredictable silent letters. The data from Table 2 may be used to designate the relative importance and instructional sequence of decoding features which should be included in the word recognition portion of a developmental reading program. 144

TABLE 2

Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty Ratings

of the Dale List of 3000 Common Words

Level of Cases by Number of Syllables Total % of Difficulty 1 2 3 4 5 Number total

A 169 42 9 220 7.48

B 19 32 16 1 68 2 .31

Ci 44 8 52 1.77 40 Cii 32 7 1 1 . 36*'

D 320 103 7 1 431 14.64

E 291 163 25 3 482 16.38

Fi 132 192 41 9 1 375 12.74

Fii 54 27 4 85 2 .89

Gi 91 114 31 5 241 8.19

Gii 248 206 21 475 16.14

Hi 63 51 7 121 4.11

Hii 21 2 1 24 .82

Ji 16 5 1 22 .75

Jii 1 1 2 .07

Jiii 102 16 3 37 3 _ 305 10.36 1603 1116 201 21 2 2943 145

A separate tabulation was made of the difficulty ratings for a select sub-corpus of words which have especi­ ally high usage in American-English. After analysis of a one million running word sample, Kucera and Francis (1967) stated that only 135 words comprised over 5 0% of the words found in adult publications. The Dale List of 3000 Common

Words contained 132 of these 135 words. The letters F, used in abbreviations for Fahrenheit and formula, and H, used in mathematical formulas, and the word years were not in the

Dale list. These 132 words were compared with the Dolch

List of Service Words (Dolch, 1942). All 132 of the words > were on the Dolch list. In view of the reported research results of the Dale, Dolch and Kucera and Francis studies, these 132 words were assumed to be basic to any reading vocabulary. In fact, from a percentage perspective, if a child can read these 132 words, he can decode more of the words encountered in print than if he could decode the balance of the 2,861 words in the study lexicon.

The results of the tabulation of the Word Recognition

Scale of Difficulty ratings for this select group of 132 words indicate a wide dispersion of difficult features.

These words occurred in a random pattern with some cases on every level of difficulty. It was interesting to note that 83 of these 132 words (63%) were in difficulty levels

D, E, F and G. This distribution was fairly congruent with 146

the 6 7% of the cases of the entire word corpus which fell

into this same range of levels. The actual ratings of the

132 words is presented in Table 15 in the Appendix.

A further examination of the ranking of these 132

words illustrated that no spelling pattern nor phonemic

respelling pattern predominated in this sub-group of words.

Thus, it appeared that the most frequently used words in

American-English contain features which range in decoding

difficulty from simple to the most complex.

Summary of the Word Recognition Scale

of Difficulty Analysis

The idea of a Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty

resided in the premises that some words were more easily

read than others and that the difficult to read features

were identifiable and subject to a hierarchal sequence

arrangement. The scale designed for the present study was

adequate for classification of every word in the study

lexicon, e.g., every word had a most difficult feature which

was used for a level designation.

The results of both the examinations of the entire

corpus of words and that of a sub-group of frequently

used words refuted the popular notion that primary words were easily recognized. Even the most common words used in

American-English were discovered to have special features 147

which may make decoding difficult for some young readers.

The use of the scale of difficulty to identify and rank

reading features of words produced information about the

relative difficulties for decoding which was not available

prior to the present study. The ranking of words by decod­

ing features seemed to hold great potential for vocabulary

selection for both instructional and research purposes.

The data and observations acquired in this analysis portion of the present study indicated that strategies of word recognition could be structured into a hierarchial

scale which was useful as> a discrimination of difficulty

index. The actual usefulness of the instrument will depend upon its general acceptance and future applications of its special features.

Summary

The preliminary word analysis task was to match the orthographic spelling and the phonological respelling of each word of the study lexicon with a spelling pattern from the pattern thesaurus adopted from Emans and Harms

(1971). Words not having one of the spelling patterns were classified as 0.00 or n o pattern constructions. It was observed that many of the words which were placed in the 0.00 classification possessed comparable structures.

The decision was made to modify the Emans and Harms spelling 148

patterns to provide for a more complete analysis of a

greater portion of the selected corpus of words. After

modification of the spelling patterns, all words were

reexamined and tabulations were begun again.

The manual handling of the word cards and tabulations

was thought to be a more satisfactory procedure for this

study than would have been possible with the assistance of

a computerized program. Smith (1971) stated the desirabili­

ty of using computer technology for studies of this type

but continued to state reasons for not doing it. He con­

tended that it was currently impossible to fully utilize

the computer because "...not enough is known about language

to give a computer the necessary basic information ...

(p. 107." This aptly summarized the concensus of observa­

tions expressed by each of the researchers as the classifi­

cation was being done. Of course, the tabulations could have been accomplished with mechanical assistance, but the number of cases hardly warranted the expenditures to

accomplish the counting once the word classification task was completed. The insight into the analysis features generated during the study would not have occurred with a predesigned system of diagnosis.

It is possible that the need for modification of the spelling patterns would not have been discovered without the observations of the researchers working with the word 149

cards. The overall efficiency of the spelling pattern

analyses was improved by the modification of the original thesaurus of spelling patterns and the number of "no pat­ tern" cases was reduced.

The data of the spelling pattern analysis demonstrated that almost one-half (46%) of the syllables of the Dale

List of 300 0 Common Words were constructed with only 11 spelling configurations. However, one of the patterns accounted for over 20% of the cases. Another 4 4% of the syllables were classified with spelling patterns, but it took 86 patterns to accomplish the task, and over 10% of the syllables did not conform to any of the 97 patterns designed for the study. A few patterns accounted for the spelling structures found in a great number of words, but the words which did not follow one of the dominant spelling patterns presented a divergent array of orthographic spellings.

Many of the spelling patterns were comprised of

"families" of rhyming words. The patterns with a large number of cases contained several rhyming "families" with similar ending phonograms. The data indicated both poten­ tial usefulness and the severe limitations for the use of spelling patterns for decoding purposes.

The importance of silent letters and the environmental control of the letter r was demonstrated in several of the 150

analysis activities. The phonemic respelling of the words

eliminated all silent letters and caused transformations

of words into less complex spelling patterns. Only 26

spelling patterns were needed to classify approximately the

same number of words which had required 97 patterns for

identification of their orthographic spellings. The influ­

ence of the letter r was repeatedly illustrated in the var­

ious classification and analysis tasks. The separate

tabulations which were made for the letter r as an environ­ mental control factor, and as an "any consonant" case where- ever possible, illustrated the tenacity and influence of

this particular letter.

The results of the spelling pattern analysis and the

subsequent analysis by the Word Recognition Scale of

Difficulty clearly refuted the popular notion that words which appear frequently in American-English usage have

simple constructions or decoding features and are easily

read. The grapheme-phoneme correspondence was as incongru­ ous for primary level words as it is for words beyond the primary level (Emans and Harms, 1971).

The significance of the data of the various word analyses procedures of the study will be discussed in per­ spective of the questions posed for the study in the follow­ ing chapter. CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

English orthography is a complex system of symbols

representing the sounds of oral language. A primary reason

for the complexity of the system resides in the difference

in the number of elements of the sound system and the gra­

phic system. English does not have a simple one-to-one

correspondence between these two systems; thus, it is

sometimes concluded that English is not a pure alphabetic

system, although some features are highly predictable.

The two factors which deter the one-to-one correspon­

dence between the graphemes and phonemes of English are

almost converse features. One factor of inequivalence between the sound and symbol systems results from the use of

26 symbols or letters which must represent approximately 45

sounds. Most of the symbols represent more than one sound, e.g., a, e and s. Conversely, the sound system presents

some erratic situations. Many sounds are represented by more than one symbol, as g, z and k. The most confusing situations result from the use of many symbols in the graphic word form which contribute no readily apparent sound to the oral word. These characteristics create many of the

151 152 problems for a young reader attempting to break the sound code of the printed word. Recent studies have directed attention to the many close and predictable relationships between the two systems and generally purport advantages for teaching these close relationships in initial reading programs.

The purpose of the present study was threefold. The first part synthesized the results of scattered and segmen­ ted pieces of research about word recognition into a struc­ ture delineating previously instated relationships and indicating areas which need further research. The second part of the study involved the application of spelling patterns to a selected corpus of primary level words. This technique of word analysis was developed by Emans and Harms

(19 71) in a study of words beyond the primary level. The technique was modified to accommodate the word patterns which emerged from the present study. The third part of the study designed and applied a degree of difficulty scale to the same corpus of words that was analyzed with the spelling patterns technique. Each of these three parts of the study will be described in greater detail.

Review of Word Recognition Literature

The literature was organized into three areas. The first area contained the summary studies which synthesized 153 research findings and opinions about word recognition prac­ tices. The second area clustered studies concerned with research conducted with readers, and the third area delin­ eated studies where the primary concern or the conclusions were related specifically to words or language.

Instructional Practices

Many disagreements about word recognition evolve from assumed positions about when and how words should occur in initial reading instruction. Few, if any, reading instruc­ tion controversies have surpassed the debate about whether children should receive specific word recognition instruc­ tion, usually called phonics instruction, after they have memorized a number of sight words, or if such instruction should occur prior to an introduction to words. The conclu­ sions about a code-emphasis approach to beginning reading polarize around the ideas and practices which appear to be the most beneficial for teaching the beginning reader the relationships between letters and words, and between the graphic system and the sound system of the language. One typical position assumes the best approach consists of mem­ orization of a number of words and then the extraction of word recognition generalizations about the sounds that indi­ vidual letters represent, using the sight words as a basis for the generalizations. One opposing position contends 154 that the beginning reader should first learn some letter- sound associations (grapheme to phoneme relationships) and then use this knowledge to decode printed words using the letter sound associations.

An influential work directed toward exploration of the code emphasis approach to beginning reading instruction is the eclectic book by Jeanne Chall, Learning to Read: The

Great Debate (1967). In this review, Chall concluded that the majority of the studies of word recognition conducted from 1912 to 1965 indicated that formal and systematic phonics programs and programs emphasizing decoding in the initial stages of instruction have achieved superior results, at least through the third-grade level, in comparison with programs which emphasize integrated phonic analysis approa­ ches. Gurren and Hughes (1965) concurred with Chall1s position in another analytical summary of research, and extended the position, since their work concentrated on studies through grade six. In addition to these summaries, a number of recent research reports have confirmed the superiority in reading achievement for children whose ini­ tial reading instruction was a decoding strategy (Bloomer,

1960,-Osburn, 1954 , Bear, 1959; Bliesmer, 1965; Potts and

Savino, 1968).

A slightly different perspective of the controversy about word recognition instruction,regarding the inclusion 155

or exclusion of phonics instruction in reading programs at

various times, was presented by Emans (1968). Instruction­

al practices have been changed, presumably as more informa­

tion concerning the language and factors of recognizing it

in written form are assimilated into the instructional

practices. This observation diminishes some of the apparent

redundancy of research measuring the relative merit of in­

structional practices, since the actual practices change but

the descriptive vocabulary is retained. It also suggests

that the widely accepted practice of assembling the conclu­

sions and results of great numbers of research studies con­

ducted over several decades may be less revealing about

word recognition features than has been presumed. A more

useful perspective of word recognition studies might result

if date limitations were established for discussion of

otherwise apparently similar studies, since the descriptive vocabulary and not the actual practices of instruction are presented as the comparable features.

The recognition of the variance of classroom instruc­ tional practices conducted at different times, but using the same terminology, indicates the need for further refinement of research. A host of other variables which have been identified by the sociologists, psychologists, anthropolo­ gists and linguists may decrease the usefulness of much of the data that has been assembled regarding the role of word 156

recognition generalizations and instructional practices.

Perhaps the potentially more meaningful facets of word

recognition have yet to be explored, the most purposeful

questions to be asked, and the most effective classroom

instructional programs to be designed.

Research Conducted With Readers

The studies about word recognition conducted with

children reveal uncertainty about the results and conclu­

sions of the studies because of the diverse difficulties in

delineating the characteristics of the readers from the

characteristics of the task of learning words. Most studies

explore the learning of words or word symbols under varying

circumstances by measuring some overt manifestation which

is related to the interrelatedness of cognitive, affective

and psychomotor features affecting the reading process

(Otto, 1961; Katz and Deutsch, 196 3, 1967; King and Muehl,

1965; Staats, 1966).

Two studies conducted in 1965, one by Morton (1965) and

a second by Mason (1965) offered evidence to substantiate

the ideas that multiple factors and previous linguistic

experience were salient variables and predictors of success

in learning tasks which are assumed to be similar to those

experienced by a child learning new words. Studies which

varied the word lists for emotional tone, media of presenta­ tion and cues used by learners, stabilizedthe learners' 157

characteristics to permit speculation about the learning

tasks (Jones, 1965; Marchbanks and Levin, 1965; Olson and

Pau, 1966; Samuels and Jeffrey, 1966; Harris, 1967).

These studies suggest that the reading processes of

decoding include attempts to regularize the irregular

or to interject logical meanings from the perceiver's

experience into nonwords and uncertain constructions

(Goodman, 1969; Fishbein and Emans, 1972). This tendency

offers some interesting speculation as to the nature and the

possibilities for variant structures within the linguistic

composition of the learner. Which structures actually

create the environment for the perception and decoding?

Thus, it appears that what is learned and how quickly it is

learned are both positively related to the previous linguis­

tic experiences of the learner. More conclusive findings

from studies conducted with children might be possible if a

linguistic experience factor could be established for the

subjects.

The difficulties of separation of research findings

due to the intertwining of features of the reading process

is compatible with Piaget's concept of an organism's

adaptation to its environment through accommodation which

results from assimilation of stimuli to foster changes within an organism's cognitive and affective structure.

Thus, the researcher working with word recognition features 158

with a learner must constantly modulate his findings to a

projected or conjectured judgment about the child's per­

ception and reaction to the environment/ including the

changes which may be elicited by the word stimuli being

studied.

The evidence in this area of research conducted with

readers may have some implications for instructional prac­

tices for teaching word recognition generalizations, but

the evidence appears to be fragmentary and isolated.

Designing instructional programs with data available at the

present would involve extending the apparent findings beyond

the limits advocated by many of the original researchers.

Research Involved With Words or Language

The study of words, word elements and learning to read

encompasses the study of the orthographic features of

English which have attracted the attention of concerned educators for several hundred years. John Hart described

"the vices and faultes of our writing: which cause it to be tedious and long in learnying: and learned hard, and evill to read..." in The Opening of the Unreasonable Writing of Our English Toung in 1551 (p. IVa). Leonard Bloomfield

(1933, 1942) reincarnated Hart's objections to the difficul­ ties in learning to read English, but centered the criticism on the approach to how the language was being taught. He 159 urged acceptance and exploitation of its consistent structures and orthographic features. Following Bloom­ field's contentions about the consistencies of the English language features, Hanna and Moore (1953) explored the extent of the discrepancies between American-English ortho­ graphy and phonology in a study that opened a more exacting exploration of word study than had been attempted during the 400 years that separated Hart's derision of the lan­ guage and the initial analytic study of grapheme and phoneme correspondences (Hanna and Moore, 1953). Subsequent studies were conducted under the aegis of Hanna at Stan­ ford University and Venezky at Cornell. The relationships of spelling and reading emerged from these explorations.

The studies that descended directly from the Hanna and

Moore study were usually directed toward the exploration of spelling of the English language. Since the 1950's there has been a steadily increasing interest in the issue of letter-sound relationships with respect to the process of learning to read (Fries, 1962; Clymer, 1963; Bailey, 1967;

Emans, 1967; Venezky, 1967) in conjunction with the sound- letter relationships of learning to spell (Hanna and Moore,

195 .; Petty, 1955, E. Horn, 1957; Hanna et al., 1966;

Fishbein and Emans, 1972).

The Hanna and Moore (19 53) study was a phonemic analy­ sis of 3,000 words. Their conclusions were not compatible 160

with the theory of spelling instruction which was in vogue

at that time. The results of their study indicated that

four-fifths of the phonemes of the words analyzed were

represented by regular spellings and almost three-fourths

of the vowel phonemes were spelled by their regular letter

representations from 57% to 99% of the times they occurred.

The conclusion of Hanna and Moore that the American-

English writing system is essentially an alphabetic

structure attracted criticism from authorities in the area

of spelling instruction (Horn, 1957, 1960). The positions

taken by Hanna and Moore and by Horn and his supporters

represented a dichotomy between the belief that American-

English spelling had a considerable degree of regularity

and those who contended that the irregularities were so prevalent that the claims for its regularity were not

sufficient to proclaim it an alphabetic language. These positions represented ideas about spelling of the language and they soon exerted considerable influence on research in the teaching of reading via linguistic assumptions.

The early 1960's was a period of recovery from the extreme criticism and claims for instant success in reading which typified the 1950's. Clymer (1963) pioneered a rational perspective about the actual "utility" of what was being taught as word recognition generalizations. His findings provided the impetus for further studies of the 161

utility factors of the word recognition generalizations which were being taught (Wylie and Durrell, 1960; Burrows

and Laurie, 1963; Burmeister, 1966, 1968, 1970; Winkley,

1966; Affleck, 1967; Bailey, 1967; Emans, 1967a, 1967b;

Huelsman, 1967; Kuhne, 1967; Venezsky, 1967; Fuld, 1968;

Lesiak, 1968; Weir, 1965; Maresh, 1969). The evidence gleaned from these studies indicates the need for refine­ ment of the methods of instruction after further analysis of the features of the language being taught.

The need for more rigorous analysis of the language, particularly the linguistic features of words, has centered on exploration of the relationships between the graphemes and phonemes of American-English words. The most useful approaches to this analysis have utilized some form of spelling patterns to project the level of congruence between the sound system and the symbol system of the language

(Hanna and Moore, 195 3; Fries, 1962; Hanna et al, 1966;

Venezky, 1967; Weir, 1965; Williams, 1968). Chomsky and

Halle (196 8) criticized this type of research because it must omit consideration of the deeper phonological struc­ tures of relationships between the phonological or ortho­ graphic systems of American-English, particularly with emphasis on the syntactic and semantic influences of the language. Chomsky (196 8) maintained that conventional orthography is adequate to represent oral language for the 162

reader with knowledge of semantic structures of his lan­

guage. Chall (1967) concluded that the implications of

Chomsky and Halle were probably more germane to the ad­

vanced stages of reading (reading to learn) than at the

initial instructional level of learning to read (Dale, 1971).

The use of an in-depth analysis of one dimension of a

language, grapheme-phoneme correspondence, necessitates

the sacrifice of some of the exactness which might be possible with a multiple analysis technique. That tech­ nique would also reveal the inadequacies of any graphic

system to depict a total sound continuum (Haas, 1969) and

the shortcomings of standard print to convey oral language *

features of stress, pitch and juncture (Gleason, 1961).

The involvement of letters or whole words with the multiple influences of syntax and content (Chomsky and Halle, 1968)

and the cognitive patterns of the learner engaged in the use of word recognition skills in a reading situation need not diminish the importance of letters or whole words.

The task of the user of reading research is to place all of the data into a weighted hierarchy to avoid overstress and oversight of features. Thus, the spelling pattern analysis technique has some inherent limitations which should not be ignored when using the results of word analy­ sis data. 163

Analysis of Spelling Patterns

The following section is a discussion of the findings and results of" the several word analysis portions of the study and the observations recorded by the researchers during the analysis process. The results and findings of the several word analyses were synthesized into clusters designed to provide answers and data germane to the ques­ tions posed for the present study. Questions one and two were directed toward the analysis of the orthographic and phonological structures of the words of the study. The results and answers to both are treated in the same discus­ sion to avoid redundance, since the elements of answers to each question are intertwined. Question number three is related to the first two questions since it directs atten­ tion to the relationships between the systems examined, but it is also the connecting link to the last question of the study regarding the development of a Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty.

Questions one and two posed for the present study were as follows:

1. Do the orthographic spellings of words lend themselves to consistent patterns?

2. What is the relationship of the graphemic representation of words to their phonological structures? 164

Summary of Findings

By using the analysis technique of the present study,

the orthographic spellings of American-English words tended

to lend themselves to rather consistent patterns. This

consistency was demonstrated by the classification technique

which identified almost 90% of the 2,943 word corpus with

at least one discernable spelling pattern. To identify

these 2,466 words with a spelling pattern, it was necessary

to establish 97 different patterns (See Appendix, Table B).

A more extensive list of spelling patterns could have

identified all of the words, since, hypothetically, all

words possess a spelling pattern. However, an array of 97

patterns presents a formidable display which probably

precludes consideration for thte use of all of the patterns

for word recognition purposes, much less the projection of

creating more patterns for use in relatively infrequent

situations.

The data of the spelling pattern analysis revealed

some of the linguistic features as follows. Of the 1/503

single syllable words analyzed, 4.5% of the total corpus,

or 134 of the 1£03 one syllable words, did not follow one

of the 97 spelling patterns devised for the study. The

one syllable words of this study do not have simple spelling patterns. Conversely, the most frequently occurring spel­

ling pattern, 1.01 (Cs v Cs or v Cs) identified 20.4% of 165

the 4,4 85 syllables analyzed. Only 20 of the 97 spelling patterns contained more than 1% of the total number of

syllables. Thus, it may be conjectured that the number of spelling patterns which would be required to identify the entire corpus could have been expanded to a maximum of 472 more patterns, one for each of the syllables which did not fit into a spelling pattern used in this study.

Four of the spelling patterns derived from Emans and

Harms (1971) were not used in the present study, since none of the syllables analyzed followed those patterns. Table F in the Appendix presents the rank order of each of the spelling patterns, including the 0.00 or No Pattern classi­ fication. The two decimal point classification schemata for the spelling patterns was developed to permit expansion of the existing 20 major classification system without disruption of the existing spelling patterns. As many as

99 sub-classes could be included within each of the 20 major classifications. Other major classifications could be annexed to the system if the need should occur in subse­ quent studies.

The Relationship of the Graphemic and Phonological Structures

The results of the spelling pattern analysis did not offer overwhelming support for the use of spelling patterns in decoding processes. A large number of words can be sue- 166

cessfully decoded by direct application of a small number

of spelling patterns. This data should not be ignored,

but the fact that an equally large number of words cannot

be easily read with this technique, primarily because of

the number of different patterns and the complexity of

applying the correct patterns to the proper configurations,

delimits the overall usefulness of spelling patterns in

reading.

Neither the results of the analysis nor the descrip­

tion of the mechanics of the technique should be interpre­

ted as a reason for exclusion of spelling patterns as a

viable word recognition technique. Rather, this analysis

should suggest the potential usefulness of those spelling

patterns which identify large groups of words of similar

configurations which may be easily learned concomitantly.

These similar configurations have been referred to as "fam­ ilies" or as rhyming words with similar phonograms. The possibility of a young reader learning several words at one time should not be ignored in a developmental reading program. Of course, the observations of this analysis indi­ cated that several "families" frequently clustered into one spelling pattern; therefore, necessitating the use of some other techniques to function with the spelling patterns.

The number of words in these family clusters is great enough to warrant further study. 167

The data of the syllable-by-syllable analysis indicated

that 46% of the syllables retained their identical patterns

between their grapheme and phoneme representations. This

46% factor is not great enough to justify the use of spel­

ling patterns to the exclusion of otherword recognition

techniques/ but it certainly offers a potential decoding

method in cases where it is applicable with high correspon­

dence percentages. Which patterns have high utility is

easily determined for this corpus of words by the. number of

cases applicable and by the consistency within and between

patterns. Further research using this spelling pattern

analysis technique with other words might reveal other use­

ful patterns.

The most useful function of the spelling pattern analy­

sis technique may be as a research technique since a child

learning to read might find it difficult to determine wheth­

er to see a pattern cue or to use another approach for de­

coding an unknown word. However, it is generally assumed

that readers use various tactics in breaking the sound code.

The use of spelling patterns for decoding large "families” of words which do follow consistent patterns certainly rep­ resents an adequate number of cases to make it a useful word recognition practice. The use of spelling patterns

should not be considered as the maximal solution for unlock­ ing the symbol-sound code pattern to the exclusion of other word recognition techniques. Rather, the spelling pattern 168

practices should be incorporated into the structure of word

recognition practices for use whenever and wherever they

might be applicable.

The letter-by-letter analysis further substantiated

the idea that a great number of words in the American-

English lexicon can be classified with spelling patterns

which remain constant between graphemic representations and

phonemic respellings. This analysis also indicated the

family or clustering tendencies of the words.

The pattern list adapted for use in the present study

was adequate after some minor modifications and the addition

of several patterns. The added patterns consequently accom­

modated 6% of the almost 9 0% of the words which were classi­

fied with at least one pattern. The cases which were not so

classified were left in a No Pattern group because of config­

urations which were judged to be so diverse from most of the

other words as to obviate the attempts of an immature reader

to decode them with a spelling pattern technique. These

No Pattern words offer some interesting implications for word classification lists for teaching strategies and possi­

bly for further research.

The words in the No Pattern classification frequently

contained at least one of three characteristics which made

them, presumably, difficult to learn to read. One character­

istic was the one-letter case where there was no environment 169

to provide an enunciation clue to the reader. A second

case was that of a digraph preceded by a consonant which

again provided inadequate clues to the reader. Another

common factor was the case of extreme irregularities be­

tween the configuration of letters and the sounds of the

word. The No Pattern group of words generally had insuf-:

ficient clues in their graphemic structures to provide

phonemic clues for correct enunciation. The corpus of

words of the present study did not provide enough cases

with similar characteristics to warrant classification into

spelling patterns. Words with, or perhaps it is more

appropriate to say that words without, these characteristics

are possibly some of the most difficult words which a young

reader encounters and therefore should receive special

consideration when they are being taught.

Consistent Characteristics of Spelling Structures

The third question posed for the present study also was

directed toward exploration of the spelling patterns of the

corpus of words. It was as follows:

Question 3. If there exists significant patterns in the spelling structures of words, are these patterns consistent enough to be used to devise word recognition strategies?

Tenable answers to this question were extrapolated from the research findings reported in the literature review part of the present study and by reexamination of the data 170

produced in the word analysis by spelling pattern section.

The analysis of the graphemic characteristics of words

generally substantiates the dominance of several "families"

of similar configurations with enough cases to warrant

consideration for direct instruction. Some linguistic

features of American-English occur in predictable patterns

frequently enough to demonstrate their potential usefulness

for decoding practices. The data reported from other re­

search studies and from the word analysis conducted in the

present study validate these assumptions. Factors of the

data have been selected to illustrate specific features

related to word recognition practices, to the need for fur­

ther research about some of the features and the latent

potential which these factors possess for reading instruction.

Slightly more than one-fifth (20.4%) of the syllables

analyzed in the present study were in the spelling pattern

1.01 which designated Cs v Cs or V Cs configurations. This

pattern so dominated the spelling patterns of the syllables

of the Dale List of 3000 Common Words (19 48) that the totals

of the next five most frequently occurring patterns had to be summed to equal the number of 1.01 syllables. The second most frequently occurring pattern was the r-controlled

spelling pattern 6.02, Co er or er, which included 5.8% of

the syllables analyzed. The r-controlled patterns were not in the original corpus of spelling patterns, but the need 171

for a classification for these cases became evident in the

early stages of the analysis. Consequently, the spelling

pattern corpus was modified and reclassification procedures

and tabulations were done to account for words containing

the letter r. The potential for r-controlled single vowels

was noted in 11.7% of the syllables analyzed, with an addi­

tional 2% for double vowels and final e after r cases.

The tenacity of r in the environment of a vowel was

demonstrated by the data of the spelling pattern analysis.

If r was treated as a consonant rather than a special case,

some of the syllables had multiple classifications. Only

about 12% of the orthographic spellings and 17% of the

phonemic respellings could be changed from the r-controlled

classification to other spelling patterns. Tabular informa­

tion in the Appendix and elsewhere in the present study presented r in both positions.

Some special notations concerning the importance of r

in the corpus of words of the present study demonstrated

the occasional effect of r on a vowel in a preceding sylla­ ble, as in iron and acre. Some words contain more than one r situation, as exemplified by northern, underwear, overturn

and everywhere.

The r-controlled vowels remained relatively unchanged with the phonemic respelling and classification comparisons, although the elimination of silent letters reduced the 172 number of r-controlled spelling patterns. Tables F, J and

K in the Appendix illustrate this relative consistency of

^controlled situations. The spelling pattern 6.02, Co er, maintained a 94% exact grapheme-phoneme correspondence and

6.05, Co ur, an 87% correspondence.

The data indicated that silent letters were the most frequently occurring cases which caused major dissimilari­ ties between grapheme and phoneme correspondence. Of the

1,603 single syllable words examined, 827, or 51.6%, had at least one silent letter. Within the 1,34 0 multiple syllable words, 76 3 or 5 7% of the words contained at least one silent letter. The total corpus of 2,94 3 words con­ tained 1,590 words with silent letters which affected 54.1% of the words examined.

Silent letters were observed in all but the simplest spelling pattern categories and in combination with other pattern features; however, if the researchers' judgment had indicated a more dominant classification, the silent letter situation was not tabulated. For example, the word squeak was classified 20.00 (qu) rather than as a silent letter case.

Some silent letters were very predictable. The final e as in spelling patterns 2.00 through 3.00 was almost al­ ways silent. In this corpus of words, the £ in ay_ cases was always silent, ee was sounded as e, but the predicabil- 173

ity dissolved for some cases with comparable environments.

In words containing ai, sometimes the a^ was silent (.certain)

but in other words the i^ was silent (paid). The letters ou

were relatively unpredictable in that either one was silent

(rough or ought) or they became a diphthong (out). Double

consonants had the first letter silent (yolk), the second

one silent (autumn) or both formed a blend or digraph

(trust). Ghost had a silent h, but both and h were

sometimes silent as in flight. Some random silent letters

did not follow patterns or families as the h in oh, and

the u in gues~t.

The data of the spelling patterns which have a grapheme

phoneme correspondence of more than 75% indicated that only

16 spelling patterns exceeded this minimum standard; however,

these 16 patterns represented 42.6% of the words analyzed.

Discussion

The use of a spelling pattern word recognition tech­

nique in isolation has several potential weaknesses. The most numerically impressive pitfall is that over 50% of the words lack consistent grapheme-phoneme correspondence. Home words follow more than one spelling pattern. The sources of error would be as great for words which did not follow spel­

ling patterns as they would be for any other generaliza­ tion rule when applied to words which do not follow a 174

pattern between the graphemic and phonemic systems. It is

generally accepted in the research literature that these

irregularities are less severe for the mature reader; in

fact, accommodation of the irregularities between the graph­

emic and phonemic structures is often considered as maturity

in reading ability. The present study was directed toward

the learning to read processes and therefore had to restrict

the number of useful spelling patterns to the 16 which

exhibited a 75% or greater correspondence. The words com­

posing these spelling patterns probably have a higher proba­

bility of being more easily read than words which do not

follow such patterns. However, the words in the No Pattern

group also might contribute to further understanding of

difficulties which some common words present to the young

reader. These words could be "demons" from the perspective

of spelling patterns and should be taught using some other

word recognition method of attack.

The skill of recognizing spelling patterns which shift

to other patterns with a high consistency also provides a

useful decoding practice. Such a shift is illustrated in

Table K in the Appendix by classifications number 2.01

(Cs v Cs e or v Cs e) and 5.01 (Cs v or Co v Co) where 179 of 194 words in the first case shifted into the second, as with the word make becoming mak. Knowledge of this one predictable pattern shift could help a reader decode over 6% 175

of the 2,943 words analyzed. The final e being silent was

disclosed to be one of the more predictable silent letter

cases. Other silent letter cases were not so predictable

and seemed to harbor a potential for error in word recogni­

tion.

Silent letter cases seemed to be dominant in the con­

tingent sources of error for a person learning to read.

Over 54% of the words analyzed contained at least one silent

letter. The decision which the young reader has to make is which letters are silent and which ones represent what

sounds. He is forced to make a decision at the whole word

level whenever a silent letter is involved. Actually, with­

in some words, several decisions have to be made. Careless- ness requires a decision within each syllable. The 54%

data was determined at the word level rather than within words, since recognition and exclusion of silent letters appears to require skill at the word level rather than with­ in syllables or lesser units. It was assumed that a syllable

analysis of silent letters would inflate and possibly dis­ tort the data without providing further insight into the

function of silent letters.

Whether the problem is viewed at the word level or relative to lesser segments, the difficulty of decoding was magnified with the occurrence of silent letters. The fre­ quency and projected reading difficulty of words containing 176

silent letters, even with salient environmental clues, were

primary factors in the design and use of the Word Recogni­

tion Scale of Difficulty.

The elimination of silent letters when the words were

respelled phonemically caused many No pattern words to

assume a pattern. A comparable mental process may be a

necessary part of the word recognition skills used by young

readers; i.e., the first phase of decoding requires the

elimination of the silent letters before proceeding to the

grapheme to phoneme process which presents a new set of

problems regarding the relationship of the graphemic repre­

sentations to their phonological structures. It is possible

that the elimination of the silent letters requires as much

skill and offers as much assistance to word recognition as

does the grapheme to phoneme process which is generally

acclaimed as the keystone of word recognition.

Another major source of difficulty in transferring

information from grapheme to phoneme was noted in the control

of the letter r over vowels and other elements of its envir­

onment. The situation was more complicated than autonomous

control because the letter r does not perform in an exceed­

ingly consistent form. Over 45% of the words analyzed con­

tained the letter r. Not only is the letter r powerful numerically, but it exerts a power of control over its en­

vironment. No other single factor in the analysis portions 177 of the present study caused the researchers as much diffi­ culty in the classification task as the situations involved with the letter r. Some examples were summarized as follows :

(1) fur, her, sir = fur, hur, sur;

(2) learn, bum, stern = lum, burn, stum;

(3) berry, bury = beri, beri.

Additional environments of the letter r where confusion might arise were disclosed in the analysis. When r is the first letter of a middle or ending syllable in a multiple syllable word, the examiners found a tendency to divide after the r instead of before it. Some examples of this were found in the words chorus, hickory, and direct. This effect of the power of r also was found in words where a repeating r was the division between two syllables. The tendency was to pronounce it twice instead of pronouncing the first r and making the second r silent (mirror, arrow).

The letter r following a dipthong did not usually change the vowel sound (ourselves).

The variety of faces that the letter r assumed and with which the beginning reader must cope was best illustra­ ted by the word firecracker. This one word contained an r preceded by a vowel that was not an r-controlled situation, an r preceded by a consonant and an r preceded by a vowel which produced an r-controlled vowel sound. Any successful 178

reading program must necessarily contain strategies to help

the learner cope with this variety of circumstances.

The research findings indicated that some linguistic

features contained in the spelling patterns of words occurred

frequently and consistently. These specific features seem

to warrant consideration for their use in word recognition

instructional practices. However, the converse view of the

same data should not be ignored. The data also revealed the

limitations of these linguistic features for decoding prac­

tices for words which do not adhere to those specific

patterns.

How and when to teach the linguistic features which

offer promise for successful decoding strategies was not

delineated as an objective for the analysis portion of the

present study. However, the need for further research

about this major problem for reading instruction was repeat­

edly demonstrated in the research review portion of the

study. The analysis data and the observations reported dur­

ing the analysis processes substantiated the need for more information about the content of a word recognition program prior to continued study about sequence and methodology for the instruction.

The information gleaned from the literature critique and spelling pattern analysis parts of the present study were incorporated into the design of the Word Recognition 179

Scale of Difficulty. The axioms of its development and the

data collected in subsequent word analyses done with the

Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty appear in the next

section which presents answers to the fourth question posed for the present study.

Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty

Question 4. If strategies of word recognition can be projected from linguistic feature analysis, is it possible to arrange them into a hierarchal sequence to use as a discrimina­ tion of difficulty index?

The idea of a Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty resides in the premise that some words are more easily read than others, and that features can be identified which contribute to the ease or difficulty with which words are recognized. The scale designed during the present study was founded on the assumption that the degree of congruence of the grapheme-phoneme relationship contributed to the ease with which words were recognized; the greater the similari­ ties between the two structuresr the easier it is for a word to be recognized.

The design of the Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty created several problems. Consolidating similarity clusters and arranging them into a rank order of degrees of difficulty were required. Consequently the decisions of which word features were the most difficult for the immature reader were 180 made in perspective of the preceding sections of the study.

The extreme situations of decoding barriers were resolved rather easily, but the similar situations did not lend themselves to precise delineations and questions emerged about word recognition features. For example, is a double repeating vowel more difficult to decode than a double repeating consonant, or is a single vowel followed by an r more difficult than two vowels followed by an r? Are dipthongs and digraphs equal in difficulty?

The use of subscripts in the scale eased some of the ranking problems where features were assumed to be so equiv­ alent that no differentiative ranking could be rationally accomplished. The use of subscripts was derived to resolve the level of difficulty grouping of decoding features and to concommitantly provide empirical data regarding the sub­ classes of decoding features which were contained in the words of the corpus. The subscripts also permitted a more restricted classification of words with fewer major classes, since some 15 elements of difficulty were organized into nine levels of increasing decoding complexity. The sub­ scripts do not denote levels of difficulty within a classifi­ cation, so a word with an Hi rank (toy or out) is assumed to be as difficult as an Hii word such as throw. The most difficult feature of a word determined its classification.

The easiest assignment of a degree of difficulty was the numerical rating which designated the number of syllables 181 in a word. It was assumed that division of a configuration of letters into syllables required a skill which should be reckoned with as a factor in any word recognition activity; therefore, the first classification of each word revealed the number of syllables. The number of syllables in a word may or may not be readily identified by a young reader, depending upon his skill in syllabification. The analysis of the corpus of words and information from other studies generally form the concensus that a one-syllable word with exact grapheme-phoneme correspondence is the most easily read word (Courtney, 19 53; Deighton, 1959; Groff, 1962;

Umstattd / 1965; Balmuth, 1966 ; Bormuth, 1966; Winkley,

1966, 1970, Spache and Spache, 1969). Almost all of the words analyzed followed predictable patterns for regular divisions into syllables. Syllabic divisions appear to be necessary before other word recognition techniques can be used if a word has more than one syllable. The analysis of the words from this study revealed very few words where the number of syllables varied between the graphic representation and phonological structures— evening, prayer, and Mr. and Mrs. abbreviations.

The highly predictable elements which deviated from an exact grapheme-phoneme correspondence were placed into cate­ gories which were more difficult than the categories which had fairly exact correspondence. The role of silent letters 182

and r-controlled environments, discussed in the preceding

paragraphs, are further complicated by their lack of predic­

tability or consistency, which influenced their rank

assignment.

Summary of Findings

The data from the classification of the corpus of words

of the present study revealed factors as probable decoding

hazards. Some 14.5% of the words contained a silent letter

which was predictable, final e, y after a, or ck, but 16.5%

of the words contained silent letters which were not predic­

table. The silent letter features in combination with other

complex decoding features were classified at more difficult

levels. The r-controlled vowel was the most difficult fea- « ture in 15.7% of the words. Diphthongs and digraphs in iso­

lated rankings accounted for the most difficult feature in

only 4.7% of the 2 ,943 words analyzed. Some 326 words, 11.1%,

contained features or combinations of features which yielded

composite decoding problems, and thus were placed in the most difficult level. Table in the Appendix presents the

complete tabulation of data of this analysis.

The most difficult words of this corpus were those which contained compound features, either one of which would offer a decoding barrier. The most difficult categories included combinations of letters which represented different sounds, as digraphs and diphthongs and silent letters and 183

consonants which did not represent a major sound.

Discussion

The word recognition difficulty analysis disclosed a

negative relationship between the word features which were

difficult to decode and the general assumption that fre­

quently encountered words are easily recognized. The tabu­

lations made for the 13 2 words which represent about 50% of

the words used in American-English publications (Kucera and

Francis, 1967) indicated that these "easy" words contain

features which place them in every level of the Word Recog­

nition Scale of Difficulty. Therefore, even the most common

or frequently encountered words should be thought of as

having special features which may make them extremely diffi-

i cult for some young readers. It may be further conjectured

that some readers may be handicapped by their own efforts to

regularize the irregular features of these frequently en­

countered words by assuming generalizations about their

grapheme-phoneme relationships. The high utility words de­

part radically from such a correspondence.

The Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty is an instru­ ment which enables one to classify words into levels of

difficulty. It may have some potential use for the design of word lists by decoding features rather than frequency of usage, word length and similar features. The selection of words used in instructional materials and lessons drawn from 184 the vocabulary of such materials may be more specifically directed by use of the scale of difficulty ratings.

Another potential use for the Word Recognition Scale of

Difficulty may be as a research instrument which will enable the research about words and reading features of words to be more precise than has been possible prior to this time. The reading features identified by the scale may be combined with other Variables of word length, frequency of use and similar factors which have been the difficulty regulators in former studies. Further research will be necessary to verify the feasibility of the Word Recognition Scale of

Difficulty as a research instrument.

From the activities and data of the present study, it is evident that some strategies of word recognition can be projected into a hierarchal sequence and that such a struc­ tured arrangement of word recognition features may be useful as a discrimination of difficulty index. This conclusion was one of the answers which was sought for one of the four major questions of the research design. The significance and usefulness of such an index as the Word Recognition

Scale of Difficulty will be borne out in future research and its use in the design of instructional materials and methods. 185

Implications for Practice in Research

It is traditionally acknowledged that there are three basic theories of word recognition. These theories pre­ sumably describe the antithetic points of word recognition as whole word identification and letter-by-letter identifi­ cation as the polar positions. The third theory is general­ ly considered as an intermediate, eclectic position which involves the identification of word parts, such as letter clusters (Johnson, 1971) or spelling patterns (Pries, 1962;

Emans and Harms, 1971). These theories are descriptions of the processes which are presumed to be involved with word recognition, usually by a skilled reader.

The review of the literature about word recognition which was the first part of the present study, indicated the existence of many intermediate positions between whole word recognition and letter-by-letter identification. Each posi­ tion or theory contains certain elements of adjacent posi­ tions which intertwine and form almost corrollary positions.

Nevertheless, there are subtle differences which are discern- able and assumed to be important for discussion, for identi­ fication of facets of the reading process and for designing research or specific sections of programs. Thus, the sep­ arate positions appear to be extremely arbitrary, but they do serve a necessary function. 186

Organizing specific features to use for comparison of theories of word recognition is accomplished by the identi­ fication of points of difference. The maximizing of dif­ ferences is generally done at the expense of distortion by ignoring the similarities of the theories. Thus, the dis­ cussions about word recognition which accentuate the dichot­ omies of research results and classroom practice may lack the objectivity which is being sought. This has happened when only portions of a theory have been examined.

The difficulty between theories of word recognition and classroom instructional practices become magnified whm the elements of theory are incorporated into programs con­ ducted with children. This does not indicate that the theories are unfounded, but the variables which become in­ volved make it exceedingly difficult to test and measure specific elements of a program. The entire range of mental, physical and social forces of the learner may be involved with the reaction to the input of each program feature.

Like reading at other levels, reading at the decoding level tends to be a very personal experience. The studies con­ ducted with readers were fr aught with uncertainty about what had been taught, what had been measured and what other variables should have been considered germane to the pro­ gram. Some researchers retracted thar previous findings in view of more recent work. There appears to be a concensus about the most preva­ lent interferences with research endeavors. A majority of 187 the current studies suggested that multiple influences of word knowledge, of the emotional aspects of the words perceived and other linguistic abilities of the subjects hampered the meaningful study of word feature theories when

applied to reading practices with readers. However, there appeared to be sound reasoning in the acceptance of a read­ er's sensitivity to some language characteristics, particu­ larly word formation, even when non-words were involved.

This general concensus concurs with the idea that a reader attempts to interject some logical meaning into any percep­ tion to make linguistically meaningful situations of what­ ever is perceived (Goodman, 196 9) .

A second rather sound assumption stems from the report­ ed . findings that readers used the predictable features of words, as letter clusters or letter sequences when decoding unknown letter arrays. The studies conducted with readers substantiated the widespread use of cues involving letter formations,and the studies of words indicated that the reader of American English can profit from the use of knowledge about letter combinations and spelling patterns.

For example, he can expect to encounter the sequence of ch, but rarely, if ever, to see the same letters transposed in a word as he. There are countless configurations as t f , sr or bm which do not occur normally in English words.

Conversely, a number of letter sequences which represent 188 the sound system of the language frequently recur in predictable environments.

Therefore, knowledge of letter combinations or spelling patterns which do occur in American-English orthography offers a reasonable word recognition technique. Some spelling patterns occur frequently enough in high utility words to make the use of certain configuration - cues practi­ cal. Several studies indicated that readers acquired skill in using the frequently encountered letter sequences, even without specific instruction. This skill has been demonstra­ ted in task performances with actual words and with sequen­ ces of letters in non-words which bear a close approxima­ tion to American-English words because of their probable letter sequences or spelling patterns.

The role of letters and spelling patterns may be a transient skill which diminishes in utility with repeated exposure to a specific word. This assumption helps to explain why it might appear at times as if words were identified as wholes and at other times via piecemeal identification of letters or spelling patterns. This appar­ ent inconsistency is not necessarily in the stimulus mater­ ial, but probably is due to the constantly changing status of the learning organism. Learning is an active process which causes both internal changes and either environmental changes or modification of the perception of the environment. 189

Thus, the initial contact with a word engages a completely

diverse set of activities from the reading of the same word

on subsequent exposures.

Each exposure to a word in print also increases the

availability of information for recognition of the word

from various sources. Therefore, it may be advisable to

temper future research about word recognition with a great

number of variables which attempt to create an equitable,

but somewhat fluid, constant factor about the persons being

taught and what is being presented to them. These varia­

bles need to account for 'the linguistic abilities of the

learner and word features of the program being presented

to a greater extent than has been generally done in the

past. Exacting identification of word features and subse­

quent rankings of difficult features is basic to establish­

ing these factors which seem to be detrimental to many

research projects.

One criteria for the classification of the linguistic

features of words has been contributed by the Word Recogni­

tion Scale of Difficulty designed in the present study.

This scale has a potential use for research by abetting the

organization of information about the ease, or difficulty, with which a word may be decoded on the base of grapheme- phoneme congruence and related features. By using the

scale to rank a research study lexicon, it is possible to 190 be more discriminating and precise in the descriptions of the linguistic decoding elements of words than has been possible prior to the development of this instrument.

A second contribution from the present study to this area of research variable classification evolved from the refinement of the spelling pattern analysis technique.

The spelling pattern thesaurus was first modified and expanded and then reorganized into a decimal identification system which may be particularly useful if cybernetic explorations need to adapt this technique. The decimal classification of spellirfg pattern clusters can accommodate any expansion of the existing thesaurus.

The examination of the literature about reading indica­ ted that the entire concept of word recognition is being reexamined. The probing for better ways to teach grapheme- phoneme correspondence has been a controversial center for speculation and research for many years, but current social pressures have accellerated the exploration of reading com­ ponents and processes.

Our society has determined reading to be one of the most important and essential skills that a child must learn.

Recent trends in research indicated that the teaching of reading to the young in a symbol manipulating society is far too significant to be left to the dexterity of a single discipline. Contemporary research reflects the urgency 191 which has been attached to the development of effective and efficient reading programs. This research reflects the convergence of several disciplines, particularly anthropol­ ogy, education, linguistics, psychology and sociology, into the probing for better ways to teach graphic language. The researchers from these disciplines continue to seek answers to problems in the teaching of reading by examination of the learner or that which is being taught. The present study was an exploration of some of the words which have high probability for use in any primary level reading pro­ gram. The study design demonstrated a synthesis of lin­ guistic features of language analysis with existing assump­ tions about word recognition.

The procedure of exploration of the word features and a review of the major results of the word analysis portion of the study is in the following section of the chapter.

Implications of the Spelling Pattern Analysis

The data of the spelling pattern analysis of the study lexicon substantiated the results of other research which advocates the dominance of certain spelling patterns in

American-English orthography. These dominant spelling pat­ terns created large "families" of words with almost identical characteristics. In the present study, only five spelling 192

patterns were needed to classify over 38% of the words, but

97 spelling patterns were used to classify 90% of the

lexicon. The five dominant spelling patterns were used to classify 1,74 4 of the 2,943 word corpus, but an additional

92 patterns were needed to classify the next 722 words, and

10% of the words (472) were left in a No Pattern classifica- tion. One spelling pattern, Cs v Cs or v Cs, accounted for

20.4% of the words. Thus, a great number of primary level words were classified with a few patterns, but a great many more spelling patterns had to be devised to classify the remaining words which occurred in quantities sufficient to warrant a pattern.

The number of words which adhere to a consistent spel­ ling pattern between their graphemic and phonemic presenta­ tions (46%) offers a potential word recognition technique for an impressive number of words which a child will encoun­ ter in the primary grades. However, the technique holds limited potential for an almost equal number of words.

Further research into the structures of the words which do not follow the spelling patterns of the present study might disclose other patterns, combinations of patterns and other such features which were not observed in this study. Anoth­ er latent cluster of word recognition features might be disclosed by investigation of the No Pattern group of words.

Therefore, further study of the potential uses of the exist­ 193

ing patterns and the development of other possible patterns

is recommended.

A serious limitation of the use of a spelling pattern

technique for word recognition is embedded in the same data

which makes it so'attractive as a decoding skill. The

classification of extremely large numbers of cases into a

single pattern is both an advantage and a disadvantage. It

appears that knowledge of the spelling pattern 1.01, Cs v

v*/ Cs or v Cs, would enable a reader to decode over 20% of the

study lexicon. This data is impressive, but examination of

* the words within that classification indicated some latent hazards for a reader who might rely exclusively upon the use of a spelling pattern technique for decoding. It appeared

that the large families of words were too large to be func­

tional in their present status. Decoding of the words in this classification probably would require the use of knowl­ edge in addition to the spelling patterns.

The use of a spelling pattern decoding technique would be enhanced by the combination of other factors such as knowledge of rhyming configurations which comprise sub­ classifications of the spelling patterns. There may exist letter patterns which could be developed into decoding strategies within the spelling pattern families. A develop­ mental program of instruction could utilize some features of the spelling pattern technique for recognition of almost 194

50% of the words of this study. Of course, that technique

would not be an effective method for the other 50% of the

words.

Another apparent limitation of the use of spelling

patterns in word recognition was disclosed in the early phases of the spelling pattern analysis. This limitation was a result of letter combinations which met the criteria

for classification into more than one spelling pattern.

Those multiple classification features presented difficulty to the mature readers working with the classification pro­ cedures and, consequently, were assumed to be features which could create a decoding barrier to an immature reader.

However, an equally logical position is to assume that an immature reader could decode a word as effectively with one pattern as another. Therefore, the multiple classification by spelling patterns was a handicap to the research worker but probably would have no adverse influence on an immature reader. In fact, his opportunity for successful identifica­ tion of a word containing two patterns would be twice as great as it would be for a word with a single pattern.

This same thinking also suggests that knowledge of a large number of spelling patterns would be valuable enough to the young reader to warrant the expenditure of effort which would be required to learn the patterns which have a relatively low number of cases. Data from the Kucera and 195

Francis (196 7) list of 135 words which comprise over 50% of

printed materials in contemporary American-English dis­

closes the need for all of the spelling patterns (and all

, levels of the Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty) in

order to classify the most frequently occurring words. This

data should help expurgate the popular notion that the

simple, easy words which a child will encounter in his first

reading lessons are less complex than other words. The

words of primary stories are neither simple in construction

nor easy for decoding purposes for the young reader.

The limitations of the use of spelling patterns for

decoding purposes should not cause complete neglect of a

numerically impressive word recognition technique. If a

child looks at the initial letter of a word as the most

salient clue to a word, and if he knows familiar families

of rhyming words and can combine the sounds represented by

these two features, he can have a rather extensive vocabu­

lary with a minimum of effort. Teaching words with relative

linguistic features maximizes the number of words taught in

relation to the time demanded for instruction. Clusters of

similar phonograms can be taught to extend reading vocabu­

lary with a minimum of effort. 196

Implications Of the Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty

The Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty developed in

the third phase of the present study was used to classify

each of the words on the Dale List of 3000 Common Words

(194 8). Tabulations were made for the most difficult to

read features and the number of syllables in each word.

Separate tabulations were made for the words which comprise over 50% of the printed words in the American-English

lexicon (Kucera and Francis, 1967). The results of the

classification operations and the tabulations of the

results indicated some immediate usefulness for the scale.

The tabulations of the words most often seen in print in the American-English lexicon (Kucera and Francis, 196 7) refuted the idea that these words are "easy words". The orthographic features were found to be as difficult for these high usage words as they were for the rest of the corpus analyzed. Therefore, the instruction in recognition of frequently used words needs to contain specific instruc­ tion regarding their difficult features. It is possible that it has been assumed that repetition would suffice for instruction for recognition of these "easy words".

The Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty was designed as an instrument for ranking the orthographic characteris­ tics of words into a hierarchy of features which make some 197 words more difficult to read than others. The use of the scale provides for the possible construction of word lists by decoding features in addition to frequency of usage rankings and other data. A vocabulary list arranged by decoding features would provide a source of words to be used in preparation of instructional materials with more exacting readability prediction than has been possible with existing methods. Instruction and lesson design can be more specifically directed by use of the classification of words with the scale of difficulty. Teachers also may be advised about which words contain features which may present word recognition difficulties for some young readers, so special consideration can be extended where it may be needed.

Further study needs to be conducted regarding the poten­ tial utility of the Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty by a reader in the decoding process. Knowledge of the features of the language being read has been found to be a very use­ ful set of clues. Knowledge of the difficulty features and the probability of occurrence of a difficulty feature may be equally salient for the decoding process. Study of reader usage of the scale would probably need to include some attempt toward combination of a method which would retain the highly useful features of word recognition by use of the

"family" or rhyming characteristics which result from the spelling patterns of American-English orthography within the 198 potential use of the features of the scale of difficulty.

The use of the Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty should enable future research to utilize one more variable regarding the words being used in a controlled study than has been possible prior to this time. Former control fea­ tures of word length, frequency of usage and number of syllables are compatible with the classification index provided by the scale. The maximum utility of the Word

Recognition Scale of Difficulty cannot be assessed at this time. Further research with the scale may reveal utiliza­ tion features which have not occurred to its designers.

Limitations

The reader should be cognizant of certain limitations when interpreting the results of the present study. This study was designed to explore a restricted segment of word recognition skills as they are related to a selected corpus of primary level words. The limited size of the sample of words (2,943) and the restriction of skills to the learning to read process delimit boundaries for the results of the various treatments of the study lexicon.

Interpolation of the results of the analyses by the spelling pattern technique or the degree of difficulty ranking procedure should be applied cautiously to words not included in this study. 199

Replication of the analysis procedures with another

corpus of words may indicate the size of the sample to be

more of a limiting factor than was apparent in this study.

The words were selected because of their high frequency of

usage in primary reading materials, not as a representative

sample which could be formed if a random sample were drawn

from the potential list of words in the American-English

lexicon. The rationale for this selection of words was that

some words were used more frequently than others (Kucera and

Francis, 1967 ; Rinsland, 1945; Thorndike, 1944). High

frequency of usage was assumed to be equivalent to a high

utilitarian value for the beginning reading process. This

decision regarding the selection of the words to be analyzed was influenced by other related studies (Clymer, 1963; Bail­ ey, 1967; Emans, 1967; Burmeister, 1968). Thus, the compo­

sition of the word list lacks originality, but the deliber­

ate intention of the study was to contribute compatible data that may be assimilated into existing knowledge of word

recognition generalizations.

The dictionary source is vital to a word analysis study; therefore, the further examination of words using analysis techniques comparable to those described in this study may need to use the same dictionary source, Merriam Webster's

New Collegiate Dictionary, second edition, or to incorporate an equalization feature between dictionaries. 200

As stated, the frequency of word usage was assumed to

be equivalent to a high, utilitarian value for the skills

involved in word recognition. No endeavor was made to

verify or generalize the results of the analyses for

usefulness beyond the study lexicon, nor to reading levels

other than the learning to read process. This limitation

was a decision for the design of the study to restrict the

results to the processes of acquiring word recognition

skills in the learning to read level. This decision should

not be interpreted as an indication that decoding is the

only skill needed to enable a child to read.

To learn to read, children must break both the sound code and the meaning code. When the letter-to-sound code has been mastered, the child can then pronounce the word and get its meaning if he already knows it (Dale, 1971).

This study does not involve words that are presumed to be outside the beginning reader's vocabulary, nor does it

recognize the importance of skills that involve relation­

ships between words in a communication that can assist in

the decoding process ( Strang, McCullough, and Traxler,

196 7; Chomsky and Halle, 196 8).

The existing relationships of the grapheme-phoneme

correspondence established by use of the spelling pattern

analysis of the study can only be discussed in terms of the primary level corpus of words analyzed. The spelling pat­ terns used in this study were adequate for classification of 201 approximately 90% of the words. Further use of the spelling pattern analysis technique may require modification of these basic patterns. The decimal coding system for spel­ ling patterns may be expanded within its present structure or amended with other major configurations. The numeral classifications will be compatible to cybernetic explora­ tions with minimal adaptations.

Needed Research Indicated by

the Present Study

Many linguists suggest an approach to the teaching of reading based on the regularity of the linguistic features of the language, especially the regularity of grapheme- phoneme relationships. Several instructional programs have been produced which follow this prescribed format. The research to determine the values of this type of program is inadequate and fragmentary. Several conflicting views have been presented about the procedure of instruction as to how narrow or broad one should be in presenting a particular feature. For example, several studies substantiate the view that the learning procedure is more complex, but the eventual learning is more adequate if the several pronuncia­ tions of similar graphemic constructions occur concommitant- ly, rather than in isolated segments.

The results of the spelling pattern analysis of the present study concur with the feasibility of concommitant 202

instruction for variant constructions or enunciations.

However, the activity of designing several sound situations

for the potential number of spelling patterns which warrant

such situations, combined with only minimal knowledge of

the patterns, causes one to question the feasibility of the

procedure. These situations indicate a need for more

information before rational decisions can be made. Several

questions need to be explored. How much would a child need

to know before words could be decoded by use of a spelling

pattern system? How little could he know and still function with satisfactory proficiency? How many patterns have a

high utility potential?

It appears that the spelling pattern instructional prac­ tices may be extremely useful for some cases. To achieve maximum efficiency, the spelling patterns need to be measured with utility ratings for the words of each instructional program for identification of the patterns with sufficient frequency to maximize learning by the procedure. The data of the present study identified several patterns which could be worthwhile for decoding the select corpus of words analyzed. However, a comparable analysis of a different corpus of words might reveal a separate set of high utility patterns. Thus, the spelling pattern practices have some limitations as well as some advantages as a method of instruction. 203

Some of the difficult to read word factors disclosed in

the present study need further exploration. Several

silent letter situations were dominant in the data of this

study, but there is a dearth of information available

about silent letters. Further study of letter clusters

and the environments of silent letters is needed.

Further study of letter environments should include an

exploration of the functions of the letter r in American-

English orthography. The role of similar phonograms in words needs to be studied to determine if reading vocabu­

lary can be extended with minimal effort. What is the minimum number of words which a child would need to know before he could profit from instruction about word "famil­ ies" and spelling patterns?

The Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty needs further validation . If it is as useful in ranking words as it appeared to be in its application in the present study, word lists used in instructional programs need to be con­ structed to include this difficulty rating with existing data.

Further study needs to be conducted regarding the potential utility of the Word Recognition Scale of Difficul­ ty by a reader in the decoding process. Knowledge of the features of the language being read has been found to be a very useful set of clues. Knowledge of the difficulty 204

features and the probability of occurrence of a difficult

feature may be equally salient for the decoding process.

Study of reader usage of the scale would probably need to

include some attempt toward combination of a method which

* would retain the highly useful features of word recognition

by use of the "family" or rhyming characteristics which

result from the spelling patterns of English orthography

within the potential use of the features of the scale of

difficulty.

The use of the Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty

should enable further research to utilize one more variable

regarding the words being used in a controlled study than

has been possible prior to this time. Former control of

word length, frequency of usage and number of syllables

are compatible with the classification index provided by

the scale. The maximum utility of the Word Recognition

Scale of Difficulty cannot be predicted at this time. Fur­

ther research with the scale may reveal utilization features

which have not occurred to its designers.

Conclusion

Acquisition of the patterns of speech of one's culture

is probably one of the most important sinale accomplishments

of the average person's lifetime. If the amount of time

devoted to instruction is used as a measure of the difficul­

ty of the teaching task, it appears that teaching the 205 graphic representations of language is one of the most difficult assignments confronting elementary education.

Written language lacks some of the features of pitch,

stress and juncture which contribute to the ease of proces­ sing oral language. The present study was an exploration of

some of the features of written language. The results of the study may be useful in designing more effective reading instruction than was previously possible. Further study has been suggested to facilitate continued research into the complexities of the reading processes involved with decoding. More information about the characteristics of » the learner and what is to be learned is needed to implement the continuous search for more effective ways of teaching children to read. APPENDIX 207

TABLE 1

Basic Word and Syllable Tabulation

Number of Words and Syllables Number of Words and on Dale List Syllables Used in Spelling Pattern Analysis* Syllables Number of Number of Number of Number of per Word Words Syllables Words Syllables

1 1603 1603 15 82 1582

2 1116 2232 1103 2206

3 201 603 201 603

4 21 84 21 84

5 2 10 2 10

Totals 2943 4532 2909 4485

*The following list of words was deleted from this analysis because the words were not in the dictionary.

One Syllable Deletions Two Syllable Deletions cooked I'd boxes h a s n 't cried let' s couldn1t i s n ' t eh ma crowded movies fits pa didn't n e e d n 't goes stripes doesn1t w a s n 't ha that' s glasses w ouldn1t he'd they'11 h a d n 't h y v h ' 11 they1vehe h e r e 's w e ' re he 1 s woods Two words were counted as one syllable words as spelled, but two syllable words as shown in the dictionary. They were Mr. and Mrs. Prayer was counted as a two syllable word as spelled, but is shown as a one syllable word in the dictionary. Evening was counted as a three syllable word as spelled, but is shown as a two syllable word in the dictionary. 208

TABLE 2

Spelling Pattern Classifications

Key to Abbreviations

Co - Any consonant element Cs - Single consonant Cel - Consonant blend Cd - Consonant digraph 4 - Silent vowel s/co - Silent consonant v - vowel v - Short vowel v - Long vowel vr - Vowel modified by "r" vv - Vowel combination vd - Vowel digraph vdp - Vowel dipthong

Number Spelling Patterns Example

1.00 Co v Co or v Co

1.01 Cs v Cs or v Cs bit, as 1.02 Cs v Cel or v Cel task, ask 1.03 Cs v Cd or v Cd such, ash 1.04 Cel v Cs step 1.05 Cel v Cel trust 1.06 Cel v Cd sting 1.07 Cd v Cs that 1.08 Cd Cel shelf 1.09 Cd Cd thank

2.00 Co T Co £ or v Co ft

2.01 Cs v Cs j/ or v Cs j! time, use 2.02 Cs V Cel 4 or ^7 Cel 4 taste 2.03 Cs. v Cd 4 °r v Cd 4 bathe, ache 2.04 Cel v Cs 4 stone 2.05 Cel Cel 4 2.06 Cel V Cd jl strange 2.07 Cd v Cs 4 these Number______Spelling pattern Example 2.08 Cd *v Cel fd chaste 2.09 Cd v Cd ^ change

3.00 Co v Co ^ or v Co & judge, edge

4.00 Co *£ fly 4.01 Co y or Co key

5.00 Co v or *v co or Co v Co

5.01 Cs v or Cs v Co we 5.02 Ccl_jv or Cel v" Co gra/cious 5.03 Cd v or Cd v Co she 5.04 Co v Cel or v" Cel blind 5.05 Co v Cd or v Cd bath/ing 5.06 Co v Cs or V Cs an/gel

6.00 Co vr or Co vr Co or Co vr Co ^ or vr ^ (not sounded as in 8.01 - 8.05)

6.01 Co ar 6.02 Co er term 6.03 Co ir whirl 6.04 Co or word 6.05 Co ur fur

7.00 Co wr or Co wr Co

7.01 Co ear earn 7.02 Co ear wear 7.03 Co oor door 7.04 Co air pair

8.00 Co. vr

8.01 Co ar^ care 8.02 Co er& there 8.03 Co ir^ hire 8.04 Co or^ core 8.05 Co ur^ pure

9.00 Co vw or Co vw Co or vw

9.01 Co aw saw 9.02 Co ew few 9.03 Co ow plow 9.04 Co ow flow 210

Number ______Spelling Pattern______Example 10.00 Co Al or Co All , al or all halt

11.00 Co v/ or Co vj? Co or Co ^ Co

11.01 Co "a% paid 11.02 Co ai say 11.0 3 Co each 11.0 4 Co meet 11.05 Co either 11.06 Co *e0 people 11.07 Co T V coat 11.08 Co TV toe 11.09 Co 0)1 dough 11.10 Co T V cue 11.11 Co*ui suit 11.12 Co lj* tie

12.00 Co or Co vyf Co

12.01 Co aji laugh 12.02 Co dead 12.0 3 Co 0)1 ought 12.04 Co (V broad 12.05 Co l£ carriage

13.00 Co or Co j^v Co

13.01 Co 0a steak 13.02 Co j^u feud 13.03 Co &x height 13.04 Co %e chief 13.05 Co yCy buy

14.00 Co jfv or Co yfv Co

14.01 Co %t 14.0 2 Co certain 14.0 3 Co friend 14.0 4 Co jzJu rough 14.05 Co )4i built

15.00 Co vdp or Co vdp Co

15.01 Co oi oil 15.02 Co oy toy 15.03 Co ey they 15.04 Co ou out 211

Number______Spelling Pattern Example 16.00 Co vd or Co vd Co

16.01 Co au caught 16.02 Co ai said 16.03 Co ei freight 16.04 Co oe shoe „ i. 16.05 Co oo book 16.06 Co oo pool 16.07 Co oo flood 16.08 Co ou could 16.09 Co ue true 16.10 Co io mention

17.00 Co le or le ta/ble

18.00 Co w Cv

18.01 Co vv raise 18.02 Co vd gouge 18.03 Co vdp noise l 19.00 Co v Co s/Co or Co v s/co Co or v Cs s/co V 19.01 Co v Cs s/co autumn 19.02 Co v Cs s/co climb 19.03 Co v s/co Co tack 19.04 Co v s/co Co yolk 19 .05 ght flight

20.00 qu squeak 212

TABLE 3

Graphemically Spelled Words by Number of Syllables with Spelling Patterns

Number of Percent of Words Total

One Syllable With Pattern 1467 49 .85

One Syllable No Pattern 136 4.62

Two Syllables Both Pattern 906 30 .78

Two Syllables One Pattern 197 6.69

Two Syllables No Pattern 13 .44

Three Syllables All Pattern 122 4.15

Three Syllables Two Pattern 70 2.38

Three Syllables One Pattern 9 . 31

Four Syllables All Pattern 7 .24

Four Syllables Three Pattern 6 .20

Four Syllables Two Pattern 8 .27

Five Syllables All Pattern 1 .03

Five Syllables Four Pattern 0 .00

Five Syllables Three Pattern 1 .03

2943 99.99 213

TABLE

Distribution of Graphemically Spelled Syllables by Spelling Patterns - All Possible Cases as jr Controlled

Spelling Patterns Number Percent of of Numeral Description Syllables Total

0.00 No Pattern 472 10.41

1.00 Co v Co or v Co

1.01 Cs v, Cs or v Cs (bit, as) 925 20.41 1.02 Cs v Cel or v Cel (task, ask) 153 3.38 1.03 Cs v Cd or v Cd (such, ash) 15 8 3.48 1.04 Cel v Cs (step) 97 2.14 1.05 Cel v Cel (trust) 38 0.84 1.06 Cel v Cd (sting) 32 0.71 1.07 Cd V Cs (that) 38 0.84 1.08 Cd v Cel (shelf) 4 0.09 1.09 Cd v Cd (thank) 9 0.20

2.00 Co v Co or v Co

2.01 Cs v" Cs or 7 Cs (time, usaj_ 195 4.30 2.02 Cs v Cel ^ or_v Cel 0 (taste) 5 0.11 2.03 Cs v Cd ^ or v Cd ^ (bathe, ache) 1 0.02 2.04 Cel v Cs (stone) 57 1.26 2.05 Cel v Cel £ ( ) 0 0 .00 2.06 Cel TT Cd & (strange) 1 0 .02 2.07 Cd v Cs ^ (these) 19 0.42 2.08 Cd v Cel ^ (chaste) 0 0.00 2.09 Cd v Cd ^ (change) 1 0.02

3.00 Co v Co ^ or v Co ^ (judge, edge) 39 0.86 214 Numeral Description______Syllables $ 00 Co y (fly) 22 0.49 ^ — / 4.01 Co y or Co e/ (key) 145 3.20

00 Co v or "v Co or Co v Co

5 .01 Cs "y_or Cs v Co (we) 202 4.46 5.02 Cel v or Cel v Co (gra/cious) 20 0.40 5.03 Cd v_ or Cd ~ v__ C o (she) 14 0.31 5.04 Co v Cel or__v Cel (blind) 37 0. 82 5.05 Co v Cd or v Cd (bath/ing) 4 0.09 5.06 Co v Cs or v*Cs (an/gel) 3 0.07

00 Co vr or Co vr Co or Co vr Co & (not sounded as in 8.01 - 8.05)

6.01 Co ar (yarn) 123 2.71 6.02 Co er (term) 260 5.74 6.03 Co ir (whirl) 25 0.55 6.04 Co or (word) 92 2.03 6.05 Co ur (fur) * 31 0.68

00 Co w r or Co w r Co

7.01 Co ear (earn) 12 0.26 7.02 Co ear (wear) 6 0.13 7.03 Co oor (door) 7 0.15 7.04 Co air (pair) 19 0.42

00 Co vr &

8.01 Co ar^ (care) 13 0.29 8.02 Co er^ (there) 9 0.20 8.03 Co ir^ (hire) 12 0.26 8.04 Co or& (core) 11 0.24 8.05 Co urgf (pure) 13 0.29

00 Co vw or Co vw Co or vw

9.01 Co aw (saw) 20 0.44 9.02 Co ew (few) 14 0.31 9.03 Co ow (plow) 43 0.92 9.04 Co ow (flow) 44 0.97

00 Co Al or Co All r Al or All (halt) 31 0.68 215

Numeral_____ Description______Syllables____ %_

00 Co <1 or Co vV Co or Co "v/ Co 0

11.01 Co a'i (paid) 48 1.06 11.02 Co (say) 53 1.17 11.03 Co 'eX (each) 107 2.36 11.04 Co (meet) 93 2.05 11.05 Co ei (either) 4 0.09 11.06 Co e0 (People) 1 0.02 11.07 Co ofL (coat) 43 0.95 11.08 Co (toe) 5 0 .11 11.09 Co ojd (dough) 10 0.22 11.10 Co TTjZ? (cue) 7 0.15 11.11 Co (suit) 5 0.11 11.12 Co T 0 (tie) 13 0.29

00 Co v y or Co vjf Co

Co 2 0.04 12.01 a* (laugh) 12.02 Co (dead) 39 0.86 12 .03 Co (ought) , 6 0.13 12.04 Co (broad) 2 0.04 12.05 Co U (carriage) 2 0.04 00 Co yN or Co j^v Co

13.01 Co 0a (steak) 5 0 .11 13 .02 Co 0U (feud) 0 0.00 13.03 Co 01 (height) 1 0.02 13.04 Co Xe (chief) 22 0.49 13.05 Co tfy (buy) 2 0.04

00 Co yfv or Co yv Co

14.01 Co (ial) 0 0.00 14 .02 Co (certain) 6 0.13 14.03 Co Xe (friend) 4 0.09 14.04 Co (rough) 12 0.26 14.05 Co (built) 5 0.11

00 Co vdp or Co vdp Co

15.01 Co oi (oil) 11 0.24 15.02 Co oy (toy) 11 0.24 15.03 Co ey (they) 3 0.07 15.04 Co ou (out) 47 1.04 216 Numeral Description..... Syllables % o o 16 • Co vd or Co vd Co

16.01 Co au (caught) ‘11 0.24 16.02 Co ai (said) 3 0.07 16.03 Co oi (freight) 10 0.22 16.04 Co 4 0.09 oew (shoe) 16.05 Co oo (book) 42 0.93 16.06 Co oo (pool) 57 1.26 16.07 Co oo (flood) 2 0.04 16 .08 Co ou (could) 6 0.13 16.09 Co ue (true) 2 0 .04 16.10 Co io (mention) 8 0 .18

17 .00 Co le or le (ta/ble) 72 1.59 o o

18 • Co vv Cv

18.01 Co w (raise) 3 0.07 18.02 Co vd (gouge) 5 0.11 18.03 Co vdp (noise) 5 0.11

19 . o o Co v Co s/co or Co v s/co Co or v Cs s/co v 19 .01 Co v Cs s/co (autumn) 104 2.29 19 .02 CO v Cs s/co (climb) 6 0 .13 19 .03 Co v s/co Co (tack) 106 2 .34 19.04 Co v s/co Co (yolk) 2 0.04 19 .05 ght (flight) 22 0.49

20 .00 qu (squeak) 17 0.38

Totals 4532 99.97% 217

TABLE 5

Distribution of Graphemically Spelled Syllables by Spelling Patterns - All r-controlled Cases Reclassified . Where Possible

Numeral Spelling Patterns Number Percenl of words of total

0.00 No Pattern 472 10.42

1.00 Co v Co or v Co

1.01 Cs v Cs or v Cs (bit, as) 952 21.01 1.02 Cs v Cel or Jr Cel (task, ask) 153 3.38 1.03 Cs v Cd or v Cd (such, ash) 158 3.48 1.04 Cel Cs (step) 99 2.19 1.05 Cel V Cel (trust) 38 .84 1.06 Ccl^v Cd (sting) 32 .71 1.07 Cd v Cs (that) 39 .86 1.08 Cd v Cel (shelf) 4 .09 1.09 Cd v Cd (thank) 9 .20

2.00 Co v Co 4 or v Co

2.01 Cs v Cs d or v Cs ^ (time, use) 219 4.83 2.02 Cs v Cel 4 or v Cel ^ (taste) 5 .11 2.03 Cs v Cd ^ or v Cd (bathe) 1 .22 2.04 Cel v Cs' & (stone) 60 1.32 2.05 Cel v Cel ^ ( ) 0 0.00 2.06 Ccl__v Cd ^ (strange) 1 0.02 2 .07 Cd v Cs ^ (these) 20 .44 2.08 Cd v Cel 0 (chaste) 0 0.00 2.09 Cd v Cd & (change) 1 0.02

3.00 Co v Co ^ or v Co ^ (judge) 41 . 90

4.00 y .49 4.01 Co Y (fly) 22 4.02 Co y or Co ey (key) 145 3.20 218

Numeral Description ...... Words...... %

5.00 Co v or v Co or Co v Co 5.01 Cs v or Cs v Co (we) 209 4.61 5.02 Cel v or Cel v Co gracious) 24 0.51 5.03 Cd v or Cd v Co (she) 14 0.31 5.04 Co v Cel or v Cel (blind) 40 0. 88 5.05 Co v Cd or v Cd (bathing) 4 0.09 5 .06 Co v Cs or v Cs (angel) 3 0.07

6. 00 Co vr or Co vr Co or Co vr Co £ or vr ^ (not sounded as in 8.00)

6.01 Co ar (yarn) 110 2.43 6,02 Co er (term) 254 5.60 6.03 Co ir (whirl) 23 0.50 6.04 Co or (word) 69 1.52 6 .05 Co ur (fur) 30 0.66

7. 00 Co w r or Co w r Co

7.01 Co ear (earn) 12 0.30 7.02 Co ear (wear) 5 0.11 7.03 Co oor (door) 7 0.15 7.04 Co air (pair) 19 0.42

8.00 Co vr ^

8.01 Co ar^ (care) 13 0.29 8.02 Co erjz? (there) 7 0.15 8.03 Co ir$£ (hire) 3 0.08 8.04 Co or& (core) 0 0.00 8.05 Co urjtf (pure) 6 0.13

9. 00 Co vw or Co vw Co or vw

9.01 Co aw (saw) 20 0.44 9 .02 Co ew (few) 14 0.31 9 .03 Co ow (plow) 43 0.92 9.04 Co ow (flow) 44 0.97

10 .00 Co A1 or Co All, Al or All (Halt) 31 0.68 o o 11 • Co vp' or Co V}/ Co or Co Co *

11.01 Co a? (paid) 48 1.06 11.02 Co a* (say) 53 1.17 Numeral Description Words %

11.03 Co %fi (each) 108 2.38 11.04 Co afi (meet) 93 2.05 11.05 Co ep (neither) 4 0.09 11.06 Co e^f (people) 1 0.02 11.07 Co o fi (coat) 43 0 .95 11.08 Co ofi (toe) 5 0.11 11.09 Co ofi (dough) 10 0.22 11.10 Co ufi (cue) 7 0.15 11.11 Co up (suit) 5 0.11 11.12 Co xp (tie) 13 0.29 V .00 Co vy or Co vfi Co

12.01 Co afi (laugh) 2 0.04 12.02 Co %fi (dead) 39 0.86 12.03 Co ofi (ought) 6 0.13 12 .04 Co ofi (broad) 2 0.04 12.05 Co i fi (carriage) 2 0.04

;. 00 Co fiv or Co j/v Co

13.01 Co fia (steak) 5 0.11 13.02 Co

.00 Co j/v or Co yv Co

14.01 Co pa t ) 0 0 .00 14.02 Co (certain) 6 0.13 14.03 Co fie, (friend) 4 0.09 14.04 Co fiu (rough) 12 0.26 14 .05 Co fix (built) 5 0.11

.00 Co vdp or■ Co vdp Co

15 .01 Co oi (oil) 11 0.24 15.02 Co oy (toy) 11 0.24 15.03 Co ey (they) 3 0.07 15 .04 Co ou (out) 47 1.04 220

Numeral Description ...... Words ' %

16 .00 Co vd or Co vd Co

16 .01 Co au (caught) 11 0.24 16 .02 Co ai (said) 3 0.07 16 .03 Co ei (freight) 10 0.22 16.04 Co oe (shoe) 4 0.09 16.05 Co &q (book) 42 0.93 16 .06 Co oo (pool) 57 1.26 16 .07 Co oo (flood) 2 0.04 16.08 Co ou (could) 6 0.07 16 .09 Co ue (true) 2 0.04 16 .10 Co io (mention) 8 0.18

17 .00 Co le or le (table) 72 1.59

18.00 Cow Cv

18.01 Co vv (raise) 3 0.07 18.02 Co vd (gouge) 5 0.11 18.03 Co vdp (noise) 5 0.11

19 .00 Co v Co s/co or Co v s/co Co or v Cs s/co

19.01 Co v_ Cs s/co (autumn) 104 2.29 19 .02 Co Cs s/co (climb) 6 0.13 19.03 Co v s/co Co (tack) 106 2.34 19.04 Co v* s/c Co (yolk) 2 0.04 19 .05 ght (flight) 22 0.49

20 .00 qu (squeak) 17 0.38 4532 99.94% 221

TABLE 6

Rank Order of Spelling Patterns by Number of Orthographic Syllable Cases,— — r —Including ^ — —---^ —Zero --— ;

Spelling Patterns - Percent of Numeral Description f • • Total

1.01 Cs v Cs or v Cs 925 20.42 0.00 No Pattern 472 10.42 6.02 Co er or er 260 5.74 5.01 Cs v or Cs v Co 202 4.46 2 .01 Cs v Cs ^ or v Cs ^ 195 4.30 1.03 Cs v Cd or v Cd 158 3.49 1.02 Cs v Cel or v Cel 15 3 3.38 4.01 Co y or Co 'ey 145 3.20 6 .01 Co ar or ar 123 2.71 11.03 Co 107 2.36 19 .03 Co v s/co Co 106 2.34 19.01 Co v Sc s/co or v Cs s/co 104 2.29 1.04 Cel v Cs 97 2.14 11.04 Co e/ 93 2.05 .6 .04 Co or or or 92 2.03 17.00 Co le 72 1.60 2.04 Cel v CS £ 57 1.26 16 .06 Co oo 57 1.26 11.02 Co ay 53 1.17 11.01 Co a/ 48 1.10 15.04 Co ou _ 47 1.04 9.04 Co ow or ow 44 .97 9.03 Co ow or ow 43 .95 11.07 Co o£ 43 .95 16.05 Co oo ^ 42 .93 3.00 Co v Co / or v Co & 39 .86 12.02 Co e/ 39 . 86 1.07 Cd v^Cs 38 .84 1.05 Ccl___v Cel 38 .84 5.04 Co v Cel or v Cel 37 .82 1.06 Cel v Cd 32 .71 6.05 Co ur or ur 31 .68 10.00 Co al or Co all, al or all 31 .68 6.03 Co ir or ir 25 .55 4.00 Co y 22 .49 13.04 Co /e 22 .49 19.05 ght _ 22 .49 5.02 Cel v or Cel v Co 20 .44 9.01 Co aw 20 .44 222

Numeral Des cr i p t i o n ...... f...... %

2.07 Cd v Cs fL 19 .42 7.04 Co air or air 19 .42 20.00 qu 17 .38 5 .03 Cd v or Cd v Co 14 .31 9.02 Co ew or ew 14 .31 11.12 Co Tfzf 13 .29 8.01 Co arj2 13 .29 8.03 Co irj£ 13 .29 8.05 Co ur^ 13 .29 7.01 Co ear 12 .26 14.04 Co jrfu 12 .26 15.01 Co oi 11 .24 16.01 Co au 11 .24 15.02 Co oy 11 .24 8.04 Co orj4 11 .24 11.09 Co 0)4 10 .22 16.03 Co ei 10 .22 1.09 Cd v Cd 9 .20 8.02 Co er^ 9 .20 16 .10 Co io 8 .18 7.03 Co oor 7 .15 11.10 Co u/ 7 .15 16.08 Co 6 .13 14.02 Co s*A 6 .13 7.02 Co ear 6 .13 19.02 Co v Cs s/co 6 .13 12.03 Co ojA 6 .13 11.08 Co o£ 5 .11 13.01 Co /a 5 .11 14.05 Co 5 .11 18.02 Co vd 5 .11 18.03 Co vdp 5 .11 11.11 Co u/ _ 5 .11 2 .02 Cs v Cel d or v Cel ^ 5 .11 1.08 Cd v Cel 4 .10 14.03 Co /e 4 .10 11.05 Co e/ 4 .10 16.04 Co oc __ 4 .10 5.05 Co v Cd or v Cd 4 .10 15.03 Co ey 3 .07 16.02 Co ai 3 .07 18.01 Co w _ 3 .07 5 .06 Co v Cs or V Cs 3 .07 19.04 Co v s/co Co 2 .04 12.01 Co a/ 2 .04 12.04 Co o/ 2 .04 12 .05 Co U 2 .04 Numeral Description f %

13.05 Co tfy 2 04 16.07 Co oo 2 04 16 .09 Co ue 2 04 2.03 Cs vj2d ^ or v Cd 1 02 2.06 Cel v Cd & 1 02 11.06 Co ejzf 1 02 13.03 CO {2*1 1 02 2 .09 Cd v Cd ^ 1 02 2 .05 Cel v Cel ^ 0. 00 2.08 Cd v_Ccl & 0 00 13.02 Co o 00 14.01 Co £a. o 00 Totals 4532 99 .90% 224

TABLE 7

Phonemically Respelled Words by Number of Syllables with Spelling Patterns

Number of Percent of Words Total

One Syllable With Pattern 1485 51.05

One Syllable No Pattern 97 3 .33

Two Syllables Both Pattern 807 27.74

Two Syllables One Pattern 291 10.00

Two Syllables No Pattern 5 0 .17

Three Syllables All Pattern 100 3.44

Three Syllables Two Pattern 94 3.23

Three Syllables One Pattern 7 0 .24

Four Syllables All Pattern 5 0.17

Four Syllables Three Pattern 9 0.31

Four Syllables Two Pattern 6 0.21

Four Syllables One Pattern 1 0.03

Five Syllables All Pattern 1 0 .03

Five Syllables Four Pattern 0 0 .00

Five Syllables Three Pattern 1 0.03

2909 99.98 225

TABLE 8

Distribution of Phonemically Respelled Syllables by Spelling Patterns All Possible Cases Counted as R-Controlled

Spelling Pattern Number Percent of of Numeral Description ..... Syllables . Total

0.00 No Pattern 536. 11.95

1.00 Co v Co or v Co

1.01 Cs v Cs or v Cs (bit, as) 1194 26.62 1.02 Cs v Cel or v Cel (task) 197 4.39 1.03 Cs V Cd or V Cd (such) 187 4.17 1.04 Cel v Cs (step) 198 4.42 1.05 Cel v Cel (trust) 51 1.14 1.06 Cel v Cd (sting) 34 0.76 1.07 Cd v Cs (that) 52 1.16 1.08 Cd v Cel (shelf) 4 0.09 1.09 Cd v Cd (thank) 5 0.11

5.00 Co v or v Co or Co v Co

5.01 Cs v or Cs v Co (we) 662 14.72 5.02 Cel v or Cel v Co (gracious) 19 8 4.42 5.0 3 Cd v or Cd v Co (she) 52 1.16 5.04 Co v Cel or v Cel (blind) 63 1.40 5.05 Co v Cd or v Cd (bathing) 13 0.29 5.06 Co v Cs or v Cs (angel) 30 0.67

6.00 Co vr or Co vr Co or Co vr Co or vr & (not sounded as in 8.00)

6.01 Co ar (yarn) 143 3.19 6.02 Co er (.term) 327 7.29 6.03 Co ir (whirl) 15 0.33 6.0 4 Co or (word) 97 2.16 6.05 Co ur (fur) 95 2.12

7.00 Co w r or Co w r Co

7.03 Co oor (door) 1 0.02 226

Numeral Description. Syllables_____ %_

10.00 Co Al or Co All, Al or All (halt) 4 0.09

15.00 Co vdp or Co vdp Co

15.01 Co oi (oil) 26 0.58 15.04 Co ou (out) 97 2.16

16.0 0 Co vd or Co vd Co

16.05 Co oo (book) 83 1.85 16.06 Co oo (pool) 121 2.70 Total 4485 100.00 227

TABLE 9

Distribution of Phonemic Respelling of Syllables by Spelling Patterns. All R-Contrdlled Cases Reclassified, If. Possible

Spelling Patterns Number Percent of Words of Total Numeral Description

0.00 No Pattern 536 11.95

1.00 Co v Co or v Co

1.01 Cs v Cs or vCs (bit) 1220 27.20 1.02 Cs v Cel or v Ccl(task) 197 4.39 1.03 Cs v^Cd or v Cd (such) 187 4.17 1.04 Cel v Cs (step) 198 4.42 1.05 Cel v Cel (trust) 51 1.14 1.06 Ccljv Cd (sting) 34 0.76 1.07 Cd v Cs (that) 52 1.16 1.08 Cd v, Ccl (shelf) 4 0.09 1.09 Cd v Cd (thank) 5 0.11

5.00 Co v or v Co or Co v Co

5.01 Cs v or Cs v Co (we) 716 15.96 5 .02 Cel v or Cel v Co (gracious) 206 4.59 5.03 Cd v or Cd v Co (she) 57 1.27 5.04 Co v Cel or v Cel (blind) 78 1.74 5.05 Co v Cd or v Cd (bathing) 13 0.29 5.06 Co v Cs or v Cs (angel) 36 0. 80

6.00 Co vr or Co vr Co or Co vr Co ft

6.01 Co ar (yarn) 132 2.94 6.02 Co er (term) 295 6.58 6.03 Co ir (whirl) 1 0.02 6.04 Co or (word) 45 1.00 6.05 Co ur (fur) 89 1.98 10.00 Co Al or Co All, Al or All (Halt) 4 0.09 228

Nume ral_____ Description______Words Percent

15.00 Co vdp or Co vdp Co

15.01 Co oi (oil) 26 0.58 15.04 Co ou (out) 97 2.16

16.00 Co vd or Co vd Co

16.05 Co oo (book) 85 1.89 16.0 6 Co oo (pool) 121 2 .70

Totals 4 485 99.97% 229

TABLE 10

Rank Order of Spelling Patterns by Number of Phonemic Syllable Cases, Including Zero. All Possible Cases Counted as R-Controlled

Spelling Pattern Number of Percent Syllables of Total Numeral Description'

1.01 Cs v Cs or v Cs 1194 26.62

5.01 Cs v or Cs v Co 662 14.76

0.00 No Pattern 536 11.95

6 .02 Co er or er 327 7.29

1.02 Cs v Cel or v Cel 197 4.39

5.02 Cel v or Cel v Co 198 4.42

1.04 Cel v Cs 198 4.42

1.03 Cs v Cd or v Cd 187 4.17

6.01 Co ar 143 3.19

16.06 Co oo (pool) 121 2.70

6.04 Co or 97 2.16

15.04 Co ou (out) 97 2 .16

6.05 Co ur 95 2 .12

16.05 Co oo (book) 83 1.85

5.04 Co v Cel or v Cel 63 1.40

5.03 Cd v or Cd v Co 52 1.16

1.07 Cd v Cs 52 1.16

1.05 Cel v Cel 51 1.14 •j 1.06 Cel v Cd 34 0.76 Numeral______Description Syllables Percent

5.06 Co v Cs or v Cs 30 0.67

15.01 Co oi (oil) 26 0.58

6.03 Co ir 15 0.33

5.05 Co v Cd or v Cd 13 0.29

1.09 Cd v Cd 5 0.11 u 1.08 Cd v Cel 4 0.09

10.00 Co al or all 4 0.09

7.03 Co oor (door) • 1 0.02

4485 100.00 TABLE U

CORRESPONDENCE Or GRAPHEMIC SPELLING PATTERNS RECLASSIFIED TO PHONEMIC RESrELLING PATTERNS

Key: Horizontal rows ere phonemic patterns. Vertical columns are spelling patterns. IS - Irregular syllabification NID - Words on Dale list not included in the dictionary

o OJ m Q a o a » © O O C O O O O Q ©CD a r*i H r ~ i tflutiTso lD o lC o rv a cTi u i o o z

0.00 217 217 95 95 19 16 16 7 5 1 3 I 29 2 3 9 3571 21 17 20 972 1.01 57 607 17 8 2 20 8 1 925 1.02 2 2 196 1 2 153 1.03 13 13 190 190 1 158 1.09 99 2 1 97 1.05 8 30 35 1.06 B B 1 1 22 32 1.07 6 32 38 1.0B 1 0 3 9 1.09 3 1 5 9 2.01 1 1 176 1 8 3 2 1 195 2 .0 2 5 5 2.03 0 0 1 1 2.09 55 1 1 57 2.05 0 2.06 1 1 2.07 3. 5 11 19 2.08 0 2.09 1 1 3.00 25 10 1 3 0 39 9.00 10 9 2 1 22 9.01 51 87 3 2 195 5.01 2 191 1 1 9 3 202 5.02 19 1 0 20 5.03 0 19 19 5.09 37 . 37 5.05 2 1 3 5.06 1 2 3 6.01 3 90 25 5 123 6.02 292 17 1 260 6.03 3 22 25 6.09 1 1 19 59 12 92 6.05 3 27 1 31 7.01 7 5 12 7.02 5 1 6 7.03 1 6 7 7.09 19 19 231 o i-trvj m 3 , uakOh»sa>

O H H H ifl Ul 5.04

8..01 13 13 8..02 7 9 8..03 12 12 8..04 11 11 8..05 13 9.01 20 2D 9,.02 7 14 9..03 41 43 9..04 20 10 11 2 44 10, 00 25 1 31 11. D1 30 9 5 1 2 48 11..02 8 33 10 53 11..03 51 20 4 5 5 17 107 11,.04 3 47 27 3 1 5 1 I 93 11,.05 1 3 4 11..06 1 1 11..07 1 23 4 4 1 2 1 43 11. 08 4 5 11..09 3 4 10 11,,10 3 4 7 11..11 1 5 11,.12 1 0 5 13 12,.01 2 2 12..02 3 14 4 10 39 12 .03 6 6 12 .04 2 2 12 .05 2 2 13 .01 5 13 .02 0 13 .03 1 13 .04 1 9 22 13 .05 2 14 .01 0 14 .02 6 6 14 .03 4 14 .04 7 12 14 .05 1 5 15 .01 11 u 15 .02 11 11 15 .03 3 15 .04 47 47 16 .01 11 11 16 .02 2 3 16 .03 3 10 16 .04 4 16 .05 41 1 32 232 o H r\j i/i o r*.03 H

10.06 57 57 16.07 2 16.08 6 16.09 2 16.10 8 17.00 72 72 IB.01 3 18.02 5 18.03 5 19.01 75 30 104 19.02 6 19.03 47 13 29 106 19.04 1 1 2 19.08 18 22 20.00 17

536 1194 197 187 198 51 34 52 4 5 662 198 52 63 13 30143 327 15 97 95 1 4 26 97 83 121 45 2 4531 233 234

TABLE 12

Spelling Patterns Which Exceed Seventy- Five Percent Grapheme-Phoneme Correspondence

Spelling Patterns Percent of Exact Correspondence Numeral Description

w U 1.01 Cs v Cs or v Cs {bit, as) 87

1.02 Cs v Cel or v Cel (task, ask) 95

1.03 Cs v Cd or v Cd (such, ash) 87

1.04 Cel v Cs (step) 97

1.05 Cel v Cel (trust) 77

1.07 Cd v Cs (that) 84

5.01 Cs v or Cs v Co (we) 95

5.02 Cel v or Ccd v Co (gra/cious) 86

5.03 Cd v or Cd v Co (she) 94

5.04 Co v Cel or v Cel (blind) 100

6.02 Co er (term) 93

6.05 Co ur (fur) 87

15.01 Co oi (oil) 100

15.04 Co ou (out) 100

16.05 Co oo (book) 98

16 .06 Co oo (pool) 100 235

TABLE 13

Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty

Level Description

A Single consonants with short vowels.

B Single consonants with long vowels.

Ci Repeating consonants, long or short vowels, at end of words. Cii Repeating vowels, long or short but both sounded.

D Blends and consonant digraphs with predictable sounds, long or short vowels. Includes qu.

E Silent letters in predictable patterns or posi­ tions (final e, y after a, e^, jtfk).

Pi Vowel is followed by an r. Fii Double vowel is followed by an r.

Gi Vowels that are not short, long or r-controlled. Gii Silent letters that are not predictable (knight).

Hi Diphthongs (oil, out, toy, few) Hii Consonant digraph plus a consonant (throw). If third consonant is r in r-control, count as r.

Ji Consonant digraph plus a silent consonant. Jii Three consecutive vowels. Jiii Consonant does not make its major sound.

The number of syllables in a word is the numerical classifi­ cation. The level of difficulty of the most difficult syllable of the word is the alphabetical classification.

Examples of classification:

IB go IE came 3Fi library iCii knight 236

TABLE 14

Distribution of Words by Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty Classifications

Number of Syllables per Word Total Percent Level of Number of of Difficulty 1 2 3 4 5 Words Total

A 169 42 9 220 7.48

B 19 32 16 1 68 2.31

Ci 44 8 52 1.77 t Cii 32 7 1 40 1.36

D 320 103 7 1 431 14.64

E 291 163 25 3 482 16.38

Fi 132 192 41 9 1 375 12.74

Fii 54 27 4 85 2.89

Gi 91 114 31 5 241 8.19

Gii 248 205 19 472 16. Q.4

Hi 63 51 7 121 4.11

Ilii 21 2 1 24 0. 82

Ji 17 6 1 24 0.82

Jii 1 2 3 o . i

Jiii 102 163 37 3 305 10.36

totals 1603 1116 201 21 2 2943 99.99 237

TABLE 15

Distribution of the 132 Most Frequently Used American-English. Words* by Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty Classification

Level of Number of Syllables Number Percent Difficulty of Words of Total 1 2 ..... 3

A 15 15 11.36

B 9 3 12 9.91

Ci 2 2 1.52

Cii 2 2 1.52

D 20 20 15.15

E 14 2 16 12.12

Fi 13 6 19 14.59

Fii 3 3 2.27

Gi 10 6 1 17 12.88

Gii 9 9 6.82

Hi 6 1 7 5.30

Hii

Ji

Jii

Jiii 8 _2 10 7.58

111 20 1 132 100.82

*Kucera and Francis, 196 7 Table 16

Identification of Spelling Patterns and Word Recognition Scale of Difficulty Rankings for Dale List of 3000 Common Words

Orthographic Phonological Spelling Patterns Difficulty Spelling Spelling Orthographic Phonological Rank a a 0 0 IB a ble " a V l 0, 17.00 0, 0 2E a board a bord ' 0, 11.07 0, 6.04 2Fii a bout a bout'’ 0, 15.04 0, 15.04 2Hi a bove a buv 0, 0 0, 1.01 2Gi v / y* ab sent ab sent 1.01, 1.02 1.01, 1.02 2D v * ac cept ak sept 1.01, 1.02 1.01, 1.02 2Jiii ^ * ac ci dent ak si dent 1.01, 1.01, 1.02 1.01, 1.01, 1.02 3Jiii L' , / ac count a kount 1.01, 15.04 0, 15.04 2Hi

ache ak 0 5.06 lJiii ach ing ~iak * ingy 0 , 1.03 5.06, 1.03 2Jiii a corn *a korn 0, 6.04 0, 6.04 2Fi a ere a/ker 0, 0 0, 6.02 2Gi a cross a kros 0, 19.01 0, 1.04 2Ci act akt 1.02 1.02 ID acts akts 1.02 1.02 ID add ad 19.01 1.01 lCi ad dress a dres 1.01, 19.01 0, 1.04 2Ci * T / ad mire ad mir 1.01, 8.03 1.01, 5.01 2Fi ad ven ture ad ven tur 1.01, 1.01, 8.05 1.01, 1.01, 6.05 3E1 a far a far 0, 6.01 0, 6.01 2Fi a fraid a frad/ 0, 11.01 0, 5.02 2Gii

af ter af/ter 1.01, 6.02 1.01, 6.02 2EL

af ter noon af;ter noon^ 1.01, 6,02, 16.06 1.01, 6.02, 16.06 3RL

af ter ward a^ter w“erd 1.01, 6.02, 6.01 1.01, 6.02 , 6.02 3Fi

af ter wards af ter werdz 1.01, 6.02, 6.01 1.01, 6.02, 6.02 3Jiii 239 * v / a gain a gen 0, 16.02 0, 1 .01 2Gi a gainst a genst 0, 16.02 0, 1.02 2Gi age aj 2.01 5.06 IJiii aged ajd 0 5.04 U i i i

* — / a go a go 0, 5.01 0, 5 .01 2B

• — / a gree a gre 0, 11.04 0, 5 .02 2E »« ah a 0 0 IGi c 1/ / a head a hed 0, 12.02 0, 1 .01 2Gii aid "ad 11.01 5.06 lGii aim "am 11.01 5.06 lGii

A air ar 7.04 6.01 lFii air field ar^ feld 7.04, 13.04 6.01 , 5.04 2Gii A ' air plane ar plan 7.04, 2.04 6.01 , 5.02 2Fii

A / — air port ar port 7.04, 6.04 6.01 , 6.04 2Fii

A t , V air ship ar ship 7.04, 1.07 6.01 , 1.07 2Fii A / u air y ar i 7.04, 0 6.01 , o 2Fii 240 * a larm a l a r m / 0 f 6.01 0, 6.01 2Fi a like a lXk7^ 0, 2.01 0, 5.01 2E a live a liv 0, 2.01 0, 5.01 2E

A . all ol 10.00 0 IGi / y al ley al 1 1.01, 4.01 1.01, 0 2Gii

^ /V — v al li ga tor al l ga ter 1.01, 1.01, 5.01 1.01, 0, 5.01, 6.02 4Fi 6.04 al low a lou 1.01, 9.03 0, 15.04 2Hi al most ol most 10.00, 5.04 0, 5.04 2Gi

• _ ✓ a lone a Ion 0, 2.01 0, 5.01 2E

/ / a long a long 0, 1.03 0, 1.03 2D ' / a loud a loud 0, 15.04 0, 15.04 2Hi al read y ^ 1 red i 10.00, 12.02, 0 0, 1.01, 0 3Gii A . f ^ al so ol SO 10.00, 5.01 0, 5.01 2Gi A. / — al ways ol waz 10.00, 11.02 0, 5.01 2Jiii am am 1.01 1.01 1A

A mer i ca a mer i ka 0, 6.02, 0, 1.01 0, 6.02, 0, 1.01 4Fi 241 • L/ / '-' L/ A mer i can a mer i kan 0, 6.02, 0, 1.01 0, 6.02, 0, 1.01 4Fi * V / a mong a mung 0, 0 0, 1.03 2Gi * / a mount a mount 0, 15. 04 0, 15.04 2Hi V an an 1.01 1.01 IB and and 1.02 1.02 ID

— / an gel an jel 5.06, 1.01 5.06, 1.01 2Jiii

\J / »v an ger ang ger 1.01, 6.02 1.03, 6.02 2Jiii

v/ / V an gry ang g n 1.01, 4.01 1.03, 0 2Jiii O' / o' C/, an 1 mal an 1 mal 1.01, 0, 1.01 1.01, 0, 1.01 3A o' u/irj a noth er a nu£n er o, 0, 6.02 0, 1.03, 6.02 3Gi 0 / A/ an swer an ser 1.01, 6.02 1.01, 6.02 2Gii O' ant ant 1.02 1.02 ID u/ / v/ an y en i 1.01, 0 1.01, 0 2Gi

u /V . t/, V an y bod y en i bod i 1.01, 0, 1.01, 0 1.01, 0, 1.01, 0 4Gi L/ /o' an y how en i hou 1.01, 0, 9.03 1.01, 0, 15.04 3Hi u / U i/ an y one en l wun 1.01, 0, 0 1.01, 0, 1.01 3Gi 242 u f u y an y thing en i thing 1.01, 0, 1.09 1.01, 0, 1.09 3Gi U /(/ — an y way en i wa 1.01, 0, 11.02 1.01, 0, 5.01 3Gi 1/ / V . A an y where en i hwar 1.01, 0, 8.02 1.01, 0, 6.01 3Gi * << / a part a part 0, 6.01 0, 6.01 2Fi o Of) / \J a part ment a part ment 0, 6.01, 1.02 0, 6.01, 1.02 3Fi ape *ap 2.01 5.06 IE * — / a piece a pes 0, 13.04 0, 5.01 2Jiii is — ' f ap pear a p^r 1.01, 11 .03 0, 6.02 2Fii ap pie apu /.i '1 1.01, 17 .00 1,01, 0 2E — / */ A pril a prxl 0, 1.04 0, 1.04 2D — / y a pron a prun 0, 0 0, 1.04 2Gi * # are ar 6,01 6.01 lFi • « aren1t a m t 6.01 6.01 lGii « T / a rise a n z 0, 2.01 0, 5.01 2Jiii o / 1/ CS a rith me tic a rith me tik 0, 1.03, 1.01, 0, 1.03, 1.01, 4D 1.01 1.01 • i arm arm 6.01 6.01 lFi 243 arm ful arm7fool 6.01, 1.01 6.01, 16.05 2Gi t. f ^ ar my ar mi 6.01, 4.01 6.01, 1.01 2Fi ' - / a rose a roz 0, 2.01 . 0, 5.01 2Jiii a round a round / 0, 15.04 0, 15.04 2Hi - . / ar range a ranj 6.01, 2.03 0, 5.04 2Jiii Lx "" * ar rive a riv 6.01, 2.01 0, 5.01 2Fi %j — / ar rived a rrvd 6.01, 0 0, 5.04 2Gii u 1 — ar row ar o 6.01, 9.04 6.01, 0 2Gii * * art art 0 0 lFi ~ ^ ar tist ar tist 0, 1.02 0, 1.02 2Fi

as az 1.01 1.01 lJiii

ash ash 1.03 1.03 ID /o' ash es ash e z 1.03, 1.01 1.03, 1.01 2Jiii , - / a side a srd 0, 2.01 0, 5.01 2E / ask ask 1.02 1.02 ID ' / a sleep a slep 0, 11.04 0, 5.02 2E 244 u at at 1.01 1.01 1A

ate at 2.01 5.06 IE at tack a tak 1.01, 19.03 0, 1.01 2E at tend a tend 1.01, 1.02 0, 1.02 2E

W U i iJ at ten tion a ten shun 1.01, 1.01, 16 .10 0, 1.01, 1.07 3Jiii

A i c' Au gust o gust 0, 1.02 0, 1.02 2Gi

aunt ant 12.01 0 lGii

A J n j au thor o ther 0, 6.04 0, 6.02 2Gi

A * — au to o to 0, 5.01 0, 5.01 2Gi au to mo bile $ to" mo ^ i l 0, 5.01, 5.01, 0 0, 5.01, 5.01, 1.01 4 Gi A * v au tumn o turn 0, 19.01 0, 1.01 2Gii

U i u — av e nue av e nu 1.01, 0, 11.10 1.01, 0, 5.01 3E

a wake a wak / 0, 2.01 0, 5.01 2E

o — / t/ a wak en a wak en 0, 5.01, 1.01 0, 5.01, 1.01 3B « ■— / a way a wa 0, 11.02 0, 5.01 2E A / ^ aw ful o fool 9.01, 1.01 0, 16.05 2Gi 245 /v v ' r aw ful ly O fool 1 9.01, 1.01, 4.01 0, 16 .05, 0 3Gi f — / a while a hwil 0, 2.07 0, 5. 02 2E u ax aks 1.01 1.02 1A baa ba 0 0 IGii babe bab 2.01 5.01 IE _ t \j ba bies ba biz 5.01, 13.04 5.01, 1.01 2Jiii — / u ba by ba bi 5.01, 4.01 5.01, 1.01 2B back bak 19.03 1.01 IE U/ f back ground bak ground 19.03, 15.04 1.01, 15.04 2Hi back ward bak werd 19.03, 6.01 1.01, 6.02 2Fii V J / back wards bak werdz 19.03, 6.01 1.01, 6.02 2Jiii ba con ba kun 5.01, 1.01 5.01, 1.01 2Gi bad bad 1.01 1.01 1A bad ly bad li 1.01, 4.01 1.01, 1.01 2A O' badge baj 3.00 1.01 U i i i

O' bag bag 1.01 1.01 1A 246 bake bak 2.01 5.01 IE — / "V bak er bak er 5.01, 6.02 5.01, 6.02 2Fi — / /V t' bak er y bak er i 5.01, 6.02, 0 5.01, 6.02, 0 3Fi — i u bak ing bak ing 5.01, 1.03 5.01, 1.03 2D ball bol 10.00 0 lGi

J w - * bal loon ba loon 10.00 , 16.06 1.01, 16.06 2Cii * v / p ba nan a ba nan a 1.01, 1.01, 0 1.01, 1.01, 0 3A band band 1.02 - 1.02 ID ban dage ban drj 1.01, 3.00 1.01, 1.01 2Jiii

bang bang 1.03 1.03 ID

ban jo ban jo 1.01, 5.01 1.01, 5.01 2B

bank bangk 1.03 0 ID

bank er bangk er 1.03, 6.02 0, 6. 02 2Fi :

bar bar 6.01 6.01 lFi

bar ber bar'ber 6.01, 6.02 6.01, 6.02 2Fi

bare bar 8.01 6.01 lFi

, A i V bare ly bar li 8.01, 4.01 6.01, 1.01 2Fi 247 A / x-' bare foot bar foot 8.01, 16.05 6.01, 16.05 2Fi

00 bark bark 6.01 6.01 lFi b a m barn 6.01 6.01 lFi bar rel bar el 6.01, 1.01 6.01, 1.01 2Fi base bas 2.01 5.01 IE , — / ,A . / base ball bas bol 2.01, 10.00 5.01, 0 2Gi , — / V base ment bas ment 2.01, 1.02 5.01, 1.02 2Gi bas ket bas/ket 1.01, 1.01 1.01, 1.01 2A bat bat 1.01 1.01 1A batch bach 19.03 1.03 iJi bath bath 1.03 1.03 ID bathe baizfi/ 2.03 5.05 IE — s / V b ath ing b^fch ing 5.05, 1.03 5.05, 1.03 2D , • , / '— bath room bath room 1.03, 16.06 1.03, 16.06 2D

C 1/ bath tub bath tub 1.03, 1.01 1.03, 1.01 2D V / bat tie bat '1 1.01, 17.00 1.01, 0 2E U / is

bat tie ship bat '1 ship 1.01, 17.00, 1.07 1.01, 0, 1.07 3Gii 24 8 bay ba 11.02 5.01 IE be be 5.01 5.01 IB beach bech 11.03 5.05 lGii bead bed 11.03 5.01 lGii beam bem 11.03 5.01 lGii bean ben 11.03 5.01 lGii bear bar 7.02 6.01 IFii beard bgrd 11.03 6.02 lFii beast best 11.03 5.04 lGii beat bet 11.03 5.01 lGii _, u beat ing bet ing 11.03, 1.03 5.01, 1.03 2Gii — / ^ beau ti ful bu ti fool 0, 1.01, 1.01 5.01, 1.01, 16.05 3Jii — / Y ~ beau ti fy bu ti fi 0, 1.01, 4.00 5.01, 1.01, 5.01 3 Jii — i V beau ty bu ti 0, 4.01 5.01, 1.01 2 Jii be came be" k a m / 5.01, 2.01 5.01, 5.01 2E J. A / be cause be koz 5.01, 16.01 5,01, 0 2Jiii be come be" kum7 0 , 3.00 5.01, 1.01 2Gi 249 be com ing be kum ing 5.01, 1.01, 1.03 5.01, 1.01, 1.03 3Gi bed bed 1.01 1.01 lA

, \ j . / , \j bed bug bed bug 1.01, 1.01 1.01, 1.01 2A

, ^ — bed room bed room 1.01, 16.06 1.01, 16.06 2Cii bed spread bed/spred 1.01, 12.02 1.01, 1.04 2Gii

\j / -7- bed time bed tim 1.01, 2.01 1.01, 5.01 2E bee be 11.04 5.01 IE beech bech 11.04 5.05 IE beef be"f 11.04 5.01 IE beef steak bef '^stak 11.04 , 13.01 5.01, 5.02 2Gii bee hive be/hiv 11.04 , 2.01 5.01, 5.01 2E been bin 0 1.01 lGi beer bgr 11.04 6.02 lFii beet bet 11.04 5.01 IE be fore be for^ 5.01, 8.04 5.01, 8.04 2Fi beg beg 1.01 1.01 1 A 250 u / be gan be gan 5.01, 1.01 5.01, 1.01 2B U //v beg gar beg er 1.01, 6.01 1.01, 6.02 2Fi begged begd 0 1.02 lGii U- U f be gin be gin 5.01, 1.01 5.01, 1.01 2B J_ is / is be gin ning be gin m g 5.01, 1.01, 1.03 5.01, 1.01, 1.03 3E . J* u / be gun be gun 5.01, 1.01 5.01, 1.01 2B be have be' hav^ 5.01, 2.01 5.01, 5.01 2E X j be hind be hind 5.01, 5.04 5.01, 5.04 2D be ing be ing 5.01, 1.03 5.01, 1.03 2D U_ __ / be lieve be lev 5.01, 13.04 5.01, 5.01 2Gii bell bel 19.01 1.01 ICi *j- & / be long be long 5 .01, 1.03 5.01, 1.03 2D X / be low be lo 5.01, 9.04 5.01, 5.01 2Gii U belt belt 1.02 1.02 ID Ly bench bench 0 0 iHii bend bend 1.02 1.02 ID 251 j - _ / be neath be neth 5.01 11.03 5.01, 5.05 2Gii bent bent 1.02 1.02 ID

, u i her ries ber 12 6.02 13.04 6.02, 1.01 2Jiii

, u * V ber ry ber 1 6.02 4.01 6.02, 0 2Fi be side be" sid' 5.01 2.01 5.01, 5.01 2E _i- — / be sides be sidz 5.01 0 5.01, 5.0 4 2Jiii , ij best best 1.02 1.02 ID bet bet 1.01 1.01 1 A bet ter bet'er 1.01 6.02 1.01, 6.02 2Fi be tween be" twen^ 5.01 11.04 5.01, 5.02 2E bib bib 1.01 1.01 1 A bi ble bl'b'l 5.01 17.00 5.01, 0 2E

— i L ' bi cy cle bi sik '1 5.01 4.01, 17.00 5.01, 1.01, 0 3Jiii L/ bid bid 1.01 1.01 1A big big 1.01 1.01 1A U/ i big ger big er 1,01 6.02 1.01, 6.02 2Fi 252 t/ bill bil 19.01 1.01 ICi o j ^ bill board bil bord 19.01f 11.07 1.01, 6.04 2Fii bin bin 1.01 1.01 1A bind bind 5.04 5.04 ID A bird burd 6.03 6.05 lFi birth burth 6 .03 6.05 lFi birth day burth f €£ 6.03, 11.02 6.05, 5.01 2Fi bis cuit bis kit 1.01, 14.05 1.01, 1.01 2Gii bit bit 1.01 1.01 1A bite bit 2.01 5.01 IE _ / o> bit ing bit ing 5.01, 1.03 5.01, 1.03 2D , v f ** bit ter bit er 1.01, 6.02 1.01, 6.02 2Fi black blak 19.03 1.04 IE \s ! v black ber ry blak ber i 19.03, 6.02, 4.01 1.04, 6.02, 0 3Fii black bird blak burd 19.03, 6.03 1.04, 6.05 2Fi black board blak bord 19.03, 11.07 1.04, 6.04 2Gii 253 tj / v/ black ness blak nes 19.03, 19.01 1.04, 1.01 2E v / u black smith blak smith 19.03, 1.06 1.04, 1.06 2E

blame blam 2.04 5.02 IE

blank blangk 1.06 0 ID / <_/> blan ket blang ket 1.04, 1.01 1.06, 1.01 2Jiii blast blast 1.05 1.05 ID

blaze blaz 2.04 5.02 IE

bleed bled 11.04 5.02 IE

bless bles 19.01 1.04 ID

bless ing bles ing 19.01, 1.03 1.04, 1.03 2E

blew blocf 9.02 16.06 lHi blind blind 5.04 5.04 ID blinds blinds 5.04 5.04 ID

blind fold blind ^o l d 5.04, 5.04 5.04, 5.04 2D

block blok 19.03 1.04 IE

blood bind 16.07 1.04 lGi 254 bloom bloom 16.06 16.06 ID u bios som bios urn 1.04, 1.01 1.04, 1.01 2Gi u blot blot 1.04 1.04 ID blow bio" 9.04 5.02 lGii blue bloo 11.10 16 .06 lGi __/is Lf blue ber ry bloo ber i 11.10, 6.02, 4.01 16.06 , 6.02, 0 3Gi — / A blue bird bloo burd 11.10, 6.03 16.06 , 6.05 2Gi blue jay bloo ^ja 11.10, 11.02 16.06 , 5.01 2Gi blush blush 1.06 1.06 ID board bord 11.07 6.04 IFii boast bost 11.07 5.04 lGii boat bot 11.07 5.01 lGii V bob bob 1.01 1.01 1-A u — / bob white bob hwit 1.01, 2.07 1.01, 5.02 2E 1/ i ^ bod ies bod iz 1.01, 13.04 1.01, 1.01 2Jiii u / c/ bod y bod i 1.01, 0 1.01, 0 2A 255 boil boil 15.01 15.01 iHi boil er boil er 15.01, 6.02 15.01, 6.02 2Hi bold bold 5.01 5.01 ID bone bon 2.01 5.01 IE \S / ( s bon net bon et 1.01, 1.01 1.01, 1.01 2E boo boo 16.06 16.06 ICii __' book book 16.05 16.05 ICii book case b o o ^ k a s 16.05, 2.01 16.05, 5.01 2E book keep er book kep er 16.05, 11.04, 6.02 16.05, 5.01, 6.02 3Fi boom boom 16.06 16.06 ICii boot boot 16.06 16.06 ICii , A born born 6,04 6.04 lFi \s i \s bor row bor o 6.04, 9.04 6.04, 0 2Gii boss bos-J*' 19,01 1.01 iCi both both 5.01 5.01 ID

I S S s * s both er bo£n. er 1.03, 6.02 1.03, 6.02 2Fi 256 IS bot tie bot *1 1.01, 17.00 1.01, 0 2E \J / u bot tom bot urn 1.01, 1.01 1.01, 1.01 2Gi bought bot 12.03 0 lGii bounce bouns 15.04 15.04 U i i i bow bou 9.03 15.04 IHi bowl bol 9.04 5.01 lGii bow-wow bou wou 9.03, 9.03 15.04, 15.04 2Hi IS box boks 1.01 1.02 1A tJ / * 0 box car boks kar 1.01, 6.01 1.02, 6.01 2Fi *S i rs box er bok ser 1.01, 6.02 1.01, 6.02 2Jiii box es 1.01 2Jiii boy boi 15.02 15.01 IHi boy hood boyhood 15.02, 16.05 15.01, 16.05 2Hi — / vS brace let bras let 2.04, 1.01 5.02, 1.01 2Jiii brain bran 11.01 5.02 lGii brake brak 2.04 5.02 IE 257 bran bran 1.04 1.04 ID branch branch 0 0 lHii brass bras 19 .01 1.04 ID brave brav 2.04 5.02 IE u bread bred 12.02 1.04 lGii break brak 13.01 5.02 lGii V / * break fast brek fast 12.02 1.02 1.04, 1.02 2 Gil u breast brest 12.02 1.05 lGii breath breth 12.02 1.06 lGii breathe brejzfi 11.03 5.02 lGii breeze brez 11.04 5.02 IE u brick brik 19.03 1.04 lGii bride brid 2.04 5.02 IE bridge brij 3,00 1.04 lJiii bright brit 19.05 5.02 lGii — / u> bright ness brit nes 19.05 19.01 5,02, 1.01 2Gii 258 u bring bring 1.06 1.06 ID A broad brod 12.04 0 lGii A / • broad cast brod kast 12.04, 1.02 0, 1.02 2Gii broke brok 2.04 5.02 IE — / u bro ken bro ken 5.02, 1.01 5.02, 1.01 2D brook brook 16.05 16.05 ID broom broom 16.06 16.06 ID broth er bru^h er 0, 6.02 • 1.06, 6.02 2Gi brought brot 12.0 3 0 lGii brown broun 9.03 15.04 IHi u brush brush 1.06 1.06 ID O / bub ble bub '1 1.01, 17.00 1.01, 0 2E 1/ 1 u buck et buk et 19.03, 1.01 1.01, 1.01 2E u 1 . buck le buk '1 19.03, 17.00 1.01, 0 2e i/ bud bud 1.01 1.01 1A u / • — buf fa lo buf a lo 1.01, 1.01, 5.01 1.01, 0, 5.01 3e 259 is bug bug 1.01 1.01 1A \J I u bug gy bug i 1.01, 4.01 1.01, 0 2E is build bild 14.05 1.02 lGii U fit build ing bild ing 14.05 , 1.03 1.02, 1.03 2Gii u built bilt 14.05 1.02 lGii U bulb bulb 1.02 1.02 ID v s bull bool 19.01 16.05 iGi

I ' I \S bul let bool et 1.01, 1.01 16.05 , 1.01 2Gi \s bum bum 1.01 1.01 1A u / — bum ble bee bum b 11 be 1.01, 17.00, 11.04 1.01, 0, 5.01 3E v bump bump 1.02 1.02 ID \s bun bun 1.01 1.01 lA u bunch bunch 0 0 lHii ^ / bun die bun d ’l 1.01, 17.00 1.01, 0 2E u i

L y ’ t S I * but ter but er 1.01, 6.02 1.01, 6,02 2F i 1/ //V' U but ter cup but er kup 1.01, 6.02, 1.01 1.01, 6.02, 1.01 3Fi U f .'LS but ter fly but er fli 1.01, 6.02, 4.00 1.01, 6.02, 5.02 3Fi / /'V' but ter milk but er milk 1.01, 6.02, 1.02 1.01, 6.02, 1.02 3Fi

\J / * " U u but ter scotch but er skoch 1.01, 6.02, 19.03 1.01, 6.02, 1.06 3Ji ^ / but ton but *n 1.01, 1.01 1.01, 0 2Gii 261 U / — but ton hole but *n hoi 1.01, 1.01, 2.01 1.01, 0, 5.01 3Gii buy bi 13.05 5.01 lGii IS buzz buz 19.01 1.01 ICi by hi 4.00 5.01 IB bye hi 4.00 5.01 IE U cab kab 1.01 1.01 1A IS / V cab bage kab ij 1.01, 2.01 1.01, 1.01 2Jiii U / V cab in kab in 1.01, 1.01 1.01, 1.01 2A , v / V u cab i net kab 1 net 1.01, 0, 1.01 1.01, 0, 1.01 3A U i cack le kak '1 19.03 , 17.00 1.01, 0 2E

cage kaj 2.01 5.01 IJiii

cake kak 2.01 5.01 IE

calf kaf 19.03 0 lGii

call kol 10.00 0 IGi A //V cal ler kol er 10.00 , 6.02 0, 6. 02 2Gi 262 cal ling kolt / V ing• 10.00,, 1.03 0 , 1.03 2Gi came kam 2.01 5.01 IE t o cam el kam el 1.01, 1.01 1.01, 1.01 2A

■-/ camp kamp 1.02 1.02 ID ^ / ■" camp fire kamp fir 1.02, 8.03 1.02, 6.03 2Fi can kan 1.01 1.01 1A ca nal ka nal 1.01, 1.01 1.01, 1.01 2A . ^ ^ * # • ca nar y ka nar 1 1.01, 6.01, 0 1.01, 6.01, 0 3Fi can die k'an/d ’l 1.01, 17.00 1.01, 0 2E U / ^ can die stick kan d ’l stik 1.01, 17.00, 19.03 1.01, 0, 1.04 3Gii o y ^ can dy kan di 1.01, 4.01 1.01, 1.01 2A cane kan 2.01 5.01 IE can non kan un 1.01, 1.01 1.01, 1.01 2Gi can not kan (n)ot 1.01, 1.01 1.01, 1.01 2E <■ — t ca noe ka noo 1.01, 16.04 1.01, 16.06 2Gi can11 kant 1.02 0 lGi 263 1/ / u can yon kan yun 1. 01 0 1.01, 1.01 2Gi cap kap 1. 01 1.01 1A cape kap 2. 01 5.01 IE U / u I f cap i tal kap i tal 1. 01 0, 1.01 1.01, 0, 1.01 3A (_/ ✓ L/ cap tain kap tin 1. 01 14.02 1.01, 1.01 2Gii car kar 6. 01 6.01 lFi W 9 card kard 6. 01 6.01 lFi j * / — card board kard bord 6. 01 11.07 6.01, 6.04 2Gii A care kar 8. 01 6.01 lFi care ful kar fool 2. 01 1.01 6.01, 16.05 2Gii

A / V care less kar les 2. 01 19.01 6.01, 1.01 2Gii A / L/ u care less ness kar les nes 2. 01 19.01, 19.01 6.01, 1.01, 1.01 3Gii * 3 J —, car load kar lod 6. 01 11.07 6.01, 5.01 2Gii ** t u v car pen ter kar pen ter 6. 01 1.01, 6.02 6.01, 1.01, 6.02 3Fi *1 } \J car pet kar pet 6. 01 1.01 6.01, 1.01 2Fi

y j J O car riage kar ij 6 .01 12.05 6.01, 1.01 2Jiii 264 u / u car rot kar ut 6.01, 0 6.01, 1.01 2Gi , t/ , iJ car ry kar 1 6.01, 4.01 6.01, 0 2Fi _ M cart kart 6.01 6.01 lFi carve ka'rv 6.01 6.01 lFi case kas 2 .01 5.01 IE 1/ cash kash 1.03 1.03 ID u — / cash ier kash §r 1.03, 13.04 1.03, 6.02 2Fii cas tie kas 7' 1 1.01, 17.00 1.01, 0 2Gii w cat kat 1.01 1.01 1A V / A cat bird kat burd 1.01, 6.03 1.01, 6.05 2Fi KJ catch kach 19,03 1.03 iJi U { s w catch er kach er 19.03 , 6.02 1.03, 6.02 2Ji \J / ,v U cat er pil lar kat er pil er 1.01, 6.02, 1.01, 1.01, 6.02, 1.01, 4Fi 6.01 6.02 u / u cat fish kat fish 1.01, 1.03 1.01, 1.03 2D t/ / \j cat sup kat sup 1.01, 1.01 1.01, 1.01 2A v / cat tie kat ’1 1.01, 17.00 1.01, 0 2E 265 caught kot 16.01 0 iGii A cause koz 16.01 0 U i i i cave kav 2.01 5.01 IE — / ^ ceil ing sel ing 11.05 , 1.03 5.01, 1.03 2Jiii o- cell sel 19.01 1.01 U i i i U j n* cel lar sel er 1.01, 6.01 1.01, 6.02 2Jiii u cent sent 1.02 1.02 U i i i U / t/ cen ter sen ter 1.01, 6.02 1.01, 6.02 2Jiii - >_!_ U cer e al ser e al 6,02, 0, 1.01 6.02, 0, 1.01 3Jiii A f t/ cer tain sur tin 6.02, 14.02 6.05, 1.01 2Jiii A / «-> U cer tain ly sur tin li 6.02, 14.02, 4,01 6,05, 1.01, 1.01 3Jiii chain chan 11.01 5.03 IGii chair char 7.04 6.01 lFii chalk. chok 19,03 0 IGii U / v \J chain pi on chain pi un 1.07, 1.01, 0 1.07, 1.01, 1.01 3D S chance chans 3,00 1.08 U i i i 266 change chanj 0 5.03 lJiii V chap chap 1.07 1.07 ID charge char^ 6.01 6.01 lJiii * C charm charm 6.01 6.01 lFi

, S3 chart chart 6.01 6.01 lFi chase chas 2.07 5.03 IE chat ter chat er 1.07, 6.02 1.07, 6.02 2Fi cheap chep 11.03 5.03 IGii cheat chet 11.03 5.03 IGii u check chek 19.03 1.07 IGii /*/ check ers chek erz 19.03. 6.02 1.07, 6.02 2Jiii cheek chek 11.04 5.03 IE cheer ch^r 11.04 6.02 lFii cheese chez 11.04 5.03 U i i i t/ t o cher ry cher r 6.02, 4.01 6.02, 0 2FL o chest chest 1.08 1.08 ID chew choo 9.02 16.06 iHi V chick chik 19.03 1.07 IE t u chick en chik en 19.03, 1.01 1.07, 1.01 2E chief chef 13.04 5.03 IGii child child 5.03 5.03 ID child hood childhood 5.03, 16.05 5.03, 16.05 2D u / u chil dren chil dren 1.07, 1.04 1.07, 1.04 2D u chill chil 19.01, 1.07 ID J t u chil ly chil i 1.07, 4.01 1.07, 0 2E U i U chim ney chim ni 1.07, 4.01 1.07, 1.01 2D u chin chin 1.07 1.07 ID — / . chi na chi na 5.03, 1.01 5.03, 1.01 2D chip chip 1.07 1.07 ID t/ ✓ u chip munk chip mungk 1.07, 1.03 1.07, 0 2D a/ /-i- v choc o late chok o lit 1.07, 0, 0 1.07, 0, 1.01 3Gi choice chois 15.01 15.01 U i i i 268 choose chooz 16.06 16.06 lJiii u chop chop 1.07 1.07 ID cho rus ko rus 0 1.01 5.01, 1.01 2Gii chose choz 2.07 5.03 U i i i — / cho sen cho z 'n 5.03, 1.01 5.03, 0 2Jiii w / chris ten kris 'n 0, 1. 01 1.04, 0 2Gii u / « Christ mas kris mas 0, 1. 01 1.04, 1.01 2Gii church church 6.05 6.05 lFi

A c h u m churn 6.05 6.05 lFi U * U t cig a rette sig a ret 1.01, 0, 0 1.01, 0, 1.01 3Jiii A / cir cle sur k'l 6.03, 17.00 6.05,0 2Jiii A / U cir cus sur kus 6.03, 1.01 6.05, 1.01 2Jiii u / U v cit i zen sit i zen 1.01, 0, 1.01 1.01, 0, 1,01 3Jiii o i v cit y sit i 1,01, 0 1.01, o 2Jiii

clang klang 1,06 1.06 ID v clap klap 1.04 1.04 ID 269 class klas 19.01 1.04 ID class mate klas/ mat 19.01, 2.01 1.04, 5.01 2E class room klas/ room 19.01, 16.06 1.04, 16.06 2E claw klo 9.01 0 lGi clay kla" 11.02 5.02 IE clean klen 11.03 5.02 IGii clean er klen er 11.03, 6.02 5.02, 6.02 2Gii clear kler 11.03 6.02 lFii A clerk klurk 6.02 6.05 lFi

U 1 , - V clev er klev er 1.04, 6.02 1.04, 6.02 2Fi click klik 19.03 1.04 IE cliff klif 19.01 1.04 ID climb klim 19.02 5.02 IGii clip klip 1.04 1.04 ID cloak klok 11.07 5.02 IGii clock klok 19.03 1.04 IE close kl"os 2.04 5.02 IE closet kloz'et 1.04, 1.01 1.04, 1.01 2Jiii cloth kloth 1.06 1.06 ID clothes kloz , 0 0 U i i i cloth ing klo ing 5.05, 1.03 5.05, 1.03 2D cloud kloud^ 15.04 15.04 lHi cloud y kloucf i 15.04, 0 15.04, 0 2Hi clo ver klo/ ver 5.02, 6.02 5.02, 6.02 2Fi clown kloun 9.03 15.04 lHi club klub 1.04 1.04 ID cluck kluk 19.03 1.04 IE clump klump 1.05 1.05 ID coach koch 11.07 5.05 IGii coal kol 11.07 5.01 IGii coast kost 11.07 5.04 IGii coat kot 11.07 5.01 IGii 271 cob kob 1.01 1.01 1A cob bier kob'' ler 1.01, 6.02 1.01, 6.02 2Fi co coa ko/ko 5.01, 11.07 5.01, 5.01 2Gii co co nut ko^ko nut 5.01, 5.01, 1.01 5.01, 5.01, 1.01 3B co coon ko koori* 1.01, 16.06 1.01, 16.06 2Cii cod kod 1.01 1.01 1A t '-/ cod fish kod fish 1.01, 1.03 1.01, 1.03 2D cof fee kof i 1.01, 11.04 1.01, 0 2Gi / W u cof fee pot kof i pot 1.01, 11.04, 1.01 1.01, 0, 1.01 3Gi coin koin 15.01 15.01 lHi cold kold 5.04 5.04 ID col lar kol er 1.01, 6.01 1.01, 6.02 2Fi i fcV w - col lege kol ej 1.01, 3.00 1.01, 1.01 2Jiii col or kul er 0, 6. 04 1.01, 6.02 2Gi col ored kul* ‘erd 0, 0 1.01, 6.02 2Gii colt kolt 5.04 5.04 ID 272 Vf / col umn kol urn 1.01, 19.01 1.01, 1.01 2Gii comb kom 19.02 5.01 IGii

come kum 0 1.01 lGi

com fort kun/ fert 0, 6.04 1.01, 6.02 2Gi

com ic koitf ik 1.01, 1.01 1.01, 1.01 2A , / v' com ing kum m g 0, 1.03 1.01, 1.03 2Gi , / * V com pa ny kum pa ni 0, 1.01, 4.01 1.01, 1.01, 1.01 3Gi

com pare kom par 1.01, 8.01 1.01, 6.01 2Fi

con due tor kon dukX ter 1.01, 1.01, 6.04 1.01, 1.01, 6.02 3Fi

cone kon 2 .01 5.01 IE b/ w> / con nect ko nekt 1.01, 1.02 1.01, 1.02 2E

coo koo 16.06 16.06 ICii

cook kook 16.05 16.05 ICii

cooked 0 U i i i s-' / ~> cook ie kook i 16.05, 13.04 16.05 , o 2E w i 'f cook ies kook iz 16.05, 13.04 16.05, 1.01 2Jiii 273 . w./ V cook ing kook m g 16.05, 1.03 16.05, 1.03 2D I ° cook y kook i 16.05, 0 16.05, 0 2Cii cool kool 16.06 16.06 ICii cool er kool er 16.06, 6.02 16.06, 6.02 2Fi coop koop 16.06 16.06 ICii cop per kop er 1.01, 6.02 1.01, 6.02 2Fi , j / V cop y kop i 1.01, 0 1.01, 0 2A cord kord 6.04 6.04 lFi cork k$rk 6.04 6.04 lFi corn ko'rn 6.04 6.04 lFi . A /

could kood 16.08 16.05 IGii could n't 16.08, 0 2Gii count kount 15.04 15.04 lHi coun ter koun ter 15.04, 6.02 15.04, 6.02 2Hi WT / ^ coun try kun tri 14.04, 4.01 1.01, 1.04 2Gii t y coun ty koun ti 15.04, 4.01 15.04, 1.01 2Hi

course kors 11.09 6.04 iFii

court kort 11.09 6.04 lFii *-v 1 . cous in kuz 'n 14.04, 1.01 1.01, 0 2Jiii U/ / a/ cov er kuv er 0, 6.02 1.01, 6.02 2Gi

cow kou 9.03 15.04 lHi 1 cow ard kou erd 9.03, 6.01 15.04, 6.02 2Hi

cow ard ly kou erd li 9.03, 6.01, 4.01 15.04, 6.02, 1.01 3Hi / cow boy kou boi 9.03, 15.02 15.04, 15.01 2Hi co zy ko zr 5.01, 4.01 5.01, 1.01 2B

crab krab 1.04 1.04 ID

crack krak 19.03 1.04 1E^

crack er kra^ er 19.03, 6.02 1.04, 6.02 2Fi

era die kra/ d'1 5.02, 17.00 5.02, 0 2E

cramps kramps 1.05 1.05 ID sJ 1 ^ cran ber ry };ran ber i 1.04, 6.02, 4.01 1.04, 6.02, 0 3Fi

crank krangk 1.06 0 ID

crank y krangk7 i 1.06, 0 0, 0 2D

crash krash 1.06 1.06 ID

crawl krol .01 0 lGi

craz y kra zi 5.02, 0 5.02, 1.01 2B

cream krem 11.03 5.02 IGii _ W cream y krem i 11.03, 0 5.02, 0 2Gii

creek krek 11.04 5.02 IE r** creep krep 11.04 5.02 IE 276 crept krept 1.05 1.05 ID cried 11.12 IGii cries kriz 11.12 5.02 U i i i croak krok 11.07 5.02 IE crook krook 16.05 16.05 ID hj i \j crook ed krook ed 16.05, 1.01 16.05, 1.01 2D crop krop 1.04 1.04 ID cross kros 19.01 1.04 ID cross ing kros/ ind 19.01, 1.03 1.04, 1.03 2E cross eyed kros id 19.01, 0 1.04, 5.06 2Gii crow kro 9.04 5.02 IGii crowd kroud 9.03 15.04 lHi crow ded 9.03, 1.01 2Hi crown kroun 9.03 15.04 lHi cru el kroo/ el 5.02, 1.01 16.06, 1.01 2Gi crumb krum 19.01 1.04 IGii crum ble krum b '1 1.04, 17.00 1.04, 0 2E

crush krush 1.06 1.06 ID

crust krust 1.05 1.05 ID

cry kri 4.00 5.02 ID

cub kub 1.01 1.01 1A

cuff kuf 19.01 1.01 ICi

cup kup 1.01 1.01 1A

cup board kub* erd 1.01, 11.07 1.01, 6.02 2Jiii

cup ful kup' fool 1.01, 1.01 1.01, 16.05 2Gi

cure kur 8.05 6.05 lFi

curl kurl 6.05 6.05 lFi

cur ly kur Ix 6.05, 4.01 6.05, 1.01 2Fi

cur tain kui/ tin 6.05, 14.02 6.05, 1.01 2Gii A curve curv 6.05 6.05 lFi

cush ion koosh un 1.03, 16.10 16.05 , 1.01 2Gi i cus tard kus terd 1.01, 6.01 1.01, 6.02 2Fi 278 cus tom er kus turn er laOlf 0, 6.02 1.01, 1.01, 6.02 3Gi cut kut 1.01 1.01 1A cute kut 2.01 5.01 IE cut ting kut mg 1.01, 1.03 1.01, 1.03 2D dab dab 1.01 1.01 1A dad dad 1.01 1.01 1A dad dy dad'i 1.01, 4.01 1.01, 0 2Ci dai ly da'li 11.01 , 4.01 5.01, 1.01 2Gii dair y d ^ r 7.04, 0 6.01, 0 2Fii dai sy da zi 11.01 , 4.01 5.01, 1.01 2Jiii dam dam 1.01 1.01 1A l v\ dam age dam lj 1.01, 0 1.01, 1.01 2Jiii dame dam 2.01 5.01 IE damp damp 1.02 1.02 ID dance dans 3.00 1.02 U i i i • / dan cer dan ser 1.01, 6.02 1.01, 6.02 2Jiii 279 dan cing dan sing 1.01, 1.03 1.01, 1.03 2Jiii dan dy dan di 1.01, 4.01 1.01, 1.01 2A

, - / . w t dan ger dan ;jer 5.01, 6.02 5.01, 6.02 2Jiii

— / . V-r dan ger ous dan jer us 5.01, 6.02, 14.04 5.01, 6.02, 1.01 3Jiii dare dar 8.01 6.01 lFi dark dark 6.01 6.01 lFi dark ness dark* nes 6.01, 19.01 6.01, 1.01 2Fi dar ling dar l m g 6.01, 1.03 6.01, 1.03 2Fi darn darn 6.01 6.01 lFi dart dart 6.01 6.01 lFi dash dash 1.03 1.03 ID date dat 2.01 5.01 IE daugh ter do7ter 16.01, 6.02 0, 6. 02 2Gii dawn don 9.01 0 lGi day da 11.02 5.01 IE day break de^brak 11.02, 13.01 5.01, 5.02 2Gii day time da tint 11.02, 2.01 5.01, 5.01 2E dead ded 12.02 1.01 IGii deaf def 12.02 1.01 IGii deal del 11.03 5.01 IGii dear d^r 11.03 6.02 IFii death. deth 12.02 1.03 IGii

X V / - v De cem ber de sen ber 5 .01, 1.01, 6.02 5.01, 1.01, 6.02 3Jiii * de cide de sid/ 5.01, 2.01 5.01, 5.01 2Jiii deck dek 19.03 1.01 IE deed ded 11.04 5.01 IE deep dep 11.04 5.01 IE deer d^r 11.04 6.02 IFii de feat de fet 5.01, 11.03 5,01, 5.01 2Gii de fend de fend * 5.01, 1.02 5.01, 1.02 2D de fense de" fens7 5.01, 3.00 5.01, 1.02 2E

J - T / de light de lit 5.01, 19.05 5.01, 5.01 2Gii den den 1.01 1.01 1A ,v / y den tist den tist 1.01, 1.02 1.01, 1.02 2D ^ _ / de pend de pend 5.01, 1.02 5.01, 1.02 2D j, v / w de pos it de poz it 5.01, 1.01, 1.01 5.01, 1.01, 1.01 3Jiii j. - / de scribe de s k n b 5.01, 2.04 5.01, 5.02 2e des ert dez ert 1.01, 6.02 1.01, 6.02 2Jiii de serve de zurv 5.01, 6.02 5.01, 6.05 2Jiii de sire de zir 5.02, 8.03 5.02, 6.03 2Jiii desk desk 1.02 1.02 ID de stroy de stroi 5.01, 15.02 5.01, 15.01 2Hi dev il dev 1 1,01, 1.01 1.01, 0 2Gii dew du 9 .02 5.01 lHi r >. ^ di a mond di a round 5.01, 0, 0 5.01, 0, 1.02 3Gi did did 1.01 1.01 1A did n't --- 1.01, 0 2A die di 11.12 5.01 IE 282 w died did 11.12 5.01 IGii

dies diz 11.12 5.01 lJiii w ✓vv u dif fer ence dif er ens 1.01r 6.02, 3.00 1.01, 6.02, 1.02 3Jiii ^ /A/ U dif fer ent dif er ent 1.01, 6.02, 1.02 1.01, 6.02, 1.02 3Fi

dig dig 1.01 1.01 1A u dim dim 1.01 1.01 1A

dime dim 2.01 5.01 IE

dine din 2.01 - 5.01 IE

ding - dong ding dong 1.03, 1.03 1.03, 1.03 2D ^ //V din ner din er 1.01, 6.02 1.01, 6.02 2Fi u dip dip 1.01 1.01 1A O' v / di rect di rekt 1.01, 1.02 1.01, 1.02 2D O U / v di rec tion di rek shun 1.01, 1.01, 16.10 1.01, 1.01, 1.07 3Jiii

A dirt durt 6.03 6.05 lFi /\ / 0/ dir ty dur ti 6.03, 4.01 6.05, 1.01 2Fi ^ u //i/ dis cov er dis kuv er 1.01, 0. 6.02 1.01, 1.01, 6.02 3Gi 283

,T ' div er dxv er 5.01, 6.02 5.01, 6.02 2Fi ^ — t di vide di vid 1.01, 2.01 1.01, 5.01 2E do doo 0 16.06 lGi dock dok 19 .03 1.01 IE U f AJ doc tor dok ter 1.01, 6.04 1.01, 6.02 2Fi \j does duz 0 1.01 U i i i

does n't --- 0, 0 2Jiii

dog dog 1.01 1.01 1A

doll dol 19.01 1.01 ICi

dol lar dol/er 1.01, 6.01 1.01, 6.02 2Fi

dol ly dol i 1.01, 4.01 1.01, 0 2Ci 284 done dun 0 1.01 lGi v/ / V/ don key dong ki 1.01, 4.01 1.03, 1.01 2Jiii don't dont 5.04 5.04 ID door dor 7.03 6.04 IFii door bell dor‘'b el 7.03, 19.01 6.04, 1.01 2Fii — / u door knob dor nob 7.03, 0 6.04, 1.01 2Gii door step dor step 7.03, 1.04 6.04, 1.04 2Fii dope dop 2.01 5.01 IE dot dot 1.01 1.01 1A doub le dub7 '1 14.04, 17.00 1.01, 0 2Gii dough do 11.09 5.01 IGii dove duv 0 1.01 lGi down doun 9.03 15.04 lHi A / down stairs doun starz 9.03, 7.04 15.04, 6.01 2Jiii down town doun/toun7 9.03, 9.03 15.04, 1504 2Hi ^ / doz en duz 'n 0, 1.01 1.01, 0 2Gii drag drag 1.04 1.04 ID drain dran 11.01 5.02 IGii L/ drank drangk 1.06 0 ID A draw dro 9.01 0 lGi A /'V draw er dro er 9 .01, 6.02 0, 6.02 2Gi draw ing dro ing 9.01, 1.03 0, 1.03 2Gi dream drem 11.03 5.02 IGii dress dres 19.01 m 1.04 ID V /A* dres ser dres er 1.04, 6.02 1.04, 6.02 2Fi ^ / — '/u dress mak er dres mak er 19.01 , 5.01, 6.02 1.04, 5.01, 6.02 3Fi drew droo 9.02 16.06 lHi dried drld 11.12 5.02 IGii drift drift 1.05 1.05 ID u drill dril 19.01 1.04 ID drink dringk 1.06 0 ID drip drip 1.04 1.04 ID 286 drive driv 2.04 5.02 IE

driv en a ” drxv en 1.04, 1.01 1.04, 1.01 2D - 'v driv er driv er 5.02, 6.02 5.02, 6.02 2 a drop drop 1.04 1.04 ID drove drov 2.04 5.02 IE drown droun 9.03 15.04 liii * \S drow sy drou zi 9.03, 4.01 15.04, 1.01 2Jiii drug drug 1.04 1.04 ID drum drum 1.04 1.04 ID drunk. drungk 1.06 0 ID dry dri 4.00 5.02 ID duck duk 19.03 1.01 IE due du 11.10 5.01 IE dug dug 1,01 1.01 1A •O dull dul 19.01 1.01 ICi dumb dum 19.01 1.01 IGii 287 0 dump dump 1.02 1.02 ID dur ing dur ing 6.05, 1.03 6.05, 1.03 2Fi dust dust 1.02 1.02 ID / u dus ty dus ti 1.01, 4.01 1.01, 1.01 2A _ f U' in o 1—1 o 1—1 • *

du ty du ti 5.01, 1.01 2B dwarf dworf 6.01 6.04 lFi dwell * dw*el 19.01 1.04 ID dwelt dwelt 1.05 1.05 ID dy ing di m g 4.00, 1.03 5.01, 1.03 2D each lich 11.03 5.05 IGii — / ^ ea ger e ger 0, 6.02 0, 6.02 2Gii ea gle "e ^g'l 0, 17.00 0, 0 2Gii ear ? r 11.03 6.02 IFii rfA / . V ear ly ur li 7.01, 4.01 6.05, 1.01 2Fii A earn urn 7.01 6.05 IFii earth 'urth 7.01 6.05 IFii east est 11.03 5.04 IGii

- / /V eas tern es tern 11.0 3, 6,02 5.06, 6.02 2Gii _ /V» eas y ez i 11.03, 0 5.06, 0 2Jiii eat et 11.03 5.06 IGii / eat en et ' n 11.03, 1.01 5.06, 0 2Gii

1/ edge ej 3.00 1,01 lJiii w egg eg 19.01 1.01 ICi eh a lGi eight at 16.03 5.06 IGii eigh teen a ten 16.03, 11.04 0, 5.01 2Gii eighth atth 16.03 0 IGii — * V eigh ty a ti 16.03, 4.01 0, 1.01 2Gii

— / .A* eith er e feher 11.05, 6.02 0, 6.02 2Gii

\J / — el bow el bo 1.01, 9,04 1.01, 5.01 2Gii

/ V el der el der 1.01, 6.02 1.01, 6.02 2pi L/_/ , el dest el dest 1.01, 1,02 1,01, 1.02 2D 289 j_ ^ / ij e lec trie e lek t n k 0, 1. 01, 1.04 0 , 1 .01, 1.04 3D X. \j f w e lec tri ci ty e lek tris i ti 0 f 1. 01, 1.04, 0 , 1 .01, 1.04, 5Jiii 1.01, 4.01 0, 1 .01 v / j- xj el e phant el e fant 1.01, 0, 1.08 1.01 , 0 , 1.02 3D J- , t U e lev en e lev en 0, 1. 01. 1.01 0, 1 .01, 1.01 3B elf elf 1.02 1.02 ID xJ elm elm 1.02 1.02 ID

else els 3.00 1.02 IE else where els/hw

end end 1.02 1.02 ID ^ y' en ding en aing 1.01, 1.03 1.01 , 1. 03 2D ^ 11. ^ en e my en e mi 1.01, 0, 4.01 1.01 , 0 , 1.01 3B <*S f en gine en jin 1.01, 3.00 1.01 r I- 01 2Jiii

en gi neer en ji n^r 1.01, 1.01, 11.04 1.01 , 1. 01, 5.06 3Jiii v Eng lish. ing glish 1.03, 1.03 1.03 , I- 06 2Jiii

en joy en 301 1.01, 15.02 1.01 , 15.01 2 Hi 290 e nough ±e nuf '■'e ' 0, 14.04 0 , 1.01 2 Gii

^ i , \ j en ter en ter 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2Fi

t u __ en ve lope en ve lop 1 .0 1 , 1 .0 1 , 2.01 1.01, 1.01, 5.01 3E / equal ekwal 0 , 20.00 0 , 10.00 2D M - ' e rase e ras 0 , 2.01 0, 5.01 2E

j - — / e ras er e ras er 0, 5.01, 6.02 0, 5.01, 6.02 3Fi er rand er and 6 .0 2 , 1.02 6 .0 2 , 1.02 2Fi W/ -- / es cape es kap 1 .0 1 , 2 . 0 1 1.01, 5.01 2E eve ev 2.01 5.06 IE

—- 1 w e ven e ven 0 , 1.01 0 , 1.01 2B

— t e ven ing ev ning 0, 1.01, 1.03 5.06, 1.03 2 Gii ev er ev er 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2Fi U' / v f ev er y ev er jl 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 0 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 0 3Fi v-/ ^ ’ ¥ , V- 'l' ev er y bod y ev er r bod 1 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 0 , 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 0 5Fi 1 .0 1 , 0 1 .0 1 , 0

u ! * ¥ ,*■- ev er y day ev er 1 da 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 0 , 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 0 , 4Fi 11.02 5.01 291 ev er y one ev er i wun 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 0 , 0 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , o, 1.01 4Gi ^ l ^ ev er y thing ev er i thing 1 .0 1 , 6.02 , o, 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 0 , 1.09 4Fi 1.09

U ' i ' 'f' /V. ev er y where ev er 1 hwar 1 .0 1 . 6 .0 2 , 0 , 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 0 4Fi 8.02 6.01 e vil "e" v'l 0 , 1.01 0 , 0 2Gii U VJ f ex act eg zakt 1 .0 1 , 1.02 1 .0 1 , 1.02 2Jiii / ex cept ek sept 1 .0 1 , 1.02 1 .0 1 , 1.02 2Jiii

L> —- ex change eks chang 1.01, 2.09 1 .0 2 , 5.03 2Jiii ex cit ed ek sit ed 1.01, 5.01, 1.01 1 .0 1 , 5.01, 1.01 3jiii L> — i ex cit ing ek sit ing 1.01, 5.01, 1.03 1 .0 1 , 5.01, 1.03 3Jiii ex cuse eks kuz 1 .0 1 , 2.01 1 .0 2 , 5.01 2Jiii L-/ / ex it ek sit 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2A

ex pect eks pekt 1 .0 1 , 1.02 1 .0 2 , 1.02 2D u ■ / ex plain eks plan 1 .0 1 , 11.01 1 .0 2 , 5.02 2 Gii u / » ex tra eks tra 1 .0 1 , 0 1 .0 2 , 0 2D

eye i 0 0 IGii 292 — / eye brow i brou 0, 9.03 0, 15. 04 2Hi

fa ble fa'b'l 5.01, 17.00 5.01, 0 2E

face fas 2 .01 5.01 U i i i

fac ing fas ing 5.01, 1.03 5.01, 1.03 2Jiii

fact f akt 1.02 1.02 ID

fac to ry fak'to ri 1.01, 5.01, 4.01 1 .0 1 , 5.01, 1.01 3B

fail fal 11.01 5.01 lGii

faint fant 11.01 5.04 lGii

fair far 7.04 6.01 lFii

fair y far i 7.04, 0 6 .0 1 , 0 2Fii

faith f ath 11 . 0 1 5.05 lGii

fake fak 2.01 5.01 IE

fall fol 10.00 0 lGi

false f&Ls 10,00 0 lGi

fam i ly fam i li 1.01, 0, 4.01 1 .0 1 , 0 , 1.01 3A

fan fan 1.01 1.01 lA 293 fan cy fan si 1 .0 1 , 4.01 1 .0 1 , 1 . 0 1 2Jiii / • far far 6.01 6.01 iFi .. — O

< / IT) t-i o far a way far a wa 6 .0 1 , 0 , 11.02 6 .0 1 , • 3Fi fare far 8.01 6.01 IFi farm farm 6 . 0 1 6.01 IFi

» ' / f s j far mer far mer 6 .0 1 , 6.02 6 .0 1 , 6.02 2Fi farm ing f am / ing 6 .0 1 , 1.03 6 .0 1 , 1.03 2 Fi far - off far of 6 .0 1 , 19.01 6 .0 1 , 1.01 2Fi

* • ^ far ther far ther 6 .0 1 , 6.02 6 .0 1 , 6.02 2Fi / u fash ion fash un 1.03, 16.10 1.03, 1 .01 2 Gi fast fast 1.02 1.02 ID ■e' * » fas ten fas 'n 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2Gii fat fat 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1A

fa ther fa /ther 0 , 6 .02 0 , 6 .02 2Gi fault f< 16.01 0 lGi

fa vor fa ver 5.01, 6.04 5.01, 6.02 2Fi 294 r-— ' ~ . , in o I— • fa vor ite fa ver it 5.01, 6.04, 3.00 1 6 .0 2 , 1.01 3Fi fear f^r 11.03 6.02 lFii feast fest 11.03 5.04 lGii feath er fefeb- 'er 1 2 .0 2 , 6.02 1.03, 6.02 2 Gii / i_' o- ^ Feb ru ar y feb roo er i 1 .0 1 , 5.01, 6 .0 1 , 1 .0 1 , 16.06, 6 .0 2 , 4Gi 0 0 o' fed fed 1.01 1.01 1A feed fed 11.04 5.01 IE feel fel 11.04 5.01 IE feet fet 11.04 5.01 IE fell fel 19.01 1.01 ICi o /_ fel low fel o 1 .0 1 , 9.04 1 .0 1 , 0 2Gii felt felt 1.02 1 .02 ID fence fens 3.00 1.02 lJiii fe ver fe ver 5.01, 6.02 5,01, 6.02 2 Fi few fu 9.02 5.01 lHi o' fib fib 1.01 1.01 IB

/ 295 fid die fid *1 1 .0 1 , 17.00 1 .0 1 , 0 2E field feld 13.04 5.04 lGii fife fif 2.01 5.01 IE

^ — / fif teen fif ten ■1 .0 1 , 11.04 1 .0 1 , 5.01 2E fifth fifth 0 0 lHii a / o fif ty fif ti 1 .0 1 , 4.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2A O fig fig 1.01 1.01 1A fight fit 19.05 5.01 lGii fig ure fig ur 1 .0 1 , 8.05 1 .0 1 , 6.05 2Fi file fil 2 . 0 1 5.01 IE kJ fill fil 19.01 1.01 ICi film film 1.02 1.02 ID fi nal ly fi nal li 5.01, 1.01, 4.01 5.01, 1 .0 1 , 1 .01 3E find find 5.04 5.04 ID fine fin 2.01 5.01 IE f fin ger fing ger 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1.03, 6.02 2Jiii ^ t / fin ish f m ish 1 .0 1 , 1.03 1 .0 1 , 1.03 2D 296 fire fir 8.03 6.03 IFi — / /i fire arm fir arm 8.03 6.01 6.03, 6.01 2 Fi " / /V fire crack er fir krak er 8.03 19.03, 6.02 6.03, 1.04, 6.02 3Fi - / _ fire place fir plas 8.03 2.04 6.03, 5.02 2Jiii fire works fir wurks 8.03 6.04 6.03, 6.05 2 Fi fir ing fir ing 6.03 1.03 6.03, 1.03 2Fi first furst 6.03 6.05 IFi fish fish 1.03 1.03 ID fish er man fish er man 1.03 6 .0 2 , 1.01 1.03, 6 .0 2 , 1.01 3Fi o fist fist 1.02 1.02 ID fit fit 1.01 1.01 1A fits --- 1.02 ID five fiv 2.01 5.01 IE fix fiks 1.01 1,02 1A flag flag 1.04 1.04 ID flake flak 2.04 5.02 IE 297 flame flam 2.04 5.02 IE U flap flap 1.04 1.04 ID flash flash 1.06 1.06 ID flash light flash lit 1.06, 19.05 1.06, 5.01 2 Gii flat flat 1.04 1.04 ID flea fie 11.03 5.02 lGii flesh flesh 1.06 1.06 ID flew floo 9.02 16.06 lHi flies fliz 11.12 5.02 U i i i flight flit 19 .05 5.02 lGii \s flip flip 1.04 1.04 ID flip~ flop flip flop 1.04, 1.04 1.04, 1.04 2D float f lot 11.07 5.02 lGii flock flok 19.03 1.04 IE flood fl-ud 16.07 1.04 lGi floor flor 7.03 6.04 lFii flop flop 1.04 1.04 ID flour flour 15.04 15.04 lFii flow flo 9.04 5.02 lGii „ ' rO flow er flou er 9.03, 6.02 15.04 , 6.02 2Hi flow er y flou er 1 9.03, 6 .0 2 , 0 15.04 , 6 .0 2 , 0 3Hi ^ t • flut ter flut er 1.04, 6.02 1.04, 6.02 2Fi fly flT 4.00 5.02 ID foam fom 11.07 5.01 lGi fog fog 1.01 1.01 1A L/ 1 fog gy fog i 1 .0 1 , 4.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2E fold fold 5.04 5.04 ID folks foks 19.04 5.04 lGii fol low fol o 1 .0 1 , 9.04 1 .0 1 , 0 2 Gii fol low ing i?ol ~o ing 1 .0 1 , 9.04, 1.03 1 .0 1 , 0, 1.03 3Gii fond fond 1.02 1.02 ID food food 16.06 16.06 ICii 299 fool fool 16.06 16.06 ICii __ / fool ish fool ish 16.06 , 1.03 16.06 , 1.03 2D foot foot 16.05 16.05 ICii foot ball foot^t&i 16.05 , 10.00 16.05 , o 2 Gi w / y foot print foot print 16.05 , 1.05 16.05 , 1.05 2D for for 6.04 6.04 IFi fore head for ed 8.04, 12.02 6.04, 1.01 2Gii for est for est 6.04, 1.02 6.04, 1.02 2Fi ^ / for get for get 6.04 , 1.01 6.04, 1.01 2Fi o v / for give for giv 6.04, 3.00 6.04 , 1.01 2 Fi V i-S 1 for got for got 6.04, 1.01 6.04, 1.01 2Fi for got ten for got ’n 6.04, 1 .0 1 , 1 .01 6.04, 1 .0 1 , 0 3Gii A fork fork 6.04 6.04 IFi form form 6,04 6.04 IFi fort fort 6.04 6.04 IFi forth forth 6.04 6.04 IFi 300 for tune for^tun 6.04, 2.01 6.04, 5.01 2Fi for ty fSr^ ti^ 6.04, 4.01 6.04, 1.01 2 Fi for ward f o r ^ e r d 6.04, 6.01 6.04, 6.02 2 Fi fought fot 12.03 0 lGii found found 15.04 15.04 lHi foun tain foun tin 15.04, 14.02 15.04, 1.01 2Hi four for 11.09 6.04 lFii four teen for ten 11.09, 11.04 6.04, 5.01 2Fii fourth. forth 11.09 6.04 lFii fox foks 1.01 1.02 1A frame fraro 2.04 5,02 IE free fre 11,04 5,02 IE free dora fre dum 11.04, 0 5.02, 1.01 2 Gi freeze frez 11.04 5.02 IE freight frat 16.03 5.02 lGii

French french 0 0 lHii 301 fresh fresh 1.06 1.06 ID fret fret 1.04 1.04 ID

Fri day fri di 5.02, 11.02 5.02, 1.01 2 Gi fried frid 11.12 5.02 lGii friend frend 14.03 1.05 lGii friend ly frend li 14.03, 4.01 1.05, 1.01 2 Gii friend ship frend ship 14.03, 1.07 1.05, 1.07 2Gii - / fright en frit n 19.05, 1.01 5.02, 0 2Gii frog frog 1.04 1.04 ID from from 1.04 1.04 ID front frunt 1.05 1.05 lGi frost frost 1.05 1.05 ID frown froun 9 .0 3 15.04 lHi froze froz 2.04 5.02 IE fruit froot 11.11 16.06 lGi fry fri 4.00 5.02 ID 302 X/ fudge fuj 3.00 1.01 U i i i fu el fu el 5.01, 1.01 5.01, 1.01 2B full fool 19.01 16.05 lGi

^ /y ful ly fool 1 1 .0 1 , 4.01 16 .05 , 0 2 Gi •w' fun fun 1.01 1.01 1 ft fun ny fun i 1 .0 1 , 4.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2E fur fur 6.05 6.05 IFi H o 1—1 a / v r' J - 00 o in • *» • fur ni ture fur ni tjir 6.05, 6 .05, 1.01, 6.05 3Fi

A / ^ fur ther fur -ther 6.05, 6.02 6.05, 6.02 2Fi fuz zy fuz i 1 .0 1 , 4.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2E gain gan 11.01 5.01 lGii \j i \j gal Ion gal un 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2 Gi

u- / u gal lop gal up 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2 Gi game gam 2 .01 5.01 IE gang gang 1.03 1.03 ID ga rage ga razh 1 .0 1 , 0 1 .0 1 , 0 2Jiii 303 gar bage gar bi} 6 .0 1 , 0 6 .0 1 , 1 .01 2Jiii gar den gar d'n 6 .0 1 , 1.01 6 .0 1 , 0 2Gii gas gas 1.01 1.01 1A

V J■ ~ t gas o line gas o len 1 .0 1 , 0 . 0 1 .0 1 , 0, 5.01 3Gi gate gat 2.01 5.01 IE gath er gatn er 1.03, 6.02 1.03, 6.02 2 Fi gave g"av 2.01 5.01 IE gay ga 11.02 5.01 IE gear gfr 11.03 6.02 lFii geese ges 11.04 5.01 IE gen er al 3en er al 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 1 . 0 1 3Jiii gen tie j e ^ t 11 1 .0 1 , 17.00 1 .0 1 , 0 2Jiii . w / , v gen tie man jen t ’l man 1 .0 1 , 17.00 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 0 , 1 .01 3Jiii

L-/ f v gen tie men jen t'l men 1 .0 1 , 17.00 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 0 , 1.01 3Jiii

. j. \ S l > J, ge og ra phy 3e og ra fi 5.01, 1 .0 1 , 1.01 5.01, 1 .0 1 , 1 .0 1 , 4Jiii 4.01 1.01 get get 1 . 0 1 1 .01 1A 304 get ting get ting 1.01, 1.03 1 .0 1 , 1.03 2D

gi ant ji ant 5.01, 1.02 5.01, 1.02 2Jiii

gift gift 1.02 1.02 ID

gin ger bread j in jer bred 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 12.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02, 1.04 3Jiii

girl gurl 6.03 6.05 IFi •w' give giv 3.00 1 .01 IE ^ / U giv en giv en 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2A / O giv ing giv ing 1.01, 1.03 1 .0 1 , 1.03 2D

glad glad 1.04 1.04 ID

glad ly glad li 1.04, 4.01 1.04, 1.01 2D

glance glans 3.00 1.05 U i i i • glass glas 19.01 1.04 ID

glas ses ---- 1.04, 1.01 2Jiii

gleam giem 11.03 5.02 lGii

glide glid 2.04 5.02 IE , j _ / u glo ry glo ri 5.02, 4.01 5.02, 1.01 2D 305 glove gluv 0 1.04 lGi glow glo 9.04 5.02 lGii glue gloo" 16.09 16.06 lGi go go 5.01 5.01 IB goal gol 11.07 5.01 IE goat got 11.07 5.01 IE gob ble g o b *1 1 .0 1 , 17.00 1 .0 1 , 0 2E

God god 1 .01 1.01 1A J j * V . , A* god moth er god mufch er 1 .0 1 , 1.03, 6.02 1 .0 1 , 1.03, 6.02 3Gi goes --- 11.08 U i i i - i V go ing go ing 5.01, 1.03 5.01, 1.03 2D gold gold 5.04 5.04 ID gol den gol den 5.01, 1.01 5.01, 1.01 2B gold fish gold^fxsh 5.04, 1.03 5.04, 1.03 2D golf golf 1.02 1.02 ID gone gon 3.00 1.01 IE 306 good good 16.05 16.05 ICii ' -r/ good by good bi 16.05 , 4.00 16.05, 5.01 2 Cii good bye good'“'a bi 16.05, 0 16.05, 5.01 2E

good look ing good look ing 16.05 , 16.05, 1.03 16.05, 16.05, 1.03 3D

good ness good nes 16.05, 19.01 16.05, 1.01 2 Cii

goods goodz 16 .05 16.05 U i i i

_ _ t / ^ good y good i 16.05, 0 16.05, 0 2Cii

goose goos 16.06 16.06 IE

goose her ry goos ber i 16.06, 6.02, 4.01 16.06, 6 .0 2 , 0 3Fi V-'. got got 1.01 1 .01 1A ^ / A/ gov e m guv e m 0 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2 Gi

gov ern ment guv er ment 0 , 6 .0 2 , 1.02 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 0 3Gii

gown goun 9.03 15.04 lHi

grab grab 1.04 1.04 ID

—1 / , u/ gra cious gra shus 5.02, 0 5.02,1.07 2Jiii

grade grad 2.04 5.02 IE 307 grain gran 1 1 . 0 1 5.02 lGii grand grand 1.05 1.05 ID w / 7 grand child grand child 1.05, 5.03 1.05, 5.03 2D •j ^ grand chil dren grand chil dren 1.05, 1.07, 1.04 1.05, 1.07, 1.04 3D grand daugh ter grand7do ter 1.05, 16.01, 6.02 1.05, 0 , 6.02 3Gii grand fa ther granda jriier 1.05, 0 , 6.02 1.05, 0 , 6.02 3Gi grand ma g r a n d m a 1.05, 0 1.05, 0 2 Gi U / v/ /V grand moth er grand muth er 1.05, 0 , 6.02 1.05, 1.03, 6.02 3Gi grand pa grand pa 1.05, 0 1.05, 0 2 Gi grand son grand sun 1.05, 0 1.05, 1.01 2Gi * grand stand grand stand 1.05, 1.05 1.05, 1.05 2D grape grap 2.04 5.02 IE grape fruit grap froot 2.04, 11 . 1 1 5.02, 16.06 2 Gi grapes graps 0 5.02 lGii grass gras 19.01 1.04 ID grass hop per gras hop er 19.01 , 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1.04, 1 .0 1 , 6.02 3Fi grate ful grat fool 2.04, 1.01 5.02, 16.05 2 Gi grave grav 2.04 5.02 IE ^ t grav el grav 11 1.04, 1.01 1.04, 0 2Gii grave yard grav yard 2.04, 6.01 5.02, 6.01 2Fi gra vy gra vi 5.02, 4.01 5.02, 1.01 2B gray gra" 11.02 5.02 IE

graze graz 2.04 5.02 IE m grease gres 11.03 5.02 lGii

great grat 13.01 5.02 lGii

green gren 11.04 5.02 IE

greet gret 11.04 5.02 IE

grew groo 9.02 16.06 lHi

grind grind 5.04 5.04 ID

groan gron 11.07 5.02 lGii _ / \y gro cer y gro ser i 5.02, 6 .0 2 , 0 5.02, 6 .0 2 , 0 3Jiii

ground ground 15.04 15.04 lHi 309 group groop 0 16.06 lGi grove grov 2.04 5.02 IE grow gro 9.04 5.02 lGii guard gard 0 6.01 lGii guess ges 0 1.01 lGii guest gest 0 1.02 lGii guide gid 0 5.01 lGii gulf gulf 1.02 1.02 ID gum gum 1.01 1.01 1A gun gun 1.01 1.01 1A gun pow der o gun pou der 1.01, 9.03, 6.02 »-* * h-* > 15.04, 6.02 3Hi guy gi 13.05 5.01 lGii ha 0 lGi hab it hab it 1.01, 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2A VJ had had 1.01 1.01 1A had n't 1.01, 0 2D 310 hail hal 11 . 0 1 5.01 lGii hair har 7.04 6.01 lFii hair cut har kut 7.04, 1.01 6 .0 1 , 1.01 2Fii hair pin har/pin 7.04, 1.01 6 .0 1 , 1.01 2Fii half haf 19.03 0 lGii hall hoi 10.00 0 lGi halt holt 10,00 0 lGi ham ham 1.01 1.01 1A ham mer ham er 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2Fi hand hand 1.02 1.02 ID i_x / \_' hand ful hand fool 1 .0 2 , 1.01 1 .0 2 , 16.05 2 Gi is / bJ hand ker chief hang ker chrf 1 .0 2 , 6 .0 2 , 13.04 1.03, 6.02, 1.07 3Jiii yj I han die han d ’1 1 .0 1 , 17.00 1 .0 1 , 0 2E hand writ ing hand rit ing 1 .0 2 , 5.02, 1.03 1 .0 2 , 5.02, 1.03 3Gii •j hang hang 1.03 1.03 ID hap pen hap pen 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1 .01 2E

hap pi ly hap l li 1 .0 1 , 1 .0 1 , 4.01 1 .0 1 , 0 , 1.01 3E 311 hap pi ness hap i nes 1 .0 1 , 1.01, 19.01 1 .0 1 , 0 , 1.01 3E - hap py hap i 1 .0 1 , 4.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2E har bor har her 6 .0 1 , 6.04 6 .0 1 , 6.02 2Fi / • hard hard 6.01 6.01 IFi " ' ^ hard ly hard li 6 .0 1 , 4.01 6 .0 1 , 1.01 2Fi t hard ship hard ship 6 .0 1 , 1.07 6 .0 1 , 1.07 2Fi hard ware hard'war 6 .0 1 , 8.01 6 .0 1 , 6.01 2Fi hare har 8,01 6.01 IFi hark hark 6.01 6.01 IFi harm harm 6 . 0 1 6.01 IFi it / w' har ness har nes 6 .0 1 , 19.01 6 .0 1 , 1.01 2Fi harp harp 6.01 6.01 IFi a / har vest har vest 6 .0 1 , 1.02 6 .0 1 , 1.02 2Fi has haz 1 .01 1.01 U i i i has n't --- 1 .0 1 , 0 2Jiii haste hast 2.02 5.04 IE 312 has ten has/ n 5.01, 0 5.01, 0 2Gii , — t 'f has ty has ti 5.01, 4.01 5.01, 1.01 2B hat hat 1 . 0 1 1.01 1A hatch hach 19.03 1.03 lJi hatch et hach et 19.03, 1.01 1.03, 1.01 2Ji hate hat 2 .01 5.01 IE haul hoi 16.01 0 lGi have hav 3.00 1.01 IE have n't hav n't 3.00, 0 1 .0 1 , 0 2Gii , - r T* hav ing hav m g 1.01, 1.03 1 .0 1 , 1.03 2D hawk hok 9.01 0 lGi hay ha 11.02 5.01 IE hay field ha; feld 11.02, 13.04 5.01, 5.04 2 Gii hay stack ha stak 11.02, 19.03 5.01, 1.04 2E he he 5.01 5.01 IB head hed 12.02 1.01 lGii 313 head ache V ^ hed ak 1 2 .0 2 , 0 1.01, 5.06 2Jiii heal hel 11.03 5.01 lGii health he 1th 12.02 0 lHii health y hel thi 1 2 .0 2 , 0 1.01, 1.07 2Hii heap hep 11.03 5.01 lGii

*■* hear her 11.03 6.02 lFii heard hurd 7.01 6.05 lFii

m m hear ing her ing 11.03, 1.03 6.02, 1.03 2Fii heart hart 0 6.01 lFii heat het 11.03 5.01 lGii

m m / heat er het er 11.03, 6.02 5.01, 6.02 2Gii 2Gii heav en hev en 1 2 .0 2 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2Gii heav y hev i 1 2 .0 2 , 0 1 .0 1 , 0 IB he'd ------5.01 5.01 IE heel hel 11.04 lGii 13.03 5.01 height hit held held 1.02 1.02 ID hell hel 19.01 1.01 ICi he'll ------19.01 ICi hel lo he lo * 1 .0 1 , 5.01 1 .0 1 , 5.01 2E hel met hel7met 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2A help help 1.02 1.02 ID

kV / A > help er help er 1 .0 2 , 6.02 1 .0 2 , 6.02 2Fi

1^1 / t___i help ful help fool 1 .0 2 , 1.01 1 .0 2 , 16.05 2 Gi hem h e m 1.01 1.01 1 A hen hen 1.01 1.01 1A hen house hen hous 1 .0 1 , 15.04 1 .0 1 , 15.04 2Hi her hur 6.02 6.05 IFi herd hurd 6.02 6.05 IFi here her 8.02 6.02 IFi ( here1s 0 IJiii

_ /— her o h ^ r o 5.01, 0 6 .0 2 , 0 2 Fi 315 hers h3rz 6.02 6.05 U i i i her self h^r self 6 .0 2 , 1.02 6.05, 1.02 2Fi h e ' s --- 5.01 lJiii hey ha 0 5.01 lGi hick o ry hilc o ri 19.03, 0, 4.01 1 .0 1 , 0 , 1.01 3E hid hid 1 .01 1.01 1A hid den hid *n 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2Gii hide hid 2 .01 5.01 IE high hi 0 5.01 lGii "/ - high way hi wa 0 , 11.02 5.01, 5.01 2Gii hill hil 19.01 1 .01 lCi u / ^ hill side hil sid 19.01, 2.01 1.01, 5.01 2E **T t * hill top hxl top 19.01, 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1 . 0 1 2E hil ly hil i 1.01, 4.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2E •h* him him 1 .01 1.01 1A ^ w- / him self him self 1 .0 1 , 1.02 1 .0 1 , 1.02 2D 316 hind hind 5.04 5.04 ID IS hint hint 1.02 1.02 ID hip hip 1 . 0 1 1.01 1A hire hir 8.03 6.03 lFi his hiz 1.01 1.01 U i i i ss hiss his 19.01 1.01 ICi his to ry his to ri 1 .0 1 , 5.01, 4.01 1 .0 1 , 5.01, 1.01 3B hit hit 1.01 1.01 1A V* hitch hich 19.03 1.03 lJi hive hiv 2 .01 5.01 IE ho ho 5.01 5.01 IB hoe ho 11.08 5.01 IE hog hog 1 . 0 1 1. 0 1 1A hold hold 5.04 5.04 ID hold er hold er 5.04, 6.02 5.04, 6.02 2Fi hole hoi 2 . 0 1 5.01 IE 317 ho li day hoi i da 1 .0 1 , 1 .0 1 , 11.02 101, 0, 5.01 3E hoi low hoi o 1.01, 9.04 1 .0 1 , 0 2Gii ho ly ho li 5.01, 4.01 5.01, 1.01 2B home horn 2 .01 5.01 IE home ly horn li 2.01, 4.01 5.01, 1.01 2Gii home sick horn sxk 2.01, 19.03 5.01, 1.01 2Gii hon est on est 0 , 1.02 1 .0 1 , 1.02 2 Gii

, — t ~f hon ey hun 1 0, 4.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2Gi hon ey bee hun i be 0, 4.01, 11.04 1.01, 0, 5.01 3Gi hon ey moon hun i moon 0, 4.01, 16.06 1 .0 1 , 0 , 16.06 3Gi honk hongk 1.03 0 ID hon or on er 0, 6.04 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2Gii hood hood 16.05 16.05 lCii hoof hoof 16.06 16.06 ICii hook hook 16.05 16.05 lCii hoop hoop 16.06 16.06 ICii 318 hop hop 1.01 1.01 1A hope hop 2.01 5.01 IE hope ful hop7 fool 2 .0 1 , 1.01 5.01, 16.05 2Gi

hope less hoj4 les 2 .0 1 , 19.01 5.01, 1.01 2Gii

horn horn 6.04 6.04 iFi

horse h3rs 6.04 6.04 lFi

horse back hors^^ bak 6.04, 19.03 6.04, 1.01 2Gii

horse shoe hor^7 shoo 6.04, 16.(74 6.04, 16.06 2Gii

hose hoz 2.01 5.01 IJiii hos pit al hos pit al 1 .0 1 , 1.01, 10.00 1 .0 1 , 1 .0 1 , 10.00 3A host host 5.04 5.04 ID hot hot 1. 0 1 1.01 1A ho tel ho tel 5.01, 1.01 5.01, 1.01 2B hound hound 15.04 15.04 iHi hour our 0 15.04 iHi

house hous 15.04 15.04 IHi 319 house top hous top 15.04, 1.01 15.04, 1.01 2Hi house wife hous7 wif 15 .04, 2 .01 15.04, 5.01 2Hi house work hous7 wurk 15.04, 6.04 15.04, 6.05 2Hi how hou 9.03 15.04 IHi how ev er hou ev 'er 9.03, 1 .0 1 , 6.02 15.04, 1.01, 6.02 3Hi howl houl 9.03 15.04 IHi hug hug 1.01 1.01 1A huge huj 2.01 5.01 U i i i hum hum 1.01 1.01 1A hum ble hum' b'l 1 .0 1 , 17.00 1 .0 1 , 0 2E hump hump 1.02 1.02 ID hun dred hun dred 1 .0 1 , 1.04 1.01, 1.04 2D hung hung 1.03 1.03 ID hung er hung ger 1.03, 6.02 1.03, 6.02 2Jiii hun gry hung gri 1 .0 1 ,4.01 1.03, 1.04 2Jiii hunk hungk 1.03 0 ID 320 hunt hunt 1.02 1.02 ID - V / hunt er hunt er 1 .0 2 , 6.02 1 .0 2 , 6.02 2 Fi

, --J A t hur rail hoo ro 6.05, 0 16.05, 0 2Gii hur ried nur id 6.05, 13.04 6.05, 1.01 2 Gii . - / V hur ry hur i 6.05, 4.01 6.05, 0 2 Fi hurt hurt 6.05 6.05 lFi ^ 1 L/ hus band huz band 1 .0 1 , 1.02 1 .0 1 , 1.02 2Jiii * hush hush 1.03 1.03 ID hut hut 1.01 1.01 1A hymn him 0 1.01 IGii

I i 0 0 IB ice is 2.01 5.06 lJiii v * V' i cy 1 S I 0, 4. 01 0 , 1.01 2Jiii

I'd --- 0 IB - . i de a i de a 0, 5. 0 1 , 0 0, 5.01, 0 3B — i de al i de al 0, 5. 0 1 , 10.00 0, 5.01, 10.00 3B 321 -u if if 1.01 l.oi 1A ill il 19.01 1.01 ICi

I'll il 0 5.06 ICi

1 1 m im 0 5.06 IB Y A f KJ im por tant im por tant 1.01, 6.04, 1.02 1.01, 6.04, 1.02 3Fi im pos si ble im pos i b 1 1.01, 1.01, 1.01, 1.01, 1.01, 0, 0 4E 17.00 ^ _ / im prove im proov 1 .0 1 , 0 1 .0 1 , 16.06 2 Gi in in 1.01 1.01 1A u/ inch inch 0 0 lHii \S inch es inch ez 0, 1.01 0, 1.01 2Jiii in come in kum 1.01, 0 1.01, 1.01 2Gi in deed ^m ^ded 7 1.01, 11.04 1.01, 5.01 2E v / .Y In di an in di an 1.01, 1.01, 1.01 1.01, 1.01, 1.01 3A in doors in dorz^ 1.01, 7.03 1.01, 6.04 2Jiii \j ink ingk 1.03 0 ID inn in 19.01 1.01 ICi 322 V / o in sect m sekt 1 .0 1 , 1.02 1 .0 1 , 1.02 2D V -r , / in side m sid 1 .0 1 , 2.01 1 .0 1 , 5.01 2E y- / . . in stant m stant 1 .0 1 , 1.05 1 .0 1 , 1.05 2D in stead in sted 1 .0 1 , 12.02 1 .0 1 , 1.04 2Gii Y t in suit m suit 1 .0 1 , 1.02 1 .0 1 , 1.02 2D Y ^ , < in tend m tend 1 .0 1 , 1.02 1 .0 1 , 1.02 2D / A, ^ in ter es ted in ter es ted 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 1.01 4Fi 1.01 1.01 y 1 -v in ter es ting in ter es ting 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 1.01 4Fi 1.03 1.03 V- ( __ in to in too 1 .0 1 , 0 1 .0 1 , 16.06 2 Gi ^ — / in vite in vit 1 .0 1 , 2.01 1 .0 1 , 5.01 2E — / i ron i ern 0 , 0 0 , 6 .02 2 Gi is iz 1.01 1 .01 U i i i is land i land 0 , 1 .02 0 , 1 .02 2 Gii is n't 1 .0 1 , 0 2jiii <-/ it it 1.01 1 .01 1A 323 its its 1.02 1.02 ID w* i t ' s its 1.02 1.02 ID it self it self 1 .0 1 , 1.02 1 .0 1 , 1.02 2D

I've iv 2.01 5.06 IE - t M v i vo ry i vo ri 0, 5.01, 4.01 0, 5.01, 1.01 3B - ^ i vy i vi 0, 4.01 0 , 1.01 2B

. ^ i u jack et jak et 19.03, 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2E U jacks jaks 19.03 1.01 IE jail jal 11 . 0 1 5.01 lGii jam jam 1 . 0 1 1 .01 1A

Jan u ar y Jan u er i 1 .0 1 , 0 , 6 .0 1 , 0 1 .0 1 , 0 , 6 .0 2 , 0 4 Pi jar jar 6.01 6.01 lFi

. A jaw DO 9.01 0 lGi jay ja 11.02 5.01 IE

. ^ / v jel ly Del i 1.01, 4.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2E t ' jel ly fish jel i fish 1.01, 4.01, 1.03 1.01, 0, 1.03 3E 324 jerk jurk 6.02 6.05 lPi jig jig 1.01 1.01 1A

job job 1.01 1.01 1A i jock ey jok i 19.03, 4.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2E

join join 15.01 15.01 IHi joke jok 2.01 5.01 IE ■-1 / * jok ing jok m g 5.01, 1.03 5.01, 1.03 2D w / w/ jol ly jol i 1.01, 4.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2E

jour ney jur m 0, 4.01 6.05, 1.01 2 Gii joy joi 15.02 15.01 IHi . y *■_' joy ful ]01 fool 15.02, 1.01 15.01, 16.05 2Hi

joy ous 301 us 15.02, 14.04 15.01, 1.01 2 Hi

judge juj 3.00 1 .01 U i i i

jug jug 1 .01 1.01 1A

juice joos 1 1 . 1 1 16.06 U i i i

juic y joos i 1 1 .1 1 , 0 16.06, 0 2Jiii 325 _ -WT Ju ly Joo li 5.01, 4.00 16.06, 5.01 2 Gi jump jump 1.02 1.02 ID

June joon 2.01 16.06 lGi jun ior joon7 yer 5.01, 0 16.06, 6.02 2 Gi junk jungk 1.03 0 ID just just 1.02 1.02 ID keen ken 11.04 5.01 IE keep kep 11.04 5.01 IE kept kept 1.02 1.02 ID ket tie ket^ '1 1.01, 17.00 1 .0 1 , 0 2E key ke 4.01 5.01 IE kick kik 19.03 1.01 IE kid kid 1.01 1.01 1A kill kil 19.01 1.01 ICi killed kild 0 1.02 lGii kind kind 5.04 5.04 ID 326 kind ly kind'li 5.04, 4.01 5.04, 1.01 2D kind ness kind* nes 5.04, 19.01 5.04, 1.01 2D king king 1.03 1.03 ID

king dom king* dura 1.03, 1.01 1.03, 1.01 2Gi

kiss kis 19.01 1.01 ICi , V ,/ kitch en kich en 19.03, 1.01 1.03, 1.01 2Ji

kite kit 2.01 5.01 IE ^ / kit ten kit n 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2Gii V / V kit ty kit i 1.01, 4.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2E

knee ne 11.04 5.01 lGii

kneel nel 11.04 5.01 lGii

knew nu 9.02 5.01 IHi

knife nif 0 5.01 lGii

knit nit 0 1.01 lGii

knives nivz 0 5.04 U i i i

knob nob o 1.01 lGii 327 knock nok 0 1.01 lGii knot not 0 1.01 lGii know no 0 5.01 lGii known non 0 5.01 lGii lace las 2.01 5.01 U i i i lad lad 1.01 1 .01 1A lad der lad er 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2 Fi i ^ in o •-t 2 Jiii la dies la diz • 13.-04 5.01, 1.01

la dy la di 5.01, 4.01 5.01, 1.01 2B laid lad 11.01 5.01 lGii lake lak 2.01 5.01 IE lamb lam 19.01 1.01 lGii

lame lam 2.01 5.01 IE

lamp lamp 1.02 1.02 ID

land land 1.02 1.02 ID

lane lan 2.01 5.01 IE 328 V / lan guage lang gwij 1 .0 1 , 18,03 1,03, 1.04 2Jiii U 1 sv lan tern lan tern 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2Fi lap lap 1.01 1.01 1A b » * (0 r—1 lard 6.01 6,01 lFi 00 large larj 6.01 6.01 U i i i \y lash lash 1.03 1.03 ID lass las 19.01 1.01 ICi last last 1.02 - 1.02 ID late lat 2.01 5.01 IE * « laugh laf 12.01 0 U i i i A ✓ U laun dry Ion dri 16.01 , 4.01 0, 1.04 2 Gi law 1$ 9.01 0 lGi lawn Ion 9.01 0 iGi A ' ** law yer lo yer 9.01, 6,02 0 , 6.02 2 Gi lay la 11.02 5.01 IE w u- la zy la zi 5.01, 4.01 5.01, 1.01 2B 329 lead led 12.02 5.01 lGii — /sV lead er led er 11.03, 6.02 5.01, 6.02 2Gii leaf lef 11.03 5.01 lGii leak lek 11.03 5.01 lGii lean len 11.03 5.01 lGii le ap lep 11.03 5.01 lGii learn l u m 7.01 6.05 lFii learned lurnd 0 6.05 lGii least lest 11.03 5.04 lGii v / A/ leath er lej>fi er 1 2 .0 2 , 6.02 1.03, 6.02 2Gii leave lev 11.03 5.01 lGii - / y leav ing lev ing 11.03, 1.03 5.01, 1.03 2Gii w led led 1.01 1.01 1A w left left 1.02 1.02 ID leg leg 1,01 1.01 1 A ^ lem on lem un 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2Gi 330 V — / lem on ade lem un ad 1 .0 1 , 1 .0 1 , 2,01 1 .0 1 , 1.01, 5.06 3Gi lend lend 1.02 1.02 ID length length 0 0 lHii less les 19.01 1.01 ICi v / les son les n 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2Gii let let 1.01 1.01 1A let's --- 1.02 ID L/ J SU let ter let er 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2Fi o t y let ting let ing 1 .0 1 , 1.03 1 .0 1 , 1.03 ID u > u let tuce let is 1 .0 1 , 3.00 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2Jiii u t u lev el lev el 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2A \J (S'* lib er ty lib er ti 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 4.01 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 1.01 3Fi lib rar y li brer i 5.01, 6 .0 1 , 0 5.01, 6 .0 2 , 0 3Fi lice lis 2.01 5.01 U i i i lick lik 19.03 1.01 IE . lid lid 1.01 1.01 1A 331 lie li 11.12 5.01 IE

life lif 2.01 5.01 IE

lift lift 1.02 1.02 ID light lit 19.05 5.01 lGii r / light ness lit nes 19.05, 19.01 5.01, 1.01 2Gii — light ing lit ing 19.05, 1.03 5.01, 1.03 2Gii

like lik 2.01 5.01 IE — / \j like ly lik li 2.01, 4.01 5.01, 1.01 2Gii — f \ J lik ing lik ing 5.01, 1.03 5.01, 1.03 2D \J / w lil y lil i 1 .0 1 , 0 1 .0 1 , 0 2A w limb lim 19.01 1.01 lGii lime lim 2.01 5.01 IE limp limp 1.02 1.02 ID line lin 2.01 5.01 IE V/ i \ J lin en lin en 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2A - / L f li on li un 5.01, 1.01 5.01, 1.01 2Gi 332 kj lip lip 1 .01 1 01 1A vy list list 1.02 1 02 ID lis ten 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 01 0 2 Gii u lit lit 1.01 1 01 1 A w / lit tie lit ’1 1 .0 1 , 17.00 1 01 0 2E live liv 2.01 5 01 IE lives livz 0 5 04 lGii — / \J live ly liv li 2 .0 1 , 4.01 5 01 1.01 2 Gii \J //V liv er liv er 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 01 6.02 2 Fi U I liv ing liv ing 1 .0 1 , 1.03 1 01 1.03 2D liz ard liz erd 1 .0 1 , 6.01 1 01 6.02 2 Fi load lod 11.07 5 01 lGii loaf lof 11.07 5 01 lGii loan Ion 11.07 5 01 lGii loaves lovz 0 5 04 lGii u lock lok 19.03 1 01 IE 333 _ — / iy lo co mo tive lo ko mo tiv 5,01, 5,Q1, 5,01 5,01f 5,0.1, 5,Q1 4E 3.0Q 1.01 log log 1,01 1.01 1A lone Ion 2,01 5,01 IE - / v lone ly Ion' 11 2.01, 4.01 5,01, 1,01 2Gii - / lone some Ion sum 2,01, 3,00 5,01, 1.01 2 Gii long long 1,03 1,03 ID

look look 16,05 16,05 ICii

look out look'out 16.05, 15.04 16.05, 15,04 2Hi

loop loop 16,06 16.06 ICii

loose loos 0 16,06 IE lord lord 6.04 6.04 lFi

lose loo 2 0 16.06 lJiii -- //v los er looz er 0 , 6,02 16.06, 6.02 2Jiii

loss los 19,01 1,01 ICi uy lost lost 1.02 1.02 ID

lot lot 1.01 1.01 1A 334 loud loud 15.04 15.04 IHi love luv 0 1.01 IGi ^ / y love ly luv li 0, 4.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2 Gi lov er luv er 0 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2 Gi low lo 9.04 5.01 lGii luck luk 19.03 1.01 IE luck y luk i 19.03, 0 1 .0 1 , 0 2E W / f'S lum ber lum ber 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2 Fi

lump lump 1.02 1.02 ID lunch lunch 0 0 lHii — ly ing li ing 4.00, 1.03 5.01, 1.03 2D ma --- 0 IGi ma chine ma shen^ 1 .0 1 , 0 1.01,5.03 2Jiii e> — /r^> \J ma chin er y ma shen er i 1 .0 1 , 0 , 6 .0 2 , 0 1.01, 5.03, 6.02, 0 4Jiii mad mad 1.01 1.01 1A made mad 2 .01 5.01 IE 335 O' * - / mag a zine mag a zen 1 .0 1 , 0 , 0 1 .0 1 , 0, 5.01 3Gi mag ic maj ik 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2Jiii maid mad 11.01 5.01 lGii mail mal 11.01 5.01 lGii mail box mal^boks 1 .0 1 , 1.01 5.01, 1.02 2Gii mail man mal man 11.01 , 1.01 5.01, 1.01 2 Gii o 1 in — • 1 ma jor ma ]er 6.04 5.01, 6.02 2 Fi * make mak 2 . 0 1 5.01 IE

— /y mak ing mak xng 5.01, 1.03 5.01, 1.03 2D male mal 2.01 5.01 IE

*•/ • ma ma ma ma 1 .0 1 , 1.01 0 , 1 .01 2 Gi tc/ e mam ma ma ma 1 .0 1 , 1.01 0 , 1 .01 2 Gi v man man 1.01 1.01 1A

u I 'S / v man a ger man ij er 1 .0 1 , 0 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 1 .0 1 , 6.02 3Jiii mane man 2 . 0 1 5.01 IE — / /v man ger man jer 5.02, 6.02 5.02, 6.02 2Jiii 336 i y man y men 1 1 .0 1 , 0 1 .0 1 , 0 2 Gi map map 1.01 1.01 1A — / ma pie ma p'l 5.01, 17.00 5.01, 0 2E

** . mar ble mar b 11 6 .0 1 , 17.00 6 .0 1 , 0 2Fi ■aj march march 6.01 6.01 lFi A mare mar 8.01 6.01 lFi mark mark 6 .01 6.01 lFi mar ket mar/ket 6 .0 1 , 1.01 6 .0 1 , 1.01 2Fi mar riage mar ij 6 .0 1 , 12.04 6 .0 1 , 1 . 0 1 2Jiii \j mar ried mar id 6 .0 1 , 13.04 6 .0 1 , 1 .01 2 Gii O ' / mar ry mar i 6 .0 1 , 4.01 6 .0 1 , 0 2Fi mask mask 1.02 1.02 ID mast mast 1.02 1.02 ID 4 / A/ mas ter mas ter 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2Fi o mat mat 1.01 1.01 1 A match mach 19.03 1.03 lJi 337 c/ / sv mat ter mat er 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2 Fi \J / u mat tress mat res 1.01, 19.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2E may ma 11.02 5.01 IE may be ma “’be 11.02, 5.01 5.01, 5.01 2E — /' V may or ma er 11.02, 6.04 5.01, 6.02 2 Fi may pole ma pol 1 1 .0 2 , 2.01 5.01, 5.01 2E me me" 5.01 5.01 IB V-/ / — mead ow med o 12.02, 9.04 1 .0 1 , 0 2Gii meal mel 11.03 5.01 lGii mean men 11.03 5.01 lGii means men 11.03 5.04 lGii meant ment 12.02 1.02 lGii V / V meas ure mezh er 12,02, 8.05 1 .0 2 , 6.02 2Jiii meat met 11.03 5.01 lGii V-> / IS med i cine med i sin 1 .0 1 , 0 , 3.00 1 .0 1 , 0 , 1.01 3Jiii meet met 11.04 5.01 IE 338 ID O i

— / V —1 meet ing met xng 11.04, 1.03 • 1.03 2E melt melt 1.02 1.02 ID mem ber mem ber 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2Fi \j men men 1.01 1.01 1A mend mend 1.02 1.02 ID -J- / me ow me ou 5.01, 9.03 5.01, 15.04 2Hi V mer ry mer 1 6 .0 2 , 4.01 6 .0 2 , 0 2Fi KJ mess mes 19.01 • 1.01 ICi mes sage mes ij 1 .0 1 , 0 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2Jiii \j met met 1.01 1.01 1A met al met7 11 1 .0 1 , 10.00 1 .0 1 , 0 2 Gii mew mu 9.02 5.01 IHi mice mis 2.01 5.01 U i i i ^ / mid die mid ' 1 1 -0 1 , 17.00 1 .0 1 , 0 2E y / — mid night mid nit 1 .0 1 , 19.05 1 .0 1 , 5.01 2 Gii might mit 19.05 5.01 lGii 339 — / V might y mit x 19.05 , o 5.01, 0 2 Gii mile mil 2.01 5.01 IE milk milk 1.02 1.02 ID y_. / ^ milk man milk man 1 .0 2 , 1.01 1 .0 2 , 1.01 2D mill mil 19.01 1.01 ICi mil ler mil er 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2 Fi v* / 4/ mil lion mil yun 1 .0 1 , 16.10 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2 Gi mind mind 5.04 - 5.04 ID mine min 2.01 5.01 IE — //V min er min er 5.01, 6.02 5.01, 6.02 2Fi mint mint 1.02 1.02 ID ^ I u min ute min it 1 .0 1 , 3.00 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2 Gi mir ror mir er 6.03, 6.04 6.03, 6.02 2Fi ^ / V mis chief mis chif 1 .0 1 , 13.04 1 .0 1 , 1.07 2 Gii V miss mis 19.01 1.01 ICi *y u > mis spell mis spel 1 .0 1 , 19.01 1 .0 1 , 1.04 2D 340 ^ — / mis take mis tak 1 .0 1 , 2,01 1 .0 1 , 5.01 2E mis ty mis ti 1 .0 1 , 4.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2A \j mitt mit 19.01 1.01 ici ¥ 't mit ten mrt n 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2Gii mix miks 1.01 1.02 1A mo ment mo ment 5.01, 1.02 5.01, 1.02 2D \j j Mon day mun di 1 .0 1 , 11.02 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2 Gi \j t o mon ey mun i 1 .0 1 , 4.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2 Gi \J / V / mon key mung ki 1 .0 1 , 4.01 1.03, 1.01 2Jiii month munth 0 0 IHii moo moo 16,06 16.06 ICii moon moon 16.06 16.06 ICii moon light moon lit 16.06 , 19.05 16.06 , 5.01 2Gii moose moos 0 16.06 IE is mop mop 1.01 1.01 1 A more mor 8,04, 6.04 lFi 341 A / V VO o mor ning mor ning 6,04, 1.03 • 1.03 2Fi \j / — mor row mor o 6.04, 9.04 6.04, 0 2Gii \a> moss mos 19.01 1.01 ICi most most 5.04 5.04 ID

— t y most ly most li 5.04, 4.01 5.04, 1.01 2D moth er mu^n er 1.03, 6.02 1.03, 6.02 2 Gi — J /V mo tor mo ter 5.01, 6.04 5.01, 6.02 2Fi mount mount 15.04 15.04 lHi moun tain moun tin 15.04, 14.02 15.04 , 1.01 2Hi mouse mous 18.02 15.04 lHi mouth mouth 18.02 15.04 lHi move moov 0 16.06 lGi — / ^ mov ie moov i 0, 0 16.06 , o 2 Gi mov ies --- 0, 13.04 2Jiii

— t o mov ing moov ing 0, 1.03 16.06 , 1.03 2 Gi mow mou 9.04 15.04 lHi 342 Mr. mis ter 0 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2Jiii V / \J Mrs. mis iz 0 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2Jiii \j much much 1.03 1.03 ID \ j mud mud 1.01 1.01 1A mud dy mud i 1 .0 1 , 4.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2 E mug mug 1.01 1.01 1A mule mul 2.01 5.01 IE

\j / ^ — mul ti ply mul ti pli 1 .0 1 , 1.01, 4.00 1 .0 1 , 1.01, 5.01 3D

A / / V mur der mur der 6.05, 6.02 6.05, 6.02 2F i

— / y. mu sic mu zrk 5.01, 1.01 5.01, 1 .01 2Jiii u must must 1.02 1.02 ID my mi 4.00 5.01 IB — / my self mi self 4.00, 1.02 5.01, 1.02 2D nail nal 11.01 5.01 lGii name nam 2.01 5.01 IE • u nap nap 1.01 1.01 1A 343 \J / u nap kin nap kin 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2A v /— nar row nar o 6 .0 1 , 9.04 6 .0 1 , 0 2 Gii * t nas ty nas ti 1.01, 4.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2A

A/ naugh ty no tx 16.01, 4.01 0 , 1 . 01 2Gii — / V/ nav y nav i 5.01, 0 5.01, 0 2B near n§r 11.03 6 .02 lFii

— /, T V near by n§r bi 11.03, 4,00 5.02, 5.01 2Fii near ly n§r li 11.03, 4.01 6 .0 2 , 1.01 2Fii neat net 11.03 5.01 IGii neck nek 19.03 1.01 IE V / / — neck tie nek ti 19.03, 11.12 1 .0 1 , 5.01 2E need ned 11.04 5.01 IE need le ne /d ' 1 11.04, 17.00 5.01, 0 2E need n't ------11.04, 0 2E

Ne gro ne gro 5.01, 5.02 5.01, 5.02 2D neigh bor n a ^ e r 16.03, 6.04 5.01, 6.02 2 Gii 344 — / /V W neigh bor hood na ber hood 16.03, 6.04, 16.05 5.01, 6 .0 2 , 16.05 3Gii nei ther ne £ner 11.05, 6.02 5.01, 6.02 2 Gii A nerve nurv 6.02 6.05 lFi nest nest 1.02 1.02 ID net net 1.01 1.01 1A U / rv nev er nev er 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2Fi V A/ — / nev er more nev er mor 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 8.04 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 6.04 3Fi new nu 9.02 5.01 lHi news nuz 9.02 5.01 U i i i news pa per nuz pa per 9.02, 5.01, 6.02 5.01, 5.01, 6.02 3Jiii O next nekst 1.02 1.02 ID \J nib ble nib ’1 1.01, 17.00 1 .0 1 , 0 2E nice nis 2.01 5.01 lJiii \j / w nick el nik el 19.03, 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2E night nit 19.05 5.01 lGii T t night gown nrt goun 19.05, 9.03 5.01, 15.04 2Hi 345 •t - — nine nin 2.01 5.01 IE nine teen nin ^ten 2 .0 1 , 11,04 5.01, 5.01 2E — i u nine ty nin ti 2 .0 1 , 4.01 5.01, 1.01 2 Gii no no 5.01 5.01 IB

— / u no bod y no bod i 5.01, 1 .0 1 , 0 5.01, 1 .0 1 , 0 3B nod nod 1.01 1.01 1A noise noiz 18.03 15.01 U i i i / v nois y noiz i 18.03 , o 15.01 , o 2Jiii \J none nun 0 1.01 lGi noon noon 16.06 16.06 ICii

A nor nor 6.04 6.04 lFi north north 6.04 6.04 lFi

A nor t h e m nor £ n e m 6.04, 6.02 6.04, 6.02 2 Fi nose noz 2.01 5.01 lJiii not not 1.01 1.01 1A note not 2.01 5.01 IE 346 v/ / y noth ing nuth ing 1.03, 1.03 1.03, 1.03 2 Gi ___ U no tice no tis 5,01, 3.00 5.01, 1.01 2Jiii u aJ No vem ber no vem ber 5.01, 1 .0 1 , 6.02 5.01, 1.01, 6.02 3Fi now nou 9.03 15.04 lHi no where no 'hwax 5.01, 8.02 5.01, 6.01 2Fi num ber num ber 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2 Fi nurse nurs 6.05 6.05 lFi nut nut 1.01 1.01 1A oak ok 11.07 5.06 IGii oar or 11.07 6.04 lFii oat meal ~bt miel 11,07 , 11.03 5.06, 5.01 2 Gii oats ots 11.07 5.04 IGii i- , — / o bey o ba 0, 15 .03 0, 5.01 2Hi — t ,\j o cean o shan 0 , 0 0, 1.07 2Jiii ~L / o clock o klok 0, 19 .03 0, 1.04 2E S. — /.a/ Oc to ber ok to ber 1 .0 1 , 5.01, 6.02 1.01, 5.01, 6.02 3Fi 347 odd od 19.01 1.01 ICi

of ov 1.01 1 .01 lJiii off of 19.01 1.01 ICi of fer of er 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2 Fi f 'r' of fice of is 1 .0 1 , 3.00 1 .0 1 , 1 .01 2Jiii *r’ ^ of fi cer of x ser 1 .0 1 , 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 0 , 6.02 3Jiii

^ / V , of ten of en 1 .0 1 , 0 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2Gii

oh o 0 0 IGii

oil oil 15.01 15.01 lHi

old old 5.04 5.04 ID — ^ w 1 / w/ old fash ioned old fash und 5.04, 1.03, 0 5.04, 1.03, 1.02 2Gii

on on 1.01 1.01 1A w once wuns 0 1.02 lJiii

one wun 0 1 . 0 1 lGi V V/ on ion un yun 0 , 16 .10 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2Gi - / on ly on li 5.01, 4.01 5.01, 1.01 2B 348 on ward on werd 1 .0 1 , 6,01 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2Fi — / c o pen o pen 0 , 1.01 0 , 1.01 2B

a or or 6.04 6.04 lFi or ange or enj 6.04, 0 6.04, 1.02 2Jiii or chard or cherd 6.04, 6.01 6.04, 6.02 2Fi A / ,V or der or der 6.04, 6.02 6.04, 6.02 2Fi ore "or 6.04 6.04 lFi A / ^ or gan or gan 6.04, 1.01 6.04, 1.01 2Fx oth er uth er 0 , 6.02 1.03, 6.02 2Gi t',, ^ -r oth er wise uth er wiz 0 , 6 .0 2 , 2 .01 1.03, 6.02, 5.01 3Jiii

ouch ouch 15.04 15.04 lHi

/V, ought ot 12.03 0 IGii

our our 15.04 15.04 lFii

ours ourz 15.04 15.04 lJiii v, / our selves our selvz 15.04, 0 15.04, 1.02 2Jiii

out out 15.04 15.04 lHi 349 out doors out dorz^ 15 .04, 7. 03 15.04, 5.04 2Jiii out fit out1fit 15 .04, 1. 01 15.04, 1.01 2Hi out law out/lo 15 .04, 9. 01 15.04, 0 2Hi out line out/ lin 15 .04, 2. 01 15.04, 5.01 2Hi

out side out s i d / 15 .04, 2. 01 15.04, 5.01 2Hi / ^ out ward out werd 15 .04, 6 .01 15.04, 6.02 2Hi

ov en uv en 0 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2Gi

o ver 0 ver 0 , 6.02 0 , 6.02 2Fi — / /V- o ver alls 0 ver olz 0 , 6 .0 2 , 10.00 0 , 6 .0 2 , 0 3Jiii

o ver coat 0 ver kot 0 , 6 .0 2 , 11.07 0, 6.02, 5.01 3Gii

o ver eat ~c/ ver et 0 , 6 .0 2 , 11.03 0, 6.02, 5.06 3Gii

o ver head "c/ver hed 0 , 6 .0 2 , 12.02 0 , 6 .0 2 , 1.01 3Gii

o ver hear 0 ver her 0 , 6 .0 2 , 11.03 0, 6.02, 5.01 3Fii — ’ T / o ver night 0 ver nit 0 , 6 .0 2 , 19.05 0, 6.02, 5.01 3Gii — / ** o ver turn 0 ver turn 0 , 6 .0 2 , 6.05 0, 6.02, 6.05 3Fi

owe 0 2 .01 0 IGii 350 -/V' °w ing o ing 9.04, 1.03 0, 1.03 2Gii owl oul 9.03 15.04 lHi own "on 9.04 5.06 IGii own er on er 9.04, 6.02 5.06, 6 .02 2 Gii ox oks 1,01 1,02 1A pa --- 1.01 lGi pace pas 2.01 5.01 lJiii pack pak 19.03 1.01 IE pack age pak ij 19.03, 0 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2Jiii pad pad 1.01 1.01 1A page paj 2.01 5.01 lJiii paid pad 11.01 5.01 IGii pail pal 11.01 5.01 IGii pain pan 11.01 5.01 IGii pain ful pan/fool 1 1 ,0 1 , 1.01 5.01, 16.05 2Gii paint pant 11.01 5.04 IGii — t pain ter pan ter 1 1.01 , 6.02 5.01, 6.02 2Gii _ / w paint ing pant ing 11.01 , 1.03 5.04, 1.03 2Gii A pair par 7.04 6.01 lFii pal pal 1.01 1.01 lA \j / v pal ace pal is 1 .0 1 , 0 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2Jiii pale pal 2.01 5.01 IE u pan pan 1.01 1.01 1A _ pan cake pan kak 1 .0 1 , 2 .0'l 1 .0 1 , 5.01 2E pane pan 2.01 5.01 IE W/ / V pan sy pan zi 1 ,0 1 , 4.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2Jiii pants pants 1,02 1.02 ID ■ • / »< pa pa pa pa 1 .0 1 , 1 .01 0 , 0 2 Gi pa per pa per 5.01, 6.02 5.01, 6.02 2Fi pa rade pa r a d 1^ 1 .0 1 , 2.01 1 .0 1 , 5.01 2E par don par d'n 6 .0 1 , 1.01 6 .0 1 , 0 2Gii / \J . par ent par ent 6 .0 1 , 1.02 6 .0 1 , 1.02 2Fi 352 park park 6.01 6.01 lFi part part 6.01 6.01 lFi part ly part/ li 6.01, 4.01 6 .0 1 , 1.01 2Fi

" , f aJ part ner part ner 6 .0 1 , 6.02 6 .0 1 , 6 . 0 2 2Fi

" ' ^ par ty par ti 6.01, 4.01 6 .0 1 , 1.01 2Fi pass pas 19.01 1.01 ICi pas sen ger pas en jer 1 .0 1 , 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 1 .0 1 , 6.02 3Jiii past past 1.02 1.02 ID paste plTst 2.02 5.04 IE

' , i - pas ture pas tur 1.01, 8.05 1 .0 1 , 6.05 2Fi pat pat 1.01 1.01 1 A patch pach 19.03 1.03 lJi path path 1.03 1.03 ID '-f J AJ pat ter pat er 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2Fi pave pav 2.01 5.01 IE — / . pave ment pav ment 2 .0 1 , 1.02 5.01, 1.02 2Gii 353 paw po 9,01 Q lGi pay p"a 1 1.02 5,0.1 IE pay ment pa ment 11.02 1.02 5,01, 1.02 2E pea pe 11.03 5.01 IGii peace pes 11.03 5.01 lJiii peace ful pes fool 11.03 1.01 5,01, 16,05 2Jiii peach pech 11,03 5.05 IGii peach es pech ez 11.03 1.01 5.05, 1.01 2Jiii peak pek 11.03 5.01 IGii

— / ^ pea nut pe nut 11.03 1.01 5.01, 1.01 2Gii pear par 7.02, 6.01 lFii pearl purl 6.06 6.05 lFii peas pez 11.03 5.01 lJiii

peck pek 19,03 1.01 IE

peek pek 11,04 5.01 IE

peel pel 11.04 5.01 IE 354 peep pep 11.04 5.01 IE peg peg 1.01 1.01 1A pen pen 1.01 1.01 1A y / W pen cil pen sil 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2Jiii V' t '-f pen ny pen x 1 .0 1 , 4.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2E _ / peo pie pe p' 1 11.06 , 17.00 5.01, 0 2Gii pep per pep er 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2Fi pep per mint pep er mint 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 1.02 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 1.02 3Fi per fume pur fum 6 .0 2 , 2.01 6.05, 5.01 2Fi per haps per haps 6.02 , 1.02 6 .0 2 , 1.02 2 Fi per son pur s 'n 6 .0 2 , 1.01 6.05, 0 2Gii pet pet 1.01 1.01 1A phone fon 2.07 5.01 IHii y s/ /- pi a no px an o 1 .0 1 , 0, 5.01 1 .0 1 , 1 .0 1 , 0 3B V pick pik 19.03 1.01 IE pick le pii/ 11 19 .03 , 17.00 1 .0 1 , 0 2 E 355 pic nic pik nik 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .01 , 1.01 2A U / J L pic ture pik tur 1 .0 1 , 8.05 1 .01 , 6.05 2Fi pie pi 11.12 5. 01 IE piece pes 13.04 5. 01 lJiii O' pig pig 1.01 1 .01 1A O / V pig eon pij un 1 .0 1 , 0 1 .01 , 1.01 2Jiii O ' / O ' pig gy pig i 1 .0 1 , 4.01 1 .01 , 0 2e pile pil 2.01 5. 01 IE u pill pil 19.01 1 .01 ICi o' /— pil low pil o 1 .0 1 , 9.04 1 .01 , 0 2 Gii o' pin pin 1.01 1 .01 1A pine pin 2.01 5. 01 IE — t \J pine ap pie pin ap 11 2.01 5. 01 , 1.01, 0 3E pink pingk 1.03 0 ID pint pint 5.04 5. 04 ID pipe pip 2.01 5. 01 IE 356 U / pis tol pis t'l 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2Gii V pit pit 1.01 1.01 1A pitch pich 19.03 1.03 IJi

U //V pitch er pich er 19.03, 6.02 1.03, 6.02 2Ji \ j I \j pit y pit i 1 .0 1 , 0 1 .0 1 , 0 2A place plas 2.04 5.02 lJiii plain plan 1 1 . 0 1 5.02 IGii plan plan 1.04 1.04 ID plane plan 2.04 5.02 IE

0 plant plant 1.05 1.05 ID plate plat 2.04 5.02 IE plat form plat^form 1.04, 6.04 1.04, 6.04 2 EL

\S / ''v plat ter plat er 1.04, 6.02 1.04, 6.02 2 FI play pla 11.02 5.02 IE play er pla er 1 1 .0 2 , 6.02 5.02, 6.02 2Fi play ground pla ground 11.02, 15.04 5.02, 15.04 2Hi 357 play house pl a ^ o u s 11.02, 18.02 5.02, 15.04 2Hi play mate pla mat 11.02, 2.01 5.02, 5.01 2E

— / v play thing pla thing 11.02, 1.09 5.02, 1.09 2E \J t v pleas ant plez ant 12.02, 1.02 1.04, 1.02 2Jiii please plez 11.03 5.02 lJiii v f ^ pleas ure plezh er 12.02, 8.05 1.06, 6.02 2Jiii \S / plen ty plen ti 1.04, 4.01 1.04, 1.01 2D plow plou 9.03 15.04 lHi plug plug 1.04 1.04 ID plum plum 1.04 1.04 ID \ j /v pock et pok et 19.03, 1.01 1.01, 1.01 2E W iyj W pock et book pok et book 19.03, 1.01, 16.05 1.01, 1.01, 16.05 3E po era po em 5.01, 1.01 5.01, 1.01 2B point point 15.01 15.01 lHi poi son poi/z ’n 15.01, 1.01 15.01, 0 2Jiii poke pok 2.01 5.01 IE 358 pole pol 2.01 5.01 IE -A- — / po lice po les 5.01, 0 5.01, 5.01 2Jiii -J- — / v po lice man po les man 5.01, 0 , 1.01 5.01, 5.01, 1.01 3Jiii \J / V pol ish pol ish 1 .0 1 , 1.03 1 .0 1 , 1.03 2D -1- — / po lite po lit 5.01, 2.01 5.01, 5.01 2E \j pond pond 1.02 1.02 ID — / ^ pon ies po niz 5.01, 13.04 5.01, 1.01 2Jiii — / ^ pon y po m 5.01, 0 5.01, 1.01 2B pool pool 16.06 16.06 ICii poor poor 16.05 16.05 lFii pop pop 1.01 1 .01 1A I S\ pop c o m pop k o m 1 .0 1 , 6.04 1 .0 1 , 6.04 2Fi popped popt 0 1.02 lJiii porch porch 6.04 6.04 lFi pork pork 6.04 6.04 lFi ■sj / pos si ble pos i b ’l 1 .0 1 , 1.01, 17.00 1 .0 1 , 0 , 0 3E 359 post post 5,04 5.04 ID pos tage pos too 5.01, 0 5.01, 1.01 2Jiii - / V post man post man 5.04, 1.01 5 .04, 1.01 2D L/ pot pot 1.01 1.01 1A J - — / — po ta to po ta to 5.01, 5.01, 5.01 5.01, 5.01, 5.01 3B -i- — / - po ta toes po ta toz 5.01, 5.01, 11.08 5.01, 5.01, 5.01 3Jiii pound pound 15.04 15.04 lHi

pour por 11.09 6.04 lFii / ^ pow der pou der 9.03, 6.02 15.04 , 6.02 2Hi /a / pow er pou er 9.03, 6.02 15.04 , 6.02 2Hi

pow er ful pou er fool 9.03, 6 ,0 2 , 1,01 15.04 , 6.02 , 16.05 3Hi

praise praz 18.01 5.02 lJiii

pray pra 11.02 5.01 IE A pray er prar 11.02 , 6.02 6 . 0 1 2Gii “i_ A / pre pare pre par 5 .0 2 , 8.01 5.02, 6.01 2Fi -L- / 0 pres ent prez ent 1.04, 1.02 1.04, 1.02 2Jiii 360 pret ty prit i 1.04, 4.01 1.04, 0 2Gi price pris 2.04 5.02 lJiii prick prik 19.03 1.04 IE prince prins 3.00 1.05 lJiii ^ / \ j prin cess prin ses 1.04, 19.01 1.04, 1.01 2Jiii print print 1.05 1.05 ID V> ( pris on priz 'n 1.04, 1.01 1.04, 0 2Jiii prize priz 2.04 5.02 IE v< / ¥ prom ise prom is 1.04, 3.00 1.04, 1.01 2E O 1SSJ prop er prop er 1.04, 6.02 1.04, 6.02 2 Fi pro tect . pro tekt 5.02, 1.02 5.02, 1.02 2D proud proud 18.02 15.04 lHi prove proov 0 16.06 lGi prune proon 2.04 16.06 IGi

U / \J pub lie pub lik 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2A ^ / pud die pud '1 1 .0 1 , 17.00 1 .0 1 , 0 2E 361 puff puf 19.01 1.01 ICi /_ pull pool 19.01 16.05 lGi pump pump 1.02 1.02 ID pump kin pump kin 1.0 2 , 1.01 1 .0 2 , 1.01 2D punch punch 0 0 lllii

\ j / ^ pun ish pun ish 1 .0 1 , 1.03 1 .0 1 , 1.03 2D

pup pup 1.01 1.01 1A __ / pu pil pu p'l 4.01, l.O’l 4.01, 0 2Gii w ' Y pup py pup X 1 .0 1 , 4.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2 E

pure pur 8.04 6.05 lFi

pur pie pur p'l 6.05, 17.00 6.05, 0 2Fi

purse purs 6.05 6.05 lFi

push poosh 1.03 16.05 lGi

puss poos 19.01 16 JD5 lGi

pus sy pus X 1 .0 1 , 4.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2 E ^ t ^ pus sy cat poos x kat 1 .0 1 , 4.01, 1.01 16.05 , 0 , 1.01 3Gi 362 put poot 1.01 16.05 lGi put ting poot m g 1.01, 1.03 16.05 , 1.03 2 Gi puz zle puz ’ 1 1.01, 17.00 1 .0 1 , 0 2Gii quack kwak 20.00 1.04 IE quart kwort 20.00 6.04 lFi

ro o » 0 01 to quar ter kwor ter o . o 6.04, 6.02 2 Fi queen kwen 20.00 5.01 IE queer kw^r 11.04 6.02 lFii ques tion kwes /chun 2 0 .0 0 , 16.10 1.04, 1.07 2Jiii quick kwik 20.00 1.04 iE quick ly kwik7li 20.00, 4.01 1.04, 1.01 2E qui et kwi^et 2 0 .0 0 , 1.01 5.02, 1.01 2D quilt kwi It 20.00 1.05 ID ** quit f+ 20.00 1.04 ID quite kwit 20.00 5.01 IE t \j rab bit rab it 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2E 363 race ras 2.01 5.01 lJiii rack rak 19.03 1 . 0 1 IE

— / j*5' ra di o ra di o ■5.01, 1 .0 1 , 0 5.01, 1 .0 1 , 0 3B rad ish rad xsh 1.01, 1.03 1 .0 1 , 1.03 2D rag rag 1.01 1.01 1A rail ral 11.01 5.01 IGii rail road ral rod 11.01, 11.07 5.01, 5.01 2Gii / _ rail way ral wa 1 1 .0 1 , 11.02 5.01, 5.01 2Gii rain ran 11.01 5.01 IGii rain bow ran Ho 11.01, 9.04 5.01, 5.01 2 Gii raise raz 18.01 5.01 lJiii

-/ , rai sin ra z 'n 18.01, 1.01 5.01, 0 2Jiii rain y ran i 1 1 .0 1 , 0 5.01, 0 2Gii rake rak 2.01 5 .01 IE ram ram 1.01 1.01 1A W ran ran 1.01 1.01 1A 364 ranch ranch 0 0 lHii rang rang 1.03 1.03 ID rap rap 1.01 1.01 1A rap id ly rap id li 1.01, 1.01, 4.01 1 .0 1 , 1 .0 1 , 1.01 3A rat rat 1.01 1.01 lA rate rat 2.01 5.01 IE * * rath er rath er 1.03, 6.02 1.03, 6.02 2 Fi rat tie rat7 '1 1.01, 17 .DO 1 .0 1 , 0 2 Gii A raw ro 9.01 0 lGi ray ra 11.02 5.01 IE reach rich 11.03 5.05 IGii read red 11.03 5.01 IGii — i rv read er red er 11.03, 6.02 5.01, 6.02 2Gii read ing redoing 11.03, 1.03 5.01, 1.03 2 Gii u /

reap rep 11.03 5.01 lGii

rear r^r 11.03 6.04 IFii

rea son re z'n 11.03 , 1.01 5,01, 0 2Jiii

— ^ / re build re bild 5.01, 14.05 5.01, 1.02 2 Gii j. _ t re ceive re sev 5.01, 11.05 5.01, 5.01 2Jiii / re cess re ses 5.01, 19.01 5,01, 1.01 2Jiii

re cord re kord 5.01, 6.04 5.01,6.04 2Fi

red red 1,01 1.01 1 A

red bird red ^u r d 1 .0 1 , 6.03 1 .0 1 , 6.05 2F i

red breast red brest 1 .0 1 , 12.02 1 .0 1 , 1,05 2Gii j. - > re fuse re fuz 5.01, 2.01 5.01, 5.01 2Jiii

rein deer ran d^r 16.03, 11.04 5.01, 6.02 2Gi j- . . / re joice re 3 0 1 s 5.01, 18.03 5.01, 15.01 2Jiii / re main re man 5,01, 11.01 5.01, 5.01 2 Gii ■t w / a/ re mem ber re mem ber 5.01, 1 .0 1 , 6.02 5.01, 1 .0 1 , 6 . 02 3Fi 366 j - — / re mind re mind 5.01, 5.04 5.01, 5.04 2D u - — / re move re moov 5.01, 0 5.01, 16.06 2 Gi u rent rent 1.02 1.02 ID -L- A / re pair re par 5.01, 7.04 5.01, 6.01 2Fii - u — / re pay re pa 5.01, 11.02 5.01, 5.01 2E -i ~ — / re peat re pet 5.01, 11.0 3 5.01, 5.01 2Gii _i . — ✓ re port re port 5.01,6.04 5.01,6.04 2 Fi w rest rest 1.02 1.02 ID A / re turn re turn 5.01, 6.05 5.01, 6.05 2 Fi .i. — / re view re vu 5.01, 0 5.01, 5. 01 2Hi

re ward re word / 5.01, 6.01 5.01, 6.04 2 Pi V rib rib 1.01 1.01 1 A / \j rib bon rib un 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2 Gi

rice ris 2.01 5.01 U i i i \ j rich rich 1.03 1.03 ID v rid rid 1.01 1.01 1A 367 y / ' rid die rid *1 1.01, 17.00 1 .0 1 , 0 2E ride rid 2.01 5.01 IE _ fa, rid er rid er 5.01, 6.02 5.01, 6.02 2FI rid ing r i d i n g 5.01, 1.03 5.01, 1.03 2D right rit 19.05 5.02 lGii rim rim 1. 0 1 1.01 1A ring ring 1.03 1.03 ID rip rip 1.01 1 . 0 1 1A ripe rip 2.01 5.01 IE rise ri2 2.01 5.01 Uiii — /w' ris ing riz ing 5.01, 1,03 5.01, 1.03 2Jiii ^ Is'' riv er riv er 1 ,0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2Fi road rod 11.07 5.01 lGii road side rod sid 11.07, 2,01 5.01, 5.01 2Gii roar ror 11.07 5.01 lFii

roast rost 11.07 5.04 lGii 368 u rob rob 1.01 1.01 lA V rob ber rob er 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2 Fl robe rob 2.01 5.01 IE v / v rob in rob in 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2 A rock rok 19.03 1.01 IE V/ t v rock y rok i 19.03, 0 1 .0 1 , 0 2E rock et rok et 19.03, 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2E rode rod 2.01 5.01 IE roll rol 19.01 5.01 ICi rol ler rol er 5.01, 6.02 5.01, 6.02 2Fi roof roof 16.06 16.06 ICii room room 16.06 16.06 ICii — / ✓V' roos ter roos ter 16.06, 6.02 16.06 , 6.02 2Fi root root 16.06 16.06 ICii rope rop 2.01 5.01 IE

rose roz 2.01 5.01 U i i i 369 rose bud roz bud 2 .0 1 , 1.01 5.01, 1.01 2Jiii v rot rot 1 .01 1.01 1A / rot ten rot 'n 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2 Gii V-/ rough ruf 14.04 1 .01 lGii round round 15.04 15.04 iHi route root 0 16.06 lGii row ro 9.04 5.01 lGii row boat ro ^bot 9.04, 11.07 5.01, 5.01 2Gii roy al roi al 15.02 , 1.01 15.01 , 1.01 2Hi u rub rub 1.01 1.01 1A V rubbed rubd 0 1.02 lGii sJ //V rub ber rub er 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2 Fi \S f\S rub bish rub ish 1 .0 1 , 1.03 1 .0 1 , 1.03 2E

rug rug 1.01 1.01 1A

rule rool 2.01 16.06 lGi — //v rul er rool er 5.01, 6.02 16.06 , 6.02 2Gi 370 KJ / rum ble rum b'l 1 .0 1 , 17.00 1 .0 1 , 0 2E run run 1.01 1.01 1A w rung rung 1.03 1.03 ID run ner run er 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2 Fi /\J run ning run ing 1 .0 1 , 1.03 1 .0 1 , 1.03 2E rush rush 1.03 1.03 ID \j rust rust 1.02 1.02 ID \f / v rus ty rus ti 1 .0 1 , 4.0*1 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2A rye ri 0 5.01 IE sack sak 19.03 1.01 IE V sad sad 1.01 1.01 1A w f sad die sad 11 1 .0 1 , 17.00 1 .0 1 , 0 2E sad ness sad nes 1 .0 1 , 19.01 1 .0 1 , 1 . 0 1 2 Ci safe saf 2.01 5.01 IE — V safe ty saf ti 2 .0 1 , 4.01 5.01, 1.01 2 Gii said sed 16.02 1.01 lGi 371 sail sal 11 . 0 1 5.01 lGii sail boat sal bot 11.01, 11.07 5.01, 5.01 2 Gii — sail or sal er 11.01, 6.04 5.01, 6.02 2Gii saint sant 11.01 5.04 lGii

1/ /U * o I-* • o sal ad sal ad H 1—* 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2A sale sal 2.01 5.01 IE A salt solt 10.00 0 lGi same sam 2.01 5.01 IE V/ sand sand 1.02 1.02 ID Vrf" / sand y san di 1 .0 2 , 0 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2D

u ./ y . sand wich. sand wich 1.02, 1.03 1 .0 2 , 1.03 2D w sang sang 1.03 1.03 ID sank sangk 1.03 0 ID sap sap 1.01 1.01 1A

v sash sash 1.03 1.03 ID v sat sat 1.01 1.01 1A 372 sat in sat in 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2A \J W x v/ sat is fac to ry sat is fak to ri 1 .0 1 , 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1 .0 1 , 1.01 5B 5.01, 4.01 5.01, 1.01

Sat ur day sat er di 1 .0 1 , 6.05, 11.02 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 1.01 3Gi

A' V. sau sage SO SI] 16.01 , 0 0 , 1.01 2Jiii v/ /V sav age sav 1 .0 1 , 0 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2Jiii save sav 2.01 5.01 IE — i\j sav ings sav ingz 5.01, 1.03 5.01, 1.03 2Jiii

A saw SO 9.01. 0 lGi say sa 11.02 5.01 IE scab skab 1.04 1.04 ID scales skalz 0 5.02 lJiii A scare skar 8.01 6.01 lFi 0 0 scarf skarf 6.01 6.01 lFi school skool 16.06 16.06 lJiii school boy skool^boi 16.06, 15.02 16.06, 15.01 2Jiii school house skool1^ hous 16.06 , 18.02 16.06, 15.04 2Jiii 373 school mas ter skool^mas ter 16.06 1.01, 6.02 16.06, 1.01, 6.02 3Jiii school room skool/room 16.06 16.06 16.06, 16.06 2Jiii scorch sk£rch 6.04 6.04 lFi score skor 8.04 6.04 lFi \J scrap skrap 1.04 1.04 ID scrape skrap 2.04 5.02 IE

scratch skrach 19.03 1.06 lJi

scream skrem 11.03 5.02 lGii

screen skren 11.04 5.02 IE

screw skroo 9.02 16.06 lHi U scrub skrub 1.04 1.04 ID

sea se 11.03 5.01 lGii

seal sel 11.03 5.01 lGii

seam sem 11.03 5.01 lGii

search surch 7.01 6.05 lFii

sea son se 'n 11.03 1.01 5.01, 0 2Jiii 374 seat set 11.03 5.01 lGii sec ond sek und 1 .0 1 , 0 1 .0 1 , 1.02 2 Gi —/ se cret se kret 5.01, 1.04 5.01, 1.04 2D see se 11.04 5.01 IE seed sed 11.04 5.01 IE — fU> see ing se ing 11.04, 1.03 5.01, 1.03 2E seek sek 11.04 5.01 IE seem sera 11.04 5.01 IE seen sen 11.04 5.01 IE — / A see saw se so 11.04, 9.01 5.01, 0 2 Gi -u u / se lect se lekt 5.01, 1.02 5.01, 1.02 2D self self 1.02 1.02 ID ^ sel fish sel fish 1.01, 1.03 1.01, 1.03 2D

sell sel 19.01 1.01 ICi \j send send 1.02 1.02 ID

sense sens 3.00 1.02 IE 375 sent sent 1.02 1.02 ID L/ / \J sen tence sen tens 1 .0 1 , 3.00 1 .0 1 , 1.02 2Jiii / • — sep a rate sep a rat 1 .0 1 , 0 , 2.01 1 .0 1 , 0, 5.01 3E \J / /-v* Sep tern ber sep tem ber 1 .0 1 , 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 1 .0 1 , 6.02 3Fi A / V ser vant sur vant 6 .0 2 , 1.02 6.05, 1.02 2 Fi A serve surv 6.02 6.05 lFi A t \J ser vice sur vis 6 .0 2 , 3.00 6.05, 1.01 2Jiii set set 1.01 1.01 1A \j / '-i set ting set ing 1 .0 1 , 1.03 1 .0 1 , 1.03 2D / set tie set 11 1 .0 1 , 17.00 1 .0 1 , 0 2E set tie ment set '1 ment 1 .0 1 , 17.00, 1.02 1 .0 1 , 0 , 1.02 3E \J sev en sev en 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2A \j t\J — / sev en teen sev en ten 1 .0 1 , 1.01, 11.04 1 .0 1 , 1.01, 5.01 3E 1/ J u sev enth sev enth 1 .0 1 , 0 1 .0 1 , 0 2Hii sev en ty sev en ti 1 .0 1 , 1.01, 4.01 1 .0 1 , 1 .0 1 , 1.01 3A \j fs* \s sev er al sev er al 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 10.00 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 10.00 3Fi 376 sew so 0 5.01 lGi shade shad 2.07 5.03 IE v// — shad ow shad o 1.07, 9.04 1.07, 0 2 Gii — /V> shad y shad i 5.03, 0 5.03, 0 2D shake shak 2.07 5.03 IE —— / shak er shak er 5.03, 6.02 5.03, 6 .02 2 Fi — / w shak ing shak ing 5.03, 1.03 5.03, 1.03 2D shall shal 10.00 1.01 ID shame sham 2.07 5.03 IE t%o shan't shant 1.08 0 lGi

shape shap 2.07 5.03 IE

share shar 8.01 6.01 lFi ♦ 0 sharp sharp 6.01 6.01 lFi

shave shav 2.07 5.03 IE

she she 5.03 5.03 ID

shear sh^r 11.03 6.02 lFii 377 shears sherz 11.03 6.02 lJiii shed shed 1.07 1.07 ID she1 d shed 5.03 5.03 ID she’11 shel 19.01 5.03 ID sheep shep 11,04 5.03 IE sheet shet 11.04 5.03 IE shelf shelf 1,08 1.08 ID shell shel 19.01 * 1.07 ID L/ /A* shep herd shep erd 1.07, 0 1.07, 6.02 2Gii she's shez 5.03 5.03 lJiii shine shin 2,07 5.03 IE shin ing shin ing 5.03, 1.03 5.03, 1.03 2D — / w shin y shin i 5.03, 0 5.03, 0 2D \j ship ship 1.07 1.07 ID A shirt shurt 6.03 6.05 lFi V/ shock shok 19.01 1.07 IE 378 shoe shoo 16.04 16,06 lGi — / _ r~> shoe mak er shoo mak er 16.04, 5.01, 6.02 16,06, 5.01, 6,02 3Gi shone shon 2.07 5,03 IE shook shook 16.05 16.05 ID shoot shoot 16.06 16.06 ID shop shop 1.07 1.07 ID shop ping shop ing 1,07, 1.03 1.07, 1.03 2 E shore shor 8.04 6.04 lFi short short 6.04 6.04 lFi shot shot 1.07 1.07 ID should sIi55od 16.08 16,05 lGii shoul der shol der 11.09, 6.02 5.03, 6.02 2Gii should n*t shood rnt 16.08, 0 16.05, 0 2Gi shout shout 15.04 15,04 IHi

shov el shuv 11 0 , 1.01 1.07, 0 2Gii

show sho 9.04 5.03 lGii 379 show er sho er 9.03, 6.02 5.03, 6.02 2Hi shut shut 1.07 1.07 ID shy shi 4.00 5.03 ID sick sik 19.03 1,01 IE / v sick ness sik nes 19.03, 19.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2E side sid 2.01 5.01 IE side walk sid wok 2 .0 1 , 0 5.01, 0 2Gii side ways sid waz 2 .0 1 , 11.02 5.01, 5.01 2jiii sigh si 0 5.01 lGii sight sit 19.05 5.01 lGii sign sin 0 5,01 lGii r/ si lence si lens 5.01, 3.00 5.01, 1.02 2Jiii t si lent si lent 5.01, 1.02 5.01, 1.02 2D silk silk 1.02 1.02 ID V sill sil 19.01 1.01 iCi \s i \J sil ly Sil 1 1.01, 4.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2e 380 sil ver sil ver 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2Fi / / sim pie sim p'l 1 .0 1 , 17.00 1 .0 1 , 0 2E sin sin 1.01 1 JO 1 1A since sins 3.00 1.02 lJiii sing sing 1.03 1.03 ID V 1 ■v’ sing er sing er 1.03, 6.02 1.03, 6.02 2Fi y / sing le sing g'l 1.03, 17.00 1.03, 0 2Jiii sink singk 1.03 0 ID sip sip 1.01 1.01 1A sir sur 6.03 6.05 lFi sis sis 1.01 1.01 1A t sis sy sis i 1 .0 1 , 4.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2E V / AJ sis ter sis ter 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2Fi sit sit 1.01 1.01 1A i V sit ting sit ing 1 .0 1 , 1.03 1 .0 1 , 1.03 2E six siks 1.01 1.02 1A 381 six teen siks ten 1.01 11.04 1.02, 5.01 2E O' sixth skisth 0 0 iHii w' / \S six ty siks ti 1.01 4.01 1.02, 1.01 2A size siz 2.01 5.01 IE skate skat 2.04 5.02 IE

_ 1 ^ skat er skat er 5.02 6.02 5.02, 6.02 2Fi

ski ske 0 5.02 lGi

skin skin 1.04 1.04 ID U skip skip 1.04 1.04 ID

skirt skurt 6.03 6.05 lFi

sky ski 4.00 5.02 ID

slam slam 1.04 1.04 ID

slap slap 1.04 1.04 ID

slate slat 2.04 5.02 IE

slave slav 2.04 5.02 IE

sled sled 1.04 1.04 ID 382 sleep slep 11.04 5.02 IE sleep y slepi- f 1* 11.04, 0 5.02, 0 2E sleeve slev 11.04 5.02 IE sleigh sla 16.03 5.02 lGii slept slept 1.05 1.05 ID slice slis 2.04 5.02 lJiii slid slid 1.04 1.04 ID slide slid 2.04 5.02 IE sling sling 1.06 1.06 ID slip slip 1.04 1.04 ID slipped slipt 0 1.05 lJiii y slip per slip er 1.04, 6.02 1.04, 6.02 2 Fi ^ y slip per y slip er i 1.04, 6 .0 2 , 0 1.04, 6 .0 2 , 0 3Fi slit slit 1.04 1.04 ID slow slo 9.04 5.02 lGii _ t u slow ly slo li 9.04, 4.01 5.02, 1.01 2 Gii 383 sly sli 4.00 5.02 ID smack smak 19.03 1.04 IE small smol 10.00 0 lGi smart smart 6.01 6.01 lFi smell smel 19.01 1.04 ID smile smil 2.04 5.02 IE smoke smok 2.04 5.02 IE smooth smoofeh- 16.06 16.06 ID snail snal 11.01 5.02 lGii snake snak 2.04 5.02 IE snap snap 1.04 1.04 ID snap ping snap m g 1.04, 1.03 1.04, 1.03 2 e sneeze sriez 11.04 5.02 IE snow sno 9.04 5.02 lGii snow ball sno bol 9.04, 10.00 5.02, 0 2 Gii snow flake sno flak 9.04, 2.04 5.02, 5.02 2Gii 384 snow y sno/ i 9.04, 0 5.02, 0 2 Gii snuff snuf 19.01 1.04 ID snug snug 1.04 1.04 ID so so 5.01 5.01 IB soak sok 11.07 5.01 lGii soap sop 11.07 5.01 lGii u sob sob 1.01 1.01 1A socks soks 19.0 3 1.02 IE sod sod 1 .01 1.01 1A so da so da 5.01, 1.01 5.01, 1.01 2B

—- fx .T so fa so fa 5.01, 1.01 5.01, 1.01 2B soft soft 1.02 1.02 ID soil soil 15.01 15.01 lHi sold sold 5.04 5.04 ID

■- - / .A> sol dier sol jer 5.01, 0 5.01, 6.02 2Jiii sole sol 2 .01 5.01 IE u some sum 0 1.01 lGi ^ 1 ^ ^ some bod y sum bod i 0 , 1 .0 1 , 0 1 .0 1 , 1 .0 1 , 0 3Gii some how sum hou 0, 9.03 1 .0 1 , 15.04 2Hi some one sum wun 0 , 0 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2 Gii »—1 / some thing sum thing 0, 1.09 1 .0 1 , 1.09 2 Gii some time sum tim 0 , 2.01 1 .0 1 , 5.01 2Gii , r some times sum timz 0 , 2.01 1 .0 1 , 5.02 2Jiii U A some where sum hwar 0 , 8.02 ’ 1 .0 1 , 6.01 2Gii son sun 0 1.01 lGi vSj song song 1.03 1.03 ID soon soon 16.06 16.06 ICii sore sor 8.04 6.04 lFi i— sor row sor o 6.04, 9.04 6.04, 0 2Gii o- / V sor ry sor l 6.04, 4.01 6.04, 0 2 Fi sort sort 6.04 6.04 lFi soul sol 11.09 5.01 lGii 386 sound sound 15.04 15.04 lHi soup soop 0 16.06 lGi sour sour 15.04 15.04 lFii south south 15.04 15.04 lHi V-/ / south e m sufeh e m 14.04, 6.02 1.03, 6.02 2Gii space spas 2.04 5.02 lJiii spade spad 2.04 5.02 IE spank spangk 1.06 0 ID spar row spar o 6.01, 9.04 6 .0 1 , 0 2Gii speak spek 11.03 5.02 lGii —■ * speak er spek er 11.03, 6.02 5.02, 6.02 2 Gii

spear sp^r 11.03 6.02 lFii

speech spech 11.04 5.02 IE

speed sped 11.04 5.02 IE

spell spel 19.01 1.04 ID

spel ling spel' ing 1.04, 1.03 1.04, 1.03 2e 387 spend spend 1.05 1.05 ID spent spent 1.05 1.05 ID spi der s p i 7 der 5.02, 6.02 5.02, 6.02 2Fi spike spik 2.04 5.02 IE IS spill spil 19.01 1.04 ID w spin spin 1.04 1.04 ID

\ S ( y j spin ach spin ich 1.04, 0 1.04, 1.03 2 Gi u 1 spir it spir it 6,03, 1.01 6.03, 1.01 2Fi

spit spit 1,04 1.04 ID

splash splash 1.06 1.06 ID

spoil spoil 15.01 15.01 lHi

spoke spok 2.04 5.02 IE

spook spook 16.06 16.06 ID

spoon spoon 16.06 16.06 ID

sport sport 6,04 6.04 lFi u spot spot 1.04 1.04 ID 388 spread spred 12.02 1.04 lGii V spring spring 1.06 1.06 ID t — spring time spring tim 1.06, 2.01 1.06, 5.01 2E 1/ i sprin kle spring k'l 1.04, 17.00 1.06 , 0 2Jiii square skv/ar 20.00 6.01 lFi squash skwosh 20.00 1.06 lGi squeak skwek 20.00 5.01 lGii squeeze skwez 20.00 5.01 IE squir rel skwur el 2 0 .0 0 , 1.01 6.05, 1.01 2 Fi sta ble sta b'l 5.02, 17.00 5.02, 0 2E stack stak 19.03 1.04 IE . stage staj 2.04 5.02 lJiii stair st^r 7.04 6.01 lFii stall stol 10.00 0 lGi stamp stamp 1.05 1.05 ID stand stand 1.05 1.05 ID 389 * * star star 6.01 6.01 lFi stare st&r 8.01 6.01 lFi start start 6.01 6 . 0 1 lFi starve starv 6.01 6.01 lFi state stat 2.04 5.02 IE — / u sta tion sta shun 5.02, 16.10 5.02, 1.07 2Jiii stay sta 11.02 5.02 IE steak stak 13.01 5.02 lGii steal stel 11.03 5.02 lGii steam stem 11.03 5.02 lGii / steam boat stem hot 11.03, 11.07 5.02, 5.01 2Gii steam er stem er 11.03, 6.02 5.02, 6.02 2Gii steel stel 11.04 5.02 IE steep step 11.04 5.02 IE / stee pie ste p'l 11.04, 17.00 5.02, 0 2E steer ster 11.04 6.02 lFii 390 stem stem 1.04 1.04 ID . step step 1.04 1.04 ID f y step ping step ing 1.04, 1.03 1.04, 1.03 2E stick stik 19.03 1.04 IE stick y stik i 19.03, 0 1.04, 0 2E stiff stif 19.01 1.04 ID still stil 19.01 1.04 ID v', / ^ still ness stil nes 19.01, 19*.01 1.04, 1.01 2D sting sting 1.06 1.06 ID stir stur 6.03 6.05 lFi stitch stich 19.03 1.06 lJi stock stok 19.03 1.04 IE stock ing stok iy ing 19.03, 1.03 1.04, 1.03 2E stole stol 2.04 5.02 IE stone ston 2.04 5.02 IE stood stood 16.05 16.05 ID 391 stool stool 16.06 16.06 ID stoop stoop 16.06 16.06 ID

Stop stop 1.04 1.04 ID

stopped stopt 0 1.05 IJiii

stop ping stop m g 1.04, 1.03 1.04, 1.03 2E store stor 8,04 6.04 lFi stork stork 6.04 6.04 lFi stor ies sto riz 6.04, 13.04 6.04, 1.01 2Jiii

storm storm 6.04 6.04 lFi

stor my stor mi 6.04, 4.01 6.04, 1.01 2 Fi

stor y sto ri 6.04, 0 5.02, 1 .01 2 Fi stove stov 2.04 5.02 IE

straight strat 11.01 5.02 lGii

strange stranj 2.06 5.02 IJiii

stran ger stran ger 5.02, 6.02 5.02, 6.02 2Jiii

strap strap 1.04 1.04 ID 392 . A straw stro 9.01 0 lGi , /\ /, \S 'l' straw ber ry stro ber 1 9.01, 6.02, 4.01 0 , 6.02 , 0 3Gi stream stfem 11.03 5.02 lGii street stret 11.04 5.02 IE stretch strech 19.03 1.06 lJi string string 1.06 1.06 ID strip strip 1.04 1.04 ID stripes -- 0 lGii strong strong 1.06 1.06 ID stuck stuk 19.03 1.04 IE yj U -' • o O stud y stud i 1 1.04, 0 2D stuff stuf 19.01 1.04 ID stump stump 1.05 1.05 ID stung stung 1.06 1.06 ID i sub ject sub ;jekt 1 .0 1 , 1.02 1 .0 1 , 1.02 2D such such 1.03 1.03 ID suck suk 19.03 1.01 IE sud den sud 'n 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2 Gii

t n j suf fer suf er 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2Fi sug ar shoog er 0 , 6.101 16.05 , 6.02 2Jiii suit sut 11.11 5.01 lGii sum sum 1.01 1.01 1A ^1 * sum mer sum er 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2 Fi 4J sun sun 1.01 1.01 1A \j Sun day sun di 1 .0 1 , 11.02 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2 Gi

\ j t sun flow er sim flou er 1 .0 1 , 9.03, 6.02 1 .0 1 , 15.04, 6.02 3Hi sung sung 1.03 1.03 ID \J sunk sungk 1.03 0 ID sun light sun lit 1 .0 1 , 19.05 1 .0 1 , 5.01 2 Gii sun ny sun 1 1 .0 1 , 4.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2E

^ i -r sun rise sun n z 1 .0 1 , 2.01 1 .0 1 , 5.01 2Jiii \S * V . sun set sun set 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2A 394 v / *r sun shine sun shin 1 .0 1 , 2,04 1 .0 1 , 5,03 2E U /,-u sup per sup er 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6,02 2 Fi v — / sup pose su poz 1 .0 1 , 2.01 1 .0 1 , 5,01 2Jiii sure shoor 8.04 7.03 IJiii

-— - / ^ sure ly shoor li 8.05, 4.01 16.05 , 1.01 2Jiii A / V sur face sur fis 6.05, 0 6.05, 1.01 2Jiii A - / sur prise sur p n z 6.05, 2.04 6.05, 5.02 2Jiii \s / — swal low swol o 10.00 ,9.04 1.04, 0 2Gii w swam swam 1.04 1.04 ID swamp swomp 0 1.05 lGi swan swon 0 1.04 lGi w swat swot 0 1.04 lGi

A swear swar 7.02 6.01 lFii \j sweat swet - 12.02 1.04 lGii \J /<-\> sweat er swet er 12.02 , 6.02 1.04, 6.02 2 Gii sweep swep 11.04 5.02 IE 395 sweet swet 11.04 5.02 IE sweet heart swet hart 11.04, 0 5.02, 6.01 2 Fii — / \j sweet ness swet nes 11.04, 19.01 5.02, 1.01 2E \j swell swel 19.01 1.04 ID

swept swept 1.05 1.05 ID 'w*' swift swift 1.05 1.05 ID

swim swim 1.04 1.04 ID

swim ming swim ing 1.04, 1.03 1.04, 1.03 2E V swing swing 1.06 1.06 ID V switch swich 19.03 1.06 lJi

sword sord 6.04 6.04 lGii

swore swor 8.04 6.04 lFi — / , ta ble ta b'l 5.01, 17.00 5.01, 0 2E

_ / «6 s ta ble cloth ta b'l kloth 5.01, 17.00, 1.06 5.01, 0 , 1.06 3Gii

ta ble spoon ta ^b 11 spoon 5.01, 17.00, 16.06 5.01, 0 , 16.06 3Gii \j i v tab let tab let 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2A 396 V tack tak 19.03 1.01 IE \j tag tag 1.01 1.01 1A tail tal 1 1.01 5.01 lGii — / /V tai lor ta ler 11.01, 6.04 5.01, 6.02 2Gii take tak 2.01 5.01 IE — )

U 0 than ;fcfian 1.07 1.07 ID thank thangk 1.09 0 ID

\ y thanks thangks 0 0 lHii thank ful thangk fool 1.09, 1.01 0 , 16 .05 2 Gi ^ u /u Thanks giv ing thangks giv ing 0, 1.01, 1.03 0, 1. 01, 1.03 3Hii • i/ that £fiat 1.07 1.07 ID that1s 1.08 ID /A/ the £lle 0 0 lGi the a ter the a ter 5.03, 0 , 6,02 5.03, 0 , 6.02 3Fi 399 thee £i(e 11.04 5.03 IE their ^Kar 0 6.01 lFii them ^Jznem 1.07 1.07 ID then then 1.07 1.07 ID there Jz&sir 8.02 6.01 lFi these ^ e z 2.07 5.03 IJiii they £ha 15.03 5.03 lHi they'd ^hhad 15.03 5.03 lHi they’11 --- 15.03 lHi they're 0 6.01 lFii they *ve 0 lHi » thick thik 19.03 1.07 lGii thief thef 13.04 5.03 lGii ^ / thim ble thim b'l 1.07, 17.00 1.07, 0 2E V thin thin 1.07 1.07 ID thing thing 1.09 1.09 ID 400 think thingk 1.09 0 ID third thurd 6.03 6.05 lFi

A / Y thirs ty thurs ti 6.03, 4.01 6.05, 1.01 2Fi

,, A / - / thir teen thur ten 6.03, 11.04 6.03, 5.01 2 E l

A / ^ thir ty thur ti 6.03, 4.01 6.05, 1.01 2 EL V this £his 1.07 1.07 ID tho 5.03 5.03 ID thorn thorn 6.04 6.04 lFi those $i(oz 2.07 5.03 IJiii though ptfo 11.09 5.03 lGii thought thot 12.03 0 lGii

/ v - thou sand thou 2 and 15.04, 1,02 15.04, 1.02 2jiii

thread thred 12.02 0 lHii

three thre 11.04 0 IE

threw throo 9.02 16.06 lHi

throat throt 11.07 0 lHii 401 throne thron 0 0 lHii through throo 0 16.06 lGii throw thro 9.04 0 lHii thrown thron t 9.04 0 lHii , \J thumb thum 19.01 1.07 lGii L/ ✓ ✓ V thun der thun der 1.07, 6.02 1.07, 6.02 2Fi .. A t y Thurs day thurz dx 6.05, 11.02 6.05, 1.01 2Jiii thy 4.00 5.03 ID tick tik 19.03 1.01 IE . \j f\J tick et tik et 19.03, 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2E y t tick le tik '1 19.03, 17.00 1 .0 1 , 0 2E tie t± 11.12 5.01 IE — / nj ti ger ti ger 5.01, 6.02 5.01, 6.02 2Fi tight tit 19.05 5.01 lGii u till til 19.01 1.01 ICi time tim 2.01 5.01 IE 402 tin tin 1 . 0 1 1 , 0 1 1A ^ / tin kle ting k'l 1 ,0 1 , 1 7 ,0.Q 1,03, Q 2Jiii U f u ti ny ti ni 5.01,4,01 5,01, 1 , 0 1 2B U tip tip 1.01 1,01 1A u / — tip toe tip to 1 .0 1 , 11.08 1 .0 1 , 5,01 2E tire tir 8.03 6.03 lFi tired tird 0 6.03 lGii * tis tiz 1.01 1.01 IJiii ti tie t 7 /tri 5,01, 17,00 5.01, 0 2E to too 0 16.06 lGi toad tod 11,07 5,01 lGii toad stool tod stool 11,07, 15.06 5.01, 16,06 2Gii

toast tost 11.07 5.04 lGii i_/ f— to bac co to bak o 5.01, 1.01, 5.01 5.01, 1 .0 1 , 0 3e

to day too da 0 , 11 .02 16.06 , 5.01 2 Gi

toe to 11.08 5.01 IE 403 , r~> to geth er too geth er 0, 1.03, 6.02 16.06, 1.03, 6.02 3Gi toi let toi7 let 15.01, 1.01 15.01, 1.01 2 Hi told told 5.04 5.04 ID X - to roa to to ir.a to 5.01, 5.01, 5.01 5.01, 5 .01, 5.01 3B \S / —• to mor row too mor o 0, 6.04, 9.04 16.06, 6.04, 0 3Gii ton tun 0 1 . 0 1 lGi tone ton 2.01 5.01 IE tongue tung 0 1.03 lGii _ / to night too nit 0, 19.05 16.06, 5.01 2 Gii too too ^.6 .06 16.06 ICii took took 16.05 16.05 ICii tool tool 16.06 16.06 ICii toot toot 16.06 16.06 ICii

tooth tooth 16.06 16.06 ID __ i wJ tooth brush tooth brush 16.06, 1.06 16.06, 1.06 2D __ _ / ^ tooth pick tooth pik 16.06, 19.03 16.06, 1.01 2E 404 \/ top top 1,01 1, 0 1 lA tore tor 8.04 6.04 lFi t o m t o m 8,04 6,04 lFi & toss tos 19,01 1 .01 lCi yj touch tuch 14 ,04 1.03 lGii tow to 9.04 5.01 lGii to ward tc/erd 1,06, 6.01 5.01, 6.02 2Gii — / , to wards to erdz 0 , 6.01 5.01, 6.02 2Jiii tow el tou el 9.03, 1.01 15.04, 1,01 2Hi tow er tou er 9.03, 6.02 15.04, 6,02 2Hi town toun 9.03 15,04 lHi toy toi 15.02 15.01 lHi trace tras 2.04 5.02 IJiii track trak 19.03 1.04 IE trade trad 2.04 5.02 IE train trail 1 1 . 0 1 5.02 lGii 405 tj tramp tramp 1.05 1.05 ID trap tr&p I.04 1.04 ID tray tra II.02 5.02 IE treas ure trezhf ^r 12.02, 8.05 1.02, 6.02 2Jiii

tre at tret 11.03 5.02 lGii

tree tre 11.04 5.02 IE

trick trik 19.03 1.04 IE — / ^ tri cy cle tri sik 5.02, 4.01, 17.00 5.02, 1.01, 0 3Jiii

tried trid 11.12 5.02 lGii

trim trim 1.04 1.04 ID

trip trip 1.04 1.04 ID

trol ley trol i 1.04, 4.01 1.04, 0 2Gi

'-j t * troub le trub '1 14.04, 17.00 1.04, 0 2Gii o truck truk 19.03 1.04 IE

true troo 16.09 16.06 lGi

_____ / tru ly troo li 5.02, 4.01 16.06, 1.01 2Gi 406 t/ trunk trungk 1.06 0 ID trust trust 1.05 1.05 ID truth trooth 1.06 16.06 lGi try tri 4.00 5.02 ID tub tub 1.01 1.01 1A - / ^ Tues day tuz dr 11.10 , 11.02 5.01, 1.01 2Jiii tug tug 1.01 1.01 1A _ i tu lip tu lip 5.01, 1.01 5.01, 1 .01 2B rH o w / 1 - 9 turn ble turn b'l 1 .0 1 , 17.00 1 0 2E tune tun 2.01 5.01 IE tun nel tun el 1 .0 1 , 1 .01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2E - ; y tur key tur ki 6.05, 4.01 6.05, 1 .01 2 Gi ' turn turn 6.05 6.05 lFi /v / tur tie tur t'l 6.05, 17.00 6.05, 0 2Fi twe lve twelv 3.00 1.05 IE •w' / tJ twen ty twen ti 1.04, 4.01 1.04, 1.01 2D 407 twice twis 2. 04 5.02 IJiii twig twig 1. 04 1.04 ID twin twin 1. 04 1.04 ID two too 0 16,06 lGii ug ly ug li 1. 01 4.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2A \S sj s . urn brel la um brel a 1. 01 1.04, 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.04, 0 3E \j I un cle ung k'l 1. 01 17.00 1.03, 0 2Jiii un der un der 1. 01 6 .0*2 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2Fi un der stand un der stand 1. 01 6 .0 2 , 1.05 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 1.05 3Fi U i ^ A. un der wear un der war 1. 01 6 .0 2 , 7.02 1 .0 1 , 6 .0 2 , 6 .01 3Fii \J .. '■S t un dress un dres 1. 01 19.01 1 .0 1 , 1.04 2 Ci o / un fair un far 1. 01 7.04 1 .0 1 , 6 .01 2Fii o y i un fin ished un fin rsht 1. 01 1 .0 1 , 0 1 .0 1 , 1 .0 1 , 0 3Jiii o — / un fold un fold 1 . 01 5.01 1 .0 1 , 5.04 2D

j t y un friend ly un frend li 1. 01 14.03 , 4.01 1 .0 1 , 1.05, 1 .01 3Gii

o ^ 1 V* un hap py un hap l 1. 01 1 .0 1 , 4.01 1 .0 1 , 1 .0 1 , 0 3E 408 un hurt un hurt 1 .0 1 , 6.05 1.01, 6.05 2Fi u ni form u ni form 0 , 1 .01, 6.04 0, 1.01, 6.04 3Fi

U ni ted States u nit ed stats 0 , 5. 0 1 , 1 .0 1 . 0 0, 5.01, 1.01, 5.02 2Gii IS — un kind un kind 1 .0 1 , 5.04 1.01, 5.04 2D ■u _ un known un non 1 .0 1 , 0 1.01, 5.01 2Gii un less un les 1 .0 1 , 19.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2 Ci

\J X j / un pleas ant un plez ant 1 .0 1 , 1 2 .0 2 , 1.02 1.01, 1.04, 1. 02 3Jiii

* un til un til 1.01 1 .01 2A v/ y _ / y un wil ling un wil m g 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1.03 1 .0 1 , 1 .0 1 , 1 .03 3D V up up 1.01 1. 0 1 1A is f u pon u pon 0 , 1 .01 0 , 1. 0 1 2A Kj / Z'-' up per up er 1 .0 1 , 6.02 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2 Fi

V / xJ up set up set 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01 2A up side up sid 1 .0 1 , 2.01 1.01, 5.01 2E yj ,s* up stairs up starz 1 .0 1 , 7.04 1 .0 1 , 6.01 2Jiii

up town up toun 1 .0 1 , 9.03 1.01, 15.04 2Hi 409 V ( A, up ward up werd 1 .0 1 , 6.01 1 .0 1 , 6.02 2Fi us us 1.01 1.01 1A use us 2.01 5.06 IE used uzd 0 5.04 IJiii — / use ful us fool 2 .0 1 , 1 . 0 1 5.06, 16.05 2Gii <✓ / \S — val en tine val en tin 1 .0 1 , 1 .0 1 , 2.01 1 .0 1 , 1.01, 5.01 3E val ley val i 1 .0 1 , 4.01 1 .0 1 , 0 2E \> / j- 0 val u a ble val u a b 1 1 .0 1 , 0, 0, 17.00 1 .0 1 , 0 , 0 , 0 4E

\ j / — val ue val u 1 .0 1 , 0 1 .0 1 , 0 2E vase vas 2.01 5.01 IE / - l - veg e ta ble vej e ta b ’l 1 .0 1 , 0 , 1 .0 1 , 1 .0 1 , 0 , 1 .0 1 , 0 4Jiii 17.00 / \ J vel vet vel vet 1 .0 1 , 1.01 1 .0 1 , 1 .01 2A \j ) w ver y ver i 6 .0 2 , 0 6 .0 2 , 0 2Fi v / ves sel ves ’ 1 1 .0 1 , 1 .01 1 .0 1 , 0 2 E / -u V-/ vie to ry vik to ri 1 .0 1 , 5.01, 4.01 1 .0 1 , 5.01, 1.01 3B view vu 0 5.01 lJii 410 vil lage vil ij 1.01, 0 1.01, 1.01 2Jiii vine vin 2.01 5.01 IE — f-L vi o let vi o let 5.01, 0, 1.01 5.01, 0, 1.01 3B V i u vis it viz it 1.01, 1.01 1.01, 1.01 2Jiii v ru vis i tor viz i ter 1.01, 0, 6.04 1.01, 0, 6.02 3Jiii voice vois 18.03 15.01 IJiii vote vot 2.01 5.01 IE wag wag 1.01 1.01 1A U i\J wag on wag un 1.01, 0 1.01, 1.01 2Gi waist wast 11.01 5.04 lGii wait wat 11.01 5.01 lGii wake wak 2.01 5.01 IE — ) v wak en wak en 5.01, 1.01 5.01, 1.01 2B walk wok 0 0 lGii wall wol 10.00 0 lGi A / U wal nut wol nut 10.00, 1.01 0, 1.01 2Gi 411 want wont 1.02 1.02 lGi A war wor 6.01 6.04 lFi 4 warm worm 6.01 6.04 lFi A warn worn 6.01 6.04 lFi was woz 0 1.01 IJiii u wash wosh 0 1.03 lGi W / /V wash er wosh er 0, 6.02 1.03, 6.02 2Gi U / \j wash tub wosh tub 0, 1.01 1.03, 1.01 2Gi was n ’t -- 0, 0 2Jiii waste wast 2.02 5.04 IE u watch woch 0 1.03 lJi ^ / 1/ watch man woch man 0, 1.01 1.03, 1.01 2Ji A /, a/ wa ter wo ter 0, 6.02 0, 6.02 2Gi At A/ V U wa ter mel on wo ter mel un 0, 6.02, 1.01, 0 0, 6.02, 1.01, 1.01 4Gi A / / V -- / wa ter proof wo ter proof 0, 6.02, 16.06 0, 6.02, 16.06 3Gi wave wav 2.01 5.01 IE wax waks 1.01 1.02 1A way wa 11.02 5.01 IE way side wa #sid 11.02, 2.01 5.01, 5.01 IE we we 5.ol 5.01 IB weak wek 11.03 5.01 lGii weak en wek en 11.03, 1.01 5.01, 1.01 2Gii weak ness wek nes 11.03, 19.01 5.01, 1.01 2Gii wealth we 1th 12.02 0 lHii weap on wep un 12.02, 0 1.01, 1.01 2Gii wear Weir 7.02 6.01 lFii / v wear y wer i 11.03, 0 6.02, 0 2Fii weath er weth er 12.02, 6.02 1.03, 6.02 2Gii weave wev 11.03 5.01 lGii web web 1.01 1.01 1A we 'd wed 5.01 5.01 IB wed ding wed ing 1.01, 1.03 1.01, 1.03 2E / t-/ Wednes day wenz di 0, 11.02 1.02, 1.01 2Jiii wee we 11.04 5.01 IE weed wed 11.04 5.01 IE week wek 11.04 5.01 IE w e ’ll wel 5.01 5.01 ICi weep wep 11.04 5.01 IE weigh wa 16.03 5.01 lGii wel come wel kum 1.01, 0 ' 1.01, 1.01 2Gi V well wel 19.01 1.01 ICi u went went 1.02 1.02 ID A were wur 6.02 6.05 lFi w e ' re --- 8.02 lFi w west west 1.02 1.02 ID ^ / * / wes tern wes tern 1.01, 6.02 1.01, 6.02 2Fi V wet wet 1.01 1.01 1A w e ' ve --- 2.01 IE 414 whale hwal 2.07 5.02 IE what hwot 0 1.04 lGi what's hwots 0 1.05 lGi wheat hwet 11.03 5.02 lGii wheel hwel 11.04 5.01 IE when hwen 1.07 1.04 ID when ev er hwen ev er 1.07, 1.01, 6.02 1.04, 1.01, 6.02 3Fi where hwar 8.02 6.01 lFi which hwich 1.09 1.06 ID while hwil 2.07 5.02 IE whip hwip 1.07 1,04 ID \j whipped hwipt 0 1.08 IJiii whirl hwurl 6.03 6.05 lFi whis key hwis ki 1.07, 4,01 1.04, 1.01 2Gi t/ / /%/ whis per hwis per 1.07, 6.02 1.04, 6,02 2Fi ^ / whis tie hwis '1 1.07, 17.00 1.04, 0 2Gii 415 white hwit 2.07 5.02 IE who hoo 0 16.06 lGii w h o 1 d hood 0 16.06 lGii whole hoi 2.07 5.01 lGii

w h o 111 hool 0 16.06 lGii

whom hoom 0 16.06 lGii

w h o 1 s hooz 0 16 .06 IJiii

whose hooz 0 16.06 U i i i

why hwi 4.00 5.02 ID f\J wick ed wik ed 19.03, 1.01 1.01, 1.01 2E

wide wid 2.01 5.01 IE

wife wif 2.01 5.01 IE ^ / wig gle wig *1 1.01, 17.00 1.01, 0 2E

wild wild 5.04 5.04 ID

wild cat wild^kat 5.04, 1.01 5.04, 1.01 2B w will wil 19.01 1.01 lCi W /\J wil ling wil ing 1.01 1.03 1.01, 1.03 2E ^ / — wil low wil o 1.01 9.04 1.01, 0 2Gii w win win 1.01 1.01 1A W wind wind 1.02 1.02 ID U / IlS wind mill wind mil 1.02 19.01 1.02, 1.01 2D u / _ win dow win do 1.01 9.04 1.01, 5.01 2Gii V / w win dy win di 1.01 4.01 1.01, 1.01 2A wine win 2.01 5.01 IE u wing wing 1.03 1.03 ID u wink wingk 1.03 0 ID V / win ner win er 1.01 6.02 1.01, 6.02 2Fi ^ / n / win ter win ter 1.01 6.02 1.01, 6.02 2Fi wipe wip 2.01 5.01 IE wire wir 8.03 6.03 lFi wise wiz 2.01 5.01 U i i i wish wish 1.03 1.03 ID 417 wit wit 1.01 1.01 1A witch wich 19.03 1.03 lJi \J with wifclf 1.03 1.03 ID V/ with out with out 1.03, 15.04 1.03, 15.04 2Hi woke wok 2.01 5.01 IE wolf woolf 0 16.05 lGi — - / ^ worn an woom an 0, 1.01 16.05 , 1.01 2Gi v«y worn en wim en 0, 1,01 1.01, 1.01 2Gi won wun 0 1.01 lGi / r*f won der wun der 0, 6.02 1.01, 6.02 2Gi w / r*s won der ful wun der fool 0, 6.02, 1.01 1.01, 6.02, 16.05 3Gi won't wont 5.04 5.04 ID wood wood 16.05 16.05 lCii wood en wood/*n 16.05, 1.01 16.05 , o 2Gii W - / u1 /v wood peck er wood pek er 15.04, 19.03, 6.02 15.04 , 1.01 , 6.02 3Fi woods 16,05 U i i i 418 v ' wool wool 16.05 16.05 ICii /(/ wool en wool en 16.05, 1.01 16.05, 1.01 2Cii word wurd 6.04 6.05 lFi wore wor 8.04 6.04 lFi work wurk 6.04 6.05 lFi A /. n/ wor ker wur ker 6.04, 6.02 6.05, 6.02 2Fi A / \J work man wurk man 6.04 r 1.01 6.05, 1.01 2Fi A world wurld 6.04 6.05 lFi A worm wurm 6.04 6.05 lFi worn worn 6.04 6.04 lFi A /V wor ry wur i 6.04, 4.01 6.05, 0 2Fi A worse wurs 6.04 6.05 lFi worst wurst 6.04 6.05 lFi A worth wurth 6.04 6.05 lFi would wood 16.08 16.05 lGii would n't --- 16.08, 0 2Gii wound woond Q 16.06 IJi wove wov 2.01 5.01 IE u wrap rap 0 1.01 lGii wrapped rapt 0 1.02 lGii wreck rek 0 1.01 lGii w wren ren 0 1.01 lGii wring ring 0 1.03 lGii write rit 0 5.01 lGii — writ ing rit ing 0, 1.03 5.01, 1.03 2Gii w / writ ten rrt 'n 0 , 1.01 1.01, 0 2Gii wrong rong 0 1.03 lGii wrote rot 0 5.01 lGii wrung rung 0 1.03 lGii

*4 yard yard 6.01 6.01 lFi 9 9 y a m y a m 6.01 6.01 lFi year yer 11.03 6.02 lFii 420 yell yel 19.01 1.01 ICi v/ / — yel low yel o 1,01, 9.04 1.01, 0 2Gii V/ yes yes 1.01 1.01 1A yes ter day yes ter di 1.01, 6.02, 11.02 1.01, 6.02, 1.01 3Gi \j yet yet 1.01 1.01 1A yolk yok 19.04 5.01 lGii V / A/ yon der yon der 1.01, 6.02 1.01, 6.02 2Fi you yoo 0 16.06 lGi you'd yood 0 16.06 lGi y o u '11 yool 0 16.06 lGi young yung 14.04 1.03 lGii young ster yung ster 14.04 , 6.02 1.03, 6.02 2Gii your yoor 0 16.05 lFii yours yoorz 0 16.05 IJiii y o u 're yoor 0 16.05 lFii your self yoor self 1.06, 1.02 16,05, 1.02 2Fii

S W / your selves yoor selvz 0, 0 16.05, 1.02 2Jiii youth yooth 0 16.06 lJi y o u 've yoov 0 16.06 lGi 422 423

TABLE 17

Dictionaries Used in Related Word Recognition Studies

Study Dictionary Used

Clymer, T. "The Utility of M. Webster's New Collegiate Phonetic Generalizations Dictionary in the Primary Grades."

Bailey, M. An Analytical M. Webster's New Collegiate Study of the Utility of Dictionary Selected Phonic General­ izations for Children In Grades ~One~Through Si>T.

Burmeister, L. An Evalua­ Barnhart, C. L. (ed.) The tion of the Inductive and American College Diction- Deductive Group Approaches ary to Teaching Selected Word Analysis Generalizations to Disabled Readers In Eighth and Ninth Grades.

Emans, R. The Usefulness M. Webster's New Collegiate of Phonics Generalizations Dictionary Above the Primary Grades.

Emans, R. and Harms, J. M. Webster's New Collegiate The Usefulness of Word Dictionary Patterns Above the Primary Grades. BIBLIOGRAPHY

424 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aaron, I. E. What teachers and prospective teachers know about phonics generalizations. Journal of Educational Research, I960, 53, 323-30.

Affleck, M. A. The utility of selected phonic generaliza­ tions when applied to a vocabulary for the intermediate grades. (Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State College, Greeley) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1967. No. 67-2622-A.

Austin, M. C. The torch lighters. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961.

Austin, M. C. and Morrison, C. The first r. New York: Macmillan, 1964. ’

Ausubel, D. P. Learning by discovery: Rational and mystique. Bulletin of the National Association of Secon­ dary School~Principals, 1961, 45, 18-58.

Bailey, M. H. The utility of phonic generalizations in grades one through six. The Reading Teacher, 1967, 20, 413-418.

Balmuth, M. The relationship between phoneme blending of nonsense syllables and silent reading achievement among elementary school children. (Doctoral dissertation, New York University) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Micro­ films, 1966. No. 66-9453.

Baratz, J. C. and Shuy, R. W. (Ed.) Teaching black child­ ren to read. Washington: Center for Applied Linguis- tics, 1969.

Barnhart, C. L. (Ed.) The American college dictionary. New York: Harper, 1961.

Barton, A. and Wilder, D. Columbia-Carnegie study of reading research and its communication. Scholastic, 1962, M 7:172-4. 425 426

Bear, D. E. Phonics for first grade: A comparison of two methods. The Elementary School Journal, 1959, 59, 394- 402.

Bedell, R. and Nelson, S. Word attack as a factor in read­ ing achievement in the elementary school. Educational Psychological Measurements, 1954, 14, 168-175^

Beltramo, L. An alphabetical approach to the teaching of reading in grade one. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1954.

Benson, J. P. Fifth grade students' knowledge of certain word analysis skills and their ability to transfer this knowledge into functional reading situations^ {"Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State College, Greeley) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1968, No. 68-14,716.

Bereiter, C. and Engleman, S. Teaching disadvantaged chil- dren in preschool. New York: Prentice-hall, 1966.

Betts, E. A. Phonics: Practical considerations based on research. Elementary English, 1956, 33, 357-371.

Bliesmer, E. P. Review of recent literature on college and adult reading. National Reading Conference, Eighth Yearbook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968. p. 171-192.

Bloom, B, S. (Ed.) Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook 1^ Cogniture Domain. New York: McKay, 1956.

Bloom, B. S., Davis, A. and Hess, R. D. Compensatory educa- tion for cultural deprivation. New York! Holt, Rinehart and Winston^ 1965.

Bloomer, R. H. Investigation of an experimental first grade phonics program. Journal of Educational Research, 1960, 53, 188-193.

Bloomfield, L. Language. New York: Henry Holt, 1933.

Bloomfield, L. Linguistics and reading. Elementary Eng- lish Review, 1942, 19, 125-130, 183-186.

Bloomfield, L. et al. A linguistic introduction to the history of English. New-York: Alfred A. Knopf, 19l> 3. 427

Bond, G. L. and Dykstra, R. The cooperative research pro­ gram in first grade reading instruction. Reading Re­ search Quarterly, 1967, 2, 1-142.

Bond, G. L. and Tinker, M. A. Reading difficulties: their diagnosis and correction. (2nd ed.) New York: Appleton, 1967.

Bormuth, J. R. The effectiveness of current procedures for teaching reading comprehension. Paper presented at the Convention of National Council of Teachers of English, Milwaukee, November, 1968.

Bormuth, J. R. An operational definition of comprehension instruction. Cited by Goodman, K. S. and Fleming, J. F. (Ed.} Psycholinguistics and the teaching of reading. Newark: International Reading Association, 196 9.

Bormuth, J. R. On the theory of achievement test items. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 19 70.

Brown, E. R. The bases of reading acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 1970, 6, 49-74.

Bruner, J. S. The process of education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960.

Bruner, J. S. The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 1961, 31, 21-32.

Bruner, J. S. et al. Studies in cognitive growth. New York: Wiley, 196 7.

Burmeister, L. E. An evaluation of the inductive and de­ ductive group approaches to teaching word analysis generalizations to disabled readers in eighth and ninth grades. Unpublisned doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1966.

Burmeister, L. E. The effect of syllabic position and accent on the phonemic behavior of single-vowel graph­ emes . Paper presented at the International Reading Association Annual Conference, Boston, 196 8. (a)

Burmeister, L. E. Usefullness of phonic generalizations. The Reading Teacher, 1968, 21, 349-356, 360. (b) 428

Burmeister, L. E. Selected word analysis generalizations for a group approach to corrective reading in the secon­ dary school. Reading Research Quarterly, 1968, 4, 71-95. (c)

Burmeister, L. E. Vowel pairs. The Reading Teacher, 1968, 21, 445-452. (d)

Burmeister, L. E. Final vowel-consonant e. Paper presen­ ted at the American Education Research Association, Los Angeles, 1969.

Burmeister, L. E. Phonics in a reading program— place and content. Paper presented at the International Reading Association Annual Meeting, Anaheim, Cal., 1970.

Burrows, A. T. and Zyra, L. When two vowels go walking. The Reading Teacher, 1963, 17, 79-82.

Carroll, J. B. Language and thought. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964.

Chall, J. S. Learning to read, the great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row, 196 8.

Clymer, Theodore. The utility of phonic generalizations in the primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 196 3, 14, 252-258.

Cohen, S. A. The fifty year gap between know-how and practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 1969, 50, 308-310.

Conant, J. The education of American teachers. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.

Courtney, L. Methods and materials for teaching word per­ ceptions in grades 10-14, Sequential development of reading abilities. Educational Monograph series, Chicago; University of Chicago Press, 1953,

Craig, R. C. Directed versus independent discovery of established relations. Journal of Educational Psycholo­ gy, 1956, 47, 223-34.

Dale, E. The critical reader. Cited by King, M. (Ed.) Critical Reading. New York: Lippincott, 196 7. 429

Dale, E. Reading and vocabulary. The News Letter, 1971, 36, No. 7.

Dale, E. and Chall, J. S. A formula for predicting reada­ bility. Educational Research Bulletin, 1948, 27, 11-20.

Dale, E., Havener, R. and Helm, G. Children's knowledge of words, an interim report. Columbus: Bureau of Educa­ tional Research and Service, Ohio State University, 1963.

Daniels, J. C. and Diack, H. The phonics word method. The Reading Teacher, 1959, 13, 14-21.

Davis, L. S. The applicability of phonic generalizations to selected spelling programs. Unpublished "doctoral dissertation , University of Oklahoma, 1969.

Dawson, M. (Ed.) Teaching word recognition skills. Delaware: International Reading Association^ 1571.

DeBoer, J. J. and Dallman, M, The teaching of reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart and' Winston, 19*677

Deighton, Z. Vocabulary development in the classroom. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, "Colum- bia, 1959.

Diack, H. Reading and the psychology of perception. Lon­ don: Philosophical'Library, 1960.

Dolch, E. V/. Teaching primary reading. Champaign, 111.: Garrard, 19427

Dolch, E. W. Phonics in first grade. Elementary English, 1955, 32, 514-18. (a)

Dolch, E. W. Recognition of long words. Education, 1955, 75, 604-608. (b)

Downing, J. Initial teaching alphabet, results after six years. Elementary School Journal, 1969, 69, 242-249.

Durkin, D. Phonics and the teaching of reading. New York: Teachers College," Columbia University, 1962*.

Durkin, D. Phonics test for teachers. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University^ 1964. 430

Durkin, D. Children who read early* Teachers College Review, 19 66, 67, 318.

Durrell, D. D. Improving reading instruction. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1956*.

Emans, R. The usefulness of phonic generalizations above the primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 1967, 20, 419-425.

Emans, R. History of phonics. Elementary English, 1968, 45, 602-608.

Emans, R. and Harms, J. The usefulness of word-patterns above the primary grades, Ohio State University, 1971.

Erdley, R. R. Patterns of eye movement in word learning. (Doctoral dissertation, University of FTorTda) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1967. No. 67- 24032A.

Evans, J. M. The development of auditory discrimination in third-grade students by use of tape-recorded materials. ^Doctoral dissertation, North Texas State University) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1965, No. 65- 15,116.

Ferguson, L. H. The applicability of specific phonic generalizations to elementary mathematics textbooks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Okla­ homa, 1970.

Fishbein, J. and Emans, R. A question of competence. Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc., 1972.

Flesch, R. Why Johnny can't read. New York: Harper and Row, 1955.

Fries, C. C. Linguistics and reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, T962.

Fries, C. C. Linguistics and reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.

Fries, C. C. et al. Merrill linguistic readers. Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill^ HT66.

Fry, E. Developing a word list for remedial reading. Elementary English, 1957, 34, 307-12. 431

Fry, E. A frequency approach to phonics. Elementary Eng­ lish, 1964 , 41, 759-765+. ‘------

Fuld, Paula. Vowel sounds in vocabulary words. The Read­ ing Teacher, 1968, 21, 442-444.

Furness, E. L. Spelling: illogical and inconsistent. Clearing House, 1959, 33, 330-333.

Gates, A. I. New methods in primary reading. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1928.

Gates, A. I. Gates reading survey. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, TS'SS.

Gates, A. I. Teaching young children to read. (USDHEW #0E30014) Washington, D. C., United States Government Printing Office, 1964.

Gelb, I. J. A study of writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952.

Gibson, E. J. et al. A developmental study of discrimina­ tion of letter-like forms. Journal of Comparative physi­ ology and psychology, 1962 , 60 , 897-‘5Tf6 .

Gibson, E., Osser, H. and Pick, A. A study of the develop­ ment of grapheme-phoneme correspondences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1963, Y~, 142-lTS".

Gibson, E., Pick, A., Osser, H. and Hammond, M. The role of grapheme-phoneme correspondence in the perception of words. American Journal of Psychology, 1963, 75, 554-570.

Gibson, E. On the perception of words. American Journal of Psychology, 1964, 77, 668-669.

Gibson, E., Shurcliff, A. and Yonas, A. Utilization of spelling patterns by deaf and hearing subjects . Cited in Levin, H. and Williams, J. Basic studies in reading. New York: Basic Books, 19 70.

Gleason, H. A. An introduction to descriptive linguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961.

Goodman, K. S. A linguistic study of cues and miscues in reading. Elementary English, 1965, 42, 639-43. 432

Goodman, K. S. Analysis of oral reading miscues: Applied psycholinguistics. Heading Research Quarterly, 1969, 5,

Gray, W. S. On their own in reading. Chicago: Scott, Fo re sman, 1 9 T 8 .

Grimes, J. W, A study of the meaning of phonics skill in its relationship to intelligence, reading, and school success. Changing Concept of Reading Instruction. Newark: International Reading Association Conference Proceedings, 1961, 6, 130-133.

Groff, P. J. A survey of basal reading group practices. Reading Teacher, 1962, 15, 232-235.

Gurren, L. and Hughes, A. Intensive phonics versus gradual phonics in beginning reading: A review. Journal of Educational Research, 1965, 58, 339-347.

Haas, W. (Ed.) Alphabets for English. Manchester, Eng.: Manchester University Press, 19 69.

Hall, J. F. Learning as a function of word frequency. American Journal of Psychology, 1954, 58, 138-140.

Halle, M. and Jakobson, R. Fundamentals of Language. The Hague: Morton, 1956.

Nanna, P. R. and Moore, J. T. Spelling— from spoken word to written symbol. Elementary School Journal, 1953, 53, 329-337.

Hanna, P. R. and Hodges, J. S. Phonemegrapheme correspon- dence as cues to spelling improvement. (Office of Educa­ tion" - ”32008) Washington, D. C., United States Govern­ ment Printing Office, 1966.

Hanson, I. H. An investigation of the effects of teaching variant word endings to first grade children. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1965. No. 65-15,142.

Harckham, L. D. and Hagen, L. V. The effects of a phonics oriented kindergarten program on auditory discrimination and reading readiness. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Assocation, Kansas City, Mo., 1970. 433

Harris, A. J. (Ed.) Readings on reading instruction. New York: David McKay, 1963.

. Harris, A. J. How to increase reading ability. (2nd ed.) New York: David McKay, 1970.

Harris, L. A. A study of the rate of acquisition and reten­ tion of interest-loaded words by Tow socioeconomic kin- dergarten children. (Doctoral-dissertation, University of Minnesota) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1967. No 68-16,271.

Harris, T. L. Some issues in beginning reading instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 1962, 56, 5-19.

Harris, T. L. Reading. The Encyclopedia of Educational Research. (4th ed) New York"! Macmillan- Co. 1969.

Hart, John. The opening of the unreasonable writing of our English toung, 155T. Reprinted by Danielson, Bror. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell, 1955.

Haslerud, G. M., and Meyers, S. The transfer value of giv­ en and individually derived principles. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1958, 49, 293-97.

Hayes, R. B. and Wuest, R. C. A three year look at i/t/a, Lippincott, Phonics and Word Power, and Scott, Foresman. Paper presented to American Education Research Associa­ tion, Washington, D. C . , 1969.

Heilman, A. W. Principles and practices of teaching read­ ing. (2nd ed.) Columbus , Ohio : M e r n l T 7 1964.

Hendrix, G. A new clue to transfer of training. Elementary School Journal, 1967, 47, 197-208.

Hildreth, G. Teaching reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 195 8.

Hillerich, R. L. Vowel generalizations and first grade reading achievement. Elementary School Journal, 196 7, 5, 246-250.

Holt, J. How children learn. New York: Pitman, 1967.

Horn, E. The child’s early experience with the letter "A". Journal of Educational Psychology, 1929, 20, 161-168. 434

Horn, E. The child's early experience with the letter "A". Journal of Educational Psychology, 1964, 55, 320-324.

Horn, E. Phonetics and spelling. Elementary School Jour­ nal, 1957, 57, 424-432.

Horn, E. Spelling. In Harris, C. W. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Educational Research. (3rd ed.) New Y o r k : MacMillan, m o , 1337-1354;------

Huelsman, C. B. Jr. Word attack rules that work? Unpub­ lished manuscript, Ohio State University, 196 7.

Huelsman, C. B. Jr., Helfenstine, S. and Kovsky, D. Word attack generalizations applied to uncommon words. Unpub­ lished manuscript, Ohio State University, 1967.

Jernigan, M. L. The utility of phonic generalizations to selected science series. CDoctoral dissertation, Universi- ty of Oklahoma) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1969. No. 70-14,418.

Johnson, D. Letter-sound correspondences of vowel clusters in common English words. Journal of the Reading Special­ ists, 1971, 4, 208-224.

Jones, J. K. Colour as an aid to visual perception in early reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 196 5, 35, 21-27.

Katona, G. Organizing and memorizing. New York: Columbia University Press, 1940.

Katz, P. A. and Deutsch, M. Relation of auditory-visual shifting to reading achievement. Perceptual Motor Skills, 1963, 17, 327-332.

Kersch, B. Y. The motivating effect of learning by directed discovery. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1962, 53, 65-71.

King, E. M. Effects of different kinds of visual discrimi­ nation training on learning to read words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1964, 55, 325-333.

King, E. M. and Muehl, S. Different sensory cues as aids in beginning reading. Reading Teacher, 1965, 19, 163-168. 435

Kittell, J. E. An experimental study of the effect of external direction during learning on transfer and retention of principles. Journal of Educational Psy- chology/ 1957, 48, 391-405.

Kucera, H. and Francis, W. N. Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, R. I.: Drown University Press, 196TI

Kuhne, L. L. The application of phonic generalizations to relatively infrequently used words. Unpublished master's thesis, Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1969.

Lee, W. R. Spelling irregularity and reading difficulty in English. Occasional Publication No. 2. London! Nation­ al Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales, 1960.

Lefevre, C. A. Linguistics and the teaching of reading. New York: McGraw Hill^ 1964.

Lefrvre, C. A. Linguistics, English and the language arts. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, l^To!

Lesiak, J. The applicability of word attack rules. Unpub­ lished master's thesis, Ohio State University, 19 68.

Levin, H. and Biemiller, A. J. Contingent versus non-con­ tingent spelling patterns. Studies of oral reading, III. Preliminary draft. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University T9&T.

Levin, II., et al. Reports of research in progress. Project literacy reports (l96 2 - T 9 F 5 j ~ Ithaca, New York: Cornell UniversTty^ 1966.

. Levin, H. and Williams, J. P. Basic studies on reading. New York: Basic Books, 1970.

Lorge, I. Predicting readability. Teachers College Record, 1944, 45, 404-419.

Lott, D. Visual word recognition: Its implications for reading research and instruction. (Office of Education) Washington, D. C., United States Government Printing Office, 1969.

Maier, H. W. Three theories of child development. New York: Harper, 1965^ 436

Marchbanks, G. and Levin, H. Cues by which children recog­ nize words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1965, 56, 57-61.

Maresh, C. The utility of phonic generalizatons: Fact or folly? The Journal of the Reading Specialist, 1969, 8, 119-121.

Martin, B. Sounds of home. (Teacher's ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart ancfwinston, 1966.

Martin, B. (Ed.) Owl series. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966.

Marmon, M. The effectiveness of alphabet recognition and auditory discrimination 'training on word recognition. (Doc toraIdis sertation7 University of "California, Los Angeles) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1967. No. 67-4484.

Mason, G. E. Children learn words from commercial tv. Elementary School Journal, 1965, 65, 318-320.

Mathews, M. Teaching to read: historically considered. Chicago, University o f Chicago Press,71966•

McClenathan, D. K. A comparison of three alphabetic media used in beginning reading instruction. (Doctoraldisser­ tation, State University of New York, Buffalo) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1967, No. 67-13,522.

McDowell, J. B. A report on the phonetic method of teach­ ing children to read. Catholic Education Review, 1953, 3, 506-519.

McGinnies, E. Comer, P. B., and Lacey, O. L. Visual recog­ nition thresholds as a function of word length and word frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1952, 44, 65-69.

Menzel, P. Linguistic bases of the theory of writing items for instruction stated in natural language. Cited in Bormuth, J. R. On the theory of achievement test items. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.

Moore, J. T., Jr. The phonetic elements appearing in a three thousand word spelling vocabulary. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1951. 437

Morton, J. The effects of context on the visual duration threshold for words. British Journal of Psychology, 1965, 55, 165-180.

Muehl, S. The effects of letter-name knowledge of learning to read a word list in kindergarten children. Challenge and Experiment in Heading. Newark: International Heading Association Conference Proceedings, 1962.

Muehl, S. The effects of visual discrimination pertaining on learning to read a vocabulary list in kindergarten children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1960, 51, 217-221.

Murphy, H. A. A research pitfall: Jumping to conclusions. Challenge and Experiment in Reading. Newark: Interna- tional Heading Association-Conference Proceedings, 1962.

Murphy, H. A. Reading achievements in relation to growth in perception of word elements in three types of beginning reading instruction" BostonT” Boston Un'f ^ersity, 1965T

Neilson, W. A. (Ed.) Merriam-Webster's new international dictionary of the English language. Springfield, iMass. : G. & C. Merriam, 1954.

Newman, H. Discussion of shortcomings of phonics instruc­ tion. Paper presented at College Reading Association, Syracuse, New York, 1969.

Oaks, R. E. A study of the vowel situation in a primary vocabulary. Education, 1952, 72, 604-617.

Olson, D. R. and Pau, A. S. Emotionally loaded words and the acquisition of a sight vocabulary. Journal of Educa- tional psychology, 1966, 57, 154-155.

Osburn, W. J. Teaching spelling by teaching syllables and root words. Elementary School Journal, 1954, 55, 32-41.

Otto, W. The acquisition and retention of paired-associates by good, average, and poor readers. Journal of Education­ al Psychology, 1961, 52, 241-248.

Pearson, P. D., Carr, J., Boeson, M., and Bormuth, J. R. A rationale for scoring constructed response items. Paper presented at the convention of International Read­ ing Association, Kansas City, May, 1969. 438 Petty, W. T. An analysis of certain phonetic elements in a selected test of persistently difficult words. Unpub­ lished doctoral dissertation, State University of Iowa, 1955. Petty, W. T. Critical reading in the primary grades. Elementary English, 1956, 33, 298-302.

Postman, L. J. and Conger, B. Verbal habits and the visual recognition of words. Science, 1954, 119, 671-673. Postman, L. and Rosenweig, M. R. Perceptual recognition of words. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1957, 22, 245-257; Potts, A. M. and Savine, L. Handbook for teachers of migra­ tory children. 2nd ed. Monmouth, Ore.: College of Education, 1968.

Rinsland, H. D. A basic vocabulary of elementary school children. New York: Macmillan, 1975.

Rosenfield, S. S. The effect of perceptual style on word discrimination ability of kindergarten children. (Doc­ toral" dissertation, University of Wisconsin) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1967. No. 67-17,007. Rosso, B. R. The relationship between knowledge of word recognition generalizations and""rea'ding" achievement. TDoctoral dissertation, Ohio State University) Anri Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, In Press. Ruddell, R. The effect of four programs of reading instruc­ tion with varying emphasis on the regularity of grapheme- phoneme correspondences and the relation o f language structure to meaning and achievement in "first grade read­ ing. (CRP 2699) Berkeley: California University, 1965. Russell, D. H. Children learn to read. New York: Blais- dell, 1961. Samuels, S. J, and Jeffrey, W. E. Word associations and learning to read. Los Angeles: University of Califor­ nia, 1966. (a] Samuels, S. J. and Jeffrey, W. E. Discriminability of words and letter cues used in learning to read. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1966, 57, 337-340. (b}

Samuels, S. J. Letter-name versus letter-sound knowledge as factors influencing learning to read. Paper presen­ ted to American Educational Research Association, 1970. 439

Scott, L. Social attitudes of children revealed by respon­ ses to television programs. California Journal of Elem- entary Education, 1954, 22, 176-199.

Sebasta, S. L. Artificial orthography as a transitional device in first-grade reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1964, 55, 253-257.

Shea, C. A. Visual discrimination of words as a predictor of reading readiness. (Doctoral dissertation, University ol Connecticut^ Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1965. No. 65-2743.

Shuy, R. W. (Ed.) Social dialects and language learning. Champaign, 111.: National Council Teachers of English, 1964.

Silberberg, N. E. An investigation to identify intellectual and perceptual correlates of disability in word recognition (Doctoral dissertation, State University~o£ Iowa] Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1965. No. 65-6709.

Silberman, C. Crisis in the classroom. New York: Random House, 1970.

Simpson, E. J. The classification of educational objectives psychomotor domain. Illinois Teacher of Home Economics, 1966-67, 10, 130-140.

Singer, H. (Ed.) Theoretical models of reading: Implication for teaching and research. Cited in Theoretical models and processes of reading. Newark: International Reading Association, 1970.

Smith, F. The use of featural dependencies across letters in the visual identification of words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1969, 8, 215-218.

Smith, F. Understanding reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wins ton",” 19 71.

Smith, N. B. Reading instruction for todays1 children. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 196 3.

Smith, N. B. American reading instruction. Newark: Inter­ national Reading Association, 1965.

Spache, G. D. and Bagget, M. E. What do teachers know about phonics and syllabication? The Reading Teacher, 1965, 19, 440

Spache, G. D. et al, A longitudinal first grade reading readiness program. Reading Teacher, 1966, 19, 580-584.

Spache, G. D. and Spache, E. Reading in the elementary school (2nd ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1969.

Spielberger, C. D. and Denny, J. Visual recognition thresholds as a function of verbal ability and word frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 65, 597-602.

Staats, A. W. Complex human behavior: A systematic exten- sion of learning principles. New York: Holt, 1966.

Strang, R. M., McCullough, C. M., Traxler, A. E. The improvement of reading, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

Terman, S. and Wolcutt, C. C. Reading: Chaos and cure. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1958.

Thorndike, E. L. The teaching of English suffixes. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, T941.

Thorndike, E. L. and Lorge, I. The teacher1s word book of 30,000 words. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1944.

Tinker, A. and McCullough, M. Teaching elementary reading. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968.

Tyler, F. T. Issues related to readiness to learn. In Hilgard, E. R. (Ed.) Theories of Learning and Instruc­ tion , 63rd Yearbook, N.S.S.E. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964.

Umstattd, D. Developing advanced word perception skills. Reading and Inquiry. Newark: International Reading Association Conference Proceedings, 1965, 10, 30-32.

Venezky, R. L. A computer program for deriving spelling-to- sound correlations. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University, T 9S 37 ------

Venezky, R. L. English orthography: Its graphic structure and its relation to sound. Reading Research Quarterly, 1967, 3, 168-190. 441

Ward, B. J. In-service education programs for public school teachers. Paper presented at College Reading Association, Syracuse, New York, 196 9.

Wardhaugh, R. A linguist looks at phonics. Elementary English, 1971, 48, 61-66.

Watkins, M. A comparison of the reading proficiencies of normal progress and reading disability cases of the same I.Q. and reading level. Unpublished doctoral disserta­ tion, State University of Iowa, 1954.

Webster, N. Dissertations on the English language. Bos­ ton : I. Thomas and Co., I T 891

Webster, N. The American spelling book. Boston: Isaiah Thomas and Ebenezer Andrews, l798~

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam, 1951.

Weir, R. H. Language in the crib. The Hague: Mouton, 1962.

Weir, R. H. Formulation of grapheme-phoneme correspondence rules to aid in the teaching of reading. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University, 196 4.

Weir, R. H. and Venezky, R. L. Rules do aid in the teach­ ing of reading research. (Project #T5’84I Stanford" CaT. : Stanford University, 1965.

Wheelock, W. A. An investigation of letter-form-training on the development of instant responses of recognition to 'the capital letters of our English alphabet. (Doctoral disser­ tation , Arizona State University") Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1965. No. 65-10,391.

Williams, J. P. The use of programmed instruction in the development of recognition skills. Philadelphia: Penn­ sylvania University, 1965 .

Williams, J. P. Successive versus concurrent presentation of multiple grapheme-phoneme correspondences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1968, 59, 309-314.

Williams, R. M. Phonetic spellings for college students. New York: Oxford University Press, 1960. 442

Winkley, C. K. Which accent generalizations are worth teaching? The Reading Teacher, 1966, 20, 219-224.

Winkley, C. K. Why not an intensive gradual phonic approach. The Reading Teacher, 1970, 23, 611-617.

Wilson, P. T. Reading Progress in kindergarten and primary grades. Elementary School Journal. 1938, 38, 442-449.

Witty, P. A. and Sizemore, R. A. Phonics in the reading program: A review and an evaluation. Elementary English, 1956, 32, 355-371.

Wylie, A. and Durrell, D. Assuring success in beginning reading. Paper presented to Illinois Reading Council, Urbana, Illinois, 1970.