Teaching Reading with Thunder and Lightning

English words are morphophonemic.  

morph + phon 

Let's break that down quickly. 

Phon: Phonemes are discrete sounds within a word such as /k/  /a/  /ch/ in catch.  When learning to read, children study phoneme-grapheme correspondence --the sound associated with a particular letter(s), such as in "a is for apple" as the old saying goes.

Morph: Morphemes are the smallest units of semantic or grammatical information in a language-- prefixes, suffixes, roots, and bases—the smallest meaning-bearing elements, the building blocks of vocabulary. Morphology is the study of word structure or word formation with morphemes -- prefixes, bases or roots, suffixes. Morphological awareness (MA) refers to “the ability to consciously consider and manipulate the smallest units of meaning in spoken and written language, including base words and affixes” (Apel, 2017). 

Some weeks ago in EdView360 I discussed the morphophonemic nature of English words and provided some implications for teaching children to read.  English -- like virtually every language to greater or lesser extent-- is based on morphophonemic word structure.  

If phonemes are thunder, then morphemes are lightning, and they both exist in English words. They both provide vital information to a child learning to read, or a fluent reader striving to comprehend a complex text.  Phoneme-grapheme correspondences are to be clearly taught so these associations are instantaneous and resound in the mind like thunder.  In keeping with this metaphor, morphemes are like lightning in that most of them are more visual, being larger chunkier units. These chunks must also be taught. In written words, morphemes can be colorful, placed in bold format, circled, highlighted, etc. 

mis spell ing     

un fashion able    

pre dict ion s

Morphology is a universal language component, a key aspect of the various human languages, along with phonology, semantics, syntax, and pragmatics. The English spelling system is morphophonemic, representing linguistic information about how to pronounce a word (phonemic) and how to determine its meaning and usage (morphemic).  When learning to read beyond the basic beginner stages, children will benefit from both phonics and morphology.

Many teachers capitalize on the morphophonemic nature of the English spelling system in literacy instruction, providing lessons in phonics/ phonemic awareness as well as in morphological awareness. Students who learn both phonics and morphology will hopefully be more likely to quickly access words via two routes: morphological make-up and phonological make-up (Levesque, Breadmore, & Deacon, 2021; Levesque & Deacon, 2022). Not only that, morphological knowledge is strongly associated with reading comprehension (Liu, Groen, & Cain, 2024).

In the Word Families activity below,  children reinforce what they have learned about specific phonetic and morphological units. They have been taught the phoneme-grapheme correspondence for ow (as in now) and ou (as in shout) and then they expand that knowledge further, into morphological word families with ou/ow patterns. In this image the learner has begun to color or highlight words that contain the same base with the same color. (Supercharged Readers curriculum, Voyager Sopris).

When the child has learned enough of the phonics code, while still in primary grades, begin to layer in lessons in word structure. This includes lessons in compound word structure as well as affixation. Teach children about suffixes and prefixes, beginning with the most common affixes. Help children begin to conceptualize words as part of a morphological family of related words, such as sun, sunning, sunned, suns, sunshine, sunny, sunniest, sunnier, sunshade, sunblock, etc.

Make the most of the morphophonemic attributes of the English language.

References 

Apel, K. (2017). Morphological Awareness Development and Assessment: What Do We Know? Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 43(2), 29–34. 

Levesque, K. C., Breadmore, H. L. , & Deacon, S. H. (2021).  How morphology impacts reading and spelling: Advancing the role of morphology in models of literacy development. Journal of Research in Reading, 44(1),10–26. 

Levesque, K., & Deacon, S. (2022). Clarifying links to literacy: How does morphological awareness support children’s word reading development? Applied Psycholinguistics, 43(3), 921–943. 

Liu, Y., Groen, M. A., & Cain, K. (2024). The association between morphological awareness and reading comprehension in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educational Research Review.

Thunder and Lightning and This and That

Greetings! Some news:

Today, EDVIEW360 published a brief article I wrote on the importance of integrating phonics and phonological awareness lessons with morphological awareness lessons when teaching children to read.  Based on growing evidence from empirical studies, I suggest beginning to teach morphological concepts at a younger age than previously thought. Begin in primary grades, after children learn basic closed-syllable  short-vowel phonics patterns, when children are learning to spell and read. Let's not wait until grade four, but rather plan lessons in first grade and beyond to dovetail orthography with morphology. Carpe diem!  See my article about this topic -- and many other good articles -- at EDVIEW360. 

Go to  Thunder and Lightning: Sound and Meaning in a Morphophonemic Language

Next week, Wednesday May 8 at 4pm Central Time, I will provide a webinar on these same topics. Sign up at EdView360 at this link:  Building Reading Skills in Grades 1-4

A few months ago, EDVIEW360 recorded my podcast on helping children learn to read. Listen to the podcast at Boosting Beginning Reading (and listen to other podcasts by many and varied experts in the field).

Plus, Silvereye Learning Resources is --even as we speak -- preparing to publish a new Third Edition of my morphology curriculum, Vocabulary Through Morphemes: Suffixes, Prefixes, and Roots for Intermediate and Secondary Grades. Cover art coming soon! I am pleased to announce that this curriculum has been in widespread use for more than two decades and will soon be back in publication again.

Also, Voyager Sopris Learning has recently (2024) published a new full-color Second Edition of my interactive decodable beginner books, Power Readers (K-2) and Supercharged Readers (more advanced decodable books).  The black-and-white first editions are also still available for purchase. The new edition of Supercharged Readers includes 5 additional chapter books with a greater focus on morphological knowledge. All the new books are now in color, with even more coaching tips provided in small font at the bottom of each page. To see samples or to order, go to  Power Readers and to Supercharged Readers.

Cheers to all,

Susan

Summary: A Little Book of Language, by David Crystal

Crystal, D. (2010). A little book of language. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

I discuss A Little Book of Language, written by linguistics expert David Crystal, known for The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language and The Stories of English.  However, this "Little Book" is written for adolescents, not adults, even though many adults have read it, including teachers, armchair linguists, and some professors. I found much to interest me.

Crystal writes with clarity and authority, but the tone is conversational. Some call it chatty, even breezy. He explains any new vocabulary terms and avoids an abundance of jargon. To make a point, he cites J.K. Rowling, Roald Dahl, and Terry Pratchett, as well as Shakespeare and Dickens. In my view, this book is accessible to the average adolescent reader.

Adolescents aside, this book might make a nice addition to teacher development coursework, despite the conversational tone. It lacks the depth typically expected in tertiary education, but compensates for that lack with breadth. I certainly did not begin teaching first grade with a good understanding of some topics discussed in this book.

Layout

This book follows the same format as A Little History of the World -- another favorite of mine, also published by Yale. A Little Book of Language contains 40 chapters, each about 6 pages long, supported by black and white woodcut prints, and by maps. Some chapters offer a brief extension or application activity. Where applicable, the author provides references for further reading, including a variety of interesting websites. For example, on page 162 he shows a "Wordle" (discussed in a prior post) and provides the website so students might create their own word clouds.

Topics 
Adolescents will explore how language develops from babbling baby talk to speech. They will explore various aspects of language, including sounds, grammar, spelling, dialects, slang, sign language, accents, dictionaries, etymology, etc. There is a chapter on learning to read and write, and the challenges and benefits afforded the bilingual learner. Crystal discusses the origins of speech and writing and the various types of world languages, as well as language decay, the fact that many languages are dying out rapidly.

Crystal also discusses social media, text messaging, email, etc. Unlike some naysayers, he takes a positive view of the rise of the internet and the digital revolution. From a language perspective, he views this as more beneficial than not. However, he encourages more insightful use of digital methods of communication. For example, on page 188, readers consider the effects of "shouting" via email:

                
          What would you do if you got an email message like this?

             WILL YOU BRING MY DVD ROUND PLEASE. TED

         It might give you a bit of a fright, because it's all in capital letters.
         It's as if Ted is shouting at you. Is he upset? Is he cross?

  (etc.)

Conclusion

Crystal concludes by restating six causes that are important to him, hoping to persuade adolescents to share his perspective. (He discussed each cause at various points in prior chapters.) Each summary paragraph begins with an "I hope you'll care" statement:

Cause I    "I hope you'll care about the fact that so many languages in the world are dying." Crystal shares his concern for "endangered languages" and makes adolescents aware of the importance of language diversity. In an earlier chapter, he explained that about half of the world's languages are expected to die within 100 years -- that's about 3,000 disappearing languages (p. 126). Crystal also described promising examples of "language revitalization," citing Hebrew, Maori, and Welsh.

Cause II   "I hope you'll care about minority languages, even if they're not seriously endangered." Minority languages are those spoken only by small groups of people. Crystal encourages adolescents to take an interest in every tongue, and to make sure schools, libraries, community centers, etc. provide services and spotlights for the varied languages of the people they serve.

Cause III   "I hope you'll care enough about languages to want to learn as many of them as possible." Crystal explains that it's important to develop a multilingual personality -- to be willing to try a language, even just a few words, and to always carry a pocket dictionary when visiting a foreign country.

Cause IV   "I hope you'll care about the variety that exists within your own language."  Crystal refers to language variation within one's native tongue, including differences in dialect and accent. The message is to embrace the various ways we express ourselves, not to judge one another based on differences.

Cause V   "I hope you'll care about the range of styles that exist within your own language." Crystal encourages readers to consider which style of communication is best for any given situation. According to Crystal, sometimes tweeting is fine, other times an email is better, or perhaps a formal letter on crisp paper. He discusses register, from formal to informal and all stops between. Each style of communication serves a different purpose.

Cause VI   "I hope you'll care about people who are having difficulties learning or using their mother tongue." Here, the author encourages compassion and assistance for those who struggle with any kind of speech impediment or language impairment. Crystal states: 

"People seem very ready to poke fun at those who have a lisp, or a stammer, or some other speech difficulty. If you're a real linguist, you won't stand for that sort of thing. And don't be afraid to help people who are having difficulty expressing themselves" (p. 252)

I recommend this book for anyone who loves language. The topics in this book align with some of the key goals of education. I receive no reward for promoting this book and was not requested to do so.

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My thanks to the variety of authors and interested readers who support this blog. Vocabulogic has recently been listed as one of the Top Speech Pathology sites for 2012.  

Videos of Structured Word Inquiry (Bowers)

Peter Bowers contributed the following post. Pete is a doctoral candidate at Queen's University, Canada, with expertise in orthography and morphology, as well as critical thinking. He has investigated how morphological awareness contributes to various aspects of literacy, especially spelling and vocabulary knowledge. As a regular contributor to Vocabulogic, Pete has authored several posts, including Structured Word Inquiry and Meta-Analysis of Morphological Intervention Studies.  Visit Pete's website: WordWorks Literacy Centre.

Current research has converged on the finding that literacy instruction should address morphology from the beginning of instruction and that this is especially important for less able students (Bowers, Kirby & Deacon, 2010; Carlisle, 2010; Goodwin & Ahn, 2010; Reed, 2008). 

Given this evidence, the question facing educators and researches is not whether we should teach morphology, but how to teach it. 

Structured word inquiry (Bowers & Kirby, 2010) is an instructional approach that targets exactly this goal. I regularly receive anecdotal reports from teachers and tutors reporting examples of this effect, such as this account of a student-led investigation of the word condensation. As well, our controlled intervention study using this approach (Bowers & Kirby, 2010) showed that morphological instruction using the structured word inquiry approach brought significant vocabulary gains for words that were not explicitly taught, but which shared a base with explicitly taught words.

It is a challenge to explain what structured word inquiry is clearly and to convey how it operates in classrooms in writing. For that  reason, I am delighted that Susan has invited me to share a few videos that provide a big picture of this instruction and which illustrate this instruction in action in real classrooms. 

• This public lecture on structured word inquiry provides a useful "big picture" of this instruction. The video is from a talk I gave for the J.P.Das Centre on Developmental and Learning Disabilities at the University of Alberta.

• This video shows an investigation of the spelling of the word does in an elementary classroom.

• This video shows a lesson introducing the central linguistic tools of structured word inquiry, the morphological word sum and matrix to a kindergarten class.

To explore other videos illustrating this instruction in action in classrooms around the world, visit this YouTube channel. 

My hope is that these videos will motivate Vocabulogic readers to have a go at morphological analysis using matrices and word sums. There are many free resources available at www.wordwordskingston.com to help you get started.  

At this link, you will learn about a new piece of software called The Word Microscope (that is currently free to download) that you can use to start these types of investigations on your own and with your students. 

You may also be interested in the Teacher Resource Book based on the Bowers and Kirby (2010) intervention and the Word Works Summer Courses. Also consider joining my live on-line broadcast on “Structured Word Inquiry and the Scientific Study of Words” on Lexercise on June 14th. 


Finally, if I were to recommend one article that lays out the underlying principles of how English spelling works that are revealed through structured word inquiry with the matrix and the word sum, it would be Carol Chomsky's seminal 1970 paper, "Reading, writing, and phonology" in Harvard Educational Review.

References 

Berninger, V.W., Abbott, R.D., Nagy, W., & Carlisle, J. (2010).Growth in phonological, orthographic, and morphological awareness in grades 1 to 6. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39, 141–163.

Bowers, P. N., & Kirby, J. R. (2010). Effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary acquisition. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 515–537.

Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & Deacon, S. H. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80, 144–179.

Carlisle, F. (2010). Effects of instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement: An integrative review. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 464–487.

Chomsky, C. (1970). Reading, writing, and phonology. Harvard Educational Review, 4(2), 287–309.

Goodwin, A.P., & Ahn, S., (2010). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions: effects on literacy achievement of children with literacy difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 60, 183-208.

Reed, D.K. (2008). A synthesis of morphology interventions and effects on reading outcomes for students in grades K–12. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(1), 36–49.

Puzzling Plurals and the *Potatoe Incident

Thanks for participating in the Puzzling Plurals survey. In this post, after focusing on potato and other singular nouns that end with the open /o/ sound, I discuss the survey questions. To finish, I provide links to references, articles, and games.

It is evident from the survey results that "we" are perplexed. The English language is  puzzling, and plurals trouble all of us at times. As we know, they can certainly stress former US Vice Presidents--at least, that's the argument I make below.

"Now add one little bit on the end."

Some tricky singular-plural pairs are remnants of Old English, and flow from the Germanic layer of the language. Some are artifacts of Greek and Latin influence. Still others flow from Japanese, Arabic, Spanish, etc.

For example, take potato, a word that apparently traveled from native Haitian, was given a  Spanish spelling, and was adopted into English, from Sp. patata, from Carib (Haiti) batata "sweet potato." (etymology here). Basic English 101 says to make a plural, we add either the inflectional suffix -s or -es to the singular noun, right? But we typically add -es to words that end with hissing sibilant sounds like /s/, /z/, /sh/, /zh/ and /ch/ -- including wish-wishes, fox-foxes, and bus-buses. Now, potato does not end with a hissing sound, so why would the plural of potato be potato + es? We do not add an -es to pinto or pueblo, yet like potato, they came into English via Spanish. And if the plural is potatoes (and it is), then we should be able to figure out how to spell the singular simply by removing the final -s. Thus, we might deduce that the singular of potatoes is *potatoe. After all, someone (a teacher, or so the story goes) spelled it that way on the cue card for the ill-famed spelling bee. (See the *potatoe incident on YouTube.)

One can kinda-sorta see why Quayle's handler approved the cue card, and why the VP himself went along with it, telling the 12-year-old--who knew the correct spelling--to "add one little bit to the end" of his perfectly spelled potato. After all, there are just too many strange spellings to remember, and we never add -es to a noun that ends in a vowel.

Visual Thesaurus map for genie

But we do! Potato+es, echo+es, torpedo+es, tomato+es, and hero+es testify to it, while piano+s, inferno+s, video+s, rodeo+s and bistro+s refute it. Meanwhile, playing it safe, several sit the fence: ghettos or ghettoes, cargoes or cargos, flamingos or flamingoes, halos or haloes, tornadoes or tornados, etc. English is pickled with puzzles, and just when we find a pattern, the language genie attacks--sometimes we tangle with two genies at once--or genii?

I spell potato, you spell *potatoe? Pity the former Vice President, but pity even more the millions of English learners around the world. In fact, be gentle with all. From the survey results, even well-educated adults who use English with confidence all day fall prey to the unpredictable plural.

Below, I briefly discuss the survey questions. I note the percentage of 271 respondents who voted in favor of each phrase, deciding it was correct. Kudos (but not *kudoes) for resisting the dictionary while responding. Refer to the prior post to see the closed survey with graphed results and related comments.

• (82%) lots of data is correct. The singular is datum. 
• (55%) seven thesauri is correct. Thesauruses is listed in some dictionaries, but it only appears once every 1,356,110 pages, on average, according to Vocabulary.com. The singular is thesaurus. 
• (63%) a single bacterium is correct (like datum). The plural is bacteria. 
• (12%) six skinny mooses is not correct. The plural of moose is moose.
• (38%) one essential criteria is not correct. The singular is criterion; the plural is criteria.
• (26%) five octopuses is correct. Read about octopuses, not *octopi, below.
  
• (85%) four strong oxen is correct (like children, brethren, and extinct shoon, like shoe + -en; see shoe etymology). The singular is ox. 
• (63%) two loaded dice is correct. The singular is die (but dice is becoming more accepted as a singular form). Note the plural mice and lice are not expressed in singular as *mie and *lie.
• (89%) four flying fish is correct, but fishes would also be correct. 
• (71%) a strange phenomenon is correct (like criterion). The plural is phenomena. 
• (77%) some differing hypotheses is correct, ending with es. The singular is hypothesis (like crisis, analysis, thesis, parenthesis). 
• (13%) hundreds of hopping head lie is not correct. The plural is lice and the singular louse (like mouse, but not house and *hice)

English words reflect the spelling patterns of the parent language, but not with consistency. This is when we teach dictionary skills, an important aspect of vocabulary instruction. However, it is worthwhile to memorize the spellings of words we use frequently. Many of these words actually do conform to a plural-forming pattern. In Words and Rules, Stephen Pinker (1999, p. 26) theorized:

"The mind analyzes every stretch of language as some mixture of memorized chunks and rule-governed assemblies."

Rule-governed assemblies include spelling patterns. What are the spelling patterns for tricky plurals? Several experts have attempted to explain them, or list them. So, for your browsing pleasure, explore the following links -- there's even a game.

The Old English Plural by The Oxford Times

Tricky Plurals in English: Bacterias, Bacteriae, Bacteriums? Plurals of Loanwords in English, by Oxford Dictionaries-Oxford University Press (not sure if this will open without a membership). Here is an excerpt, explaining why *octopi is not the plural of octopus:

Tangled up in the coils of the language octopus
 X Sea lions are carnivores and eat fish, squid, octopi, crabs, clams, and lobsters. 
As the above example (taken from a US scientific publication) shows, a little knowledge of Latin and Greek can be a dangerous thing and sometimes leads people into error. The writer clearly knows that some Latin plurals are formed by changing the ‘–us’ ending of a singular noun into ‘-i’ for the plural, as in alumnus -> alumni. However, octopus is ultimately borrowed from a Greek word and not a Latin one, so it’s incorrect to form the plural according to the Latin rules. If you wanted to be ultra-correct and conform to ancient Greek, you’d talk about octopodes, but this is very rare: the Anglicized plural, octopuses, is absolutely fine. 

A Reference to Strange Plurals in English, at pipTALK Forums

Irregular Plurals and Nouns, at the University of Victoria Study Zone

One Fish-Two Fish, a game-like quiz at Sporcle (Try it!)

Minimum, Minima, and Other Irregular Plurals  by Bill Wilson, engineering

Strange Plurals at English Forums.com

Strange Plurals, an open list at Worknik

What is the Plural of Mouse? Quick and Dirty Tips by Grammar Girl


References:

Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Cheers,
Susan

Two Brief Podcasts on Vocabulary Instruction

Something new this time! This is a special treat, just in time for the holidays!

It is my pleasure to share a few thoughtful yet brief podcasts on vocabulary, from The Voice of Literacy (dot) org. I have listened to each podcast below and have read manuscripts written by each expert. Drs. Neuman and McCutchen discuss their specific line of research, with practical applications for pedagogy.

Each interview at The Voice of Literacy (and there are many more) runs for about 10 -15 minutes. 

Turn up the volume and enjoy!
 

Door # 1) Dr. Betsy Baker interviews Dr. Susan Neuman, on the topic of helping young children learn words and organize newly learned words into conceptual categories. This should help children learn, remember, and retrieve the words. Some elements of the podcast relate to developing word consciousness, prioritizing vocabulary instruction as a vital literacy element, and elevating the daily vocabulary used by teachers in the classroom. Go directly to the Voice of Literacy website for the podcast; just click the link below.

Using categories to teach vocabulary to preschoolers, an interview with Dr. Susan Neuman

Door #2)  Dr. Betsy Baker interviews Dr. Deb McCutchen on the topic of developing morphological awareness, both in the home and at school. Dr. McCutchen suggests several ways that parents and teachers might promote morphological awareness. For example, help learners notice similarity in form and meaning across morphologically related words, as in joy, joyous, joyously, enjoy, enjoyable, and, for a little fun with cognates, Joyeux Noël. The long-term goal is that students will independently infer the meaning of unknown words. Go directly to the Voice of Literacy website for the podcast; just click the link below.

Using morphological analysis to infer word meanings, an interview with Dr. Deborah McCutchen

PS.  Since you asked  ;- )

Here's a sneak peek at my new children's book, coming soon from Rowe Publishing and Design. Jamie's Journey has been six years in the making--the idea came to me before I started graduate school. What fun to watch illustrator Cory Godbey bring the book to life. Woot!

References:

Baker, E. A. & McCutchen, D. (2011, October 3). Using morphological analysis to infer word meanings. Voice of Literacy. Podcast retrieved from http://voiceofliteracy.org. 


Baker, E. A. & Neuman, S. (2011, September 5). Using categories to teach vocabulary to preschoolers. Voice of Literacy. Podcast retrieved from http://voiceofliteracy.org.

A Model for Morphological Reasoning via Collegial Conversations (Bowers, Mohler, & Reichstein)

Pete Bowers here--one third of the authors of this collegial conversation. This week’s post is a unique one. The text of this post was not written with the intention of becoming a public post, but it was inspired by a previous Vocabulogic post by Dr. Geri Mohler, an education consultant. Sharon Reichstein is a teacher of Grade 5/6 students with learning and/or reading difficulties in Ottawa who attended my very first summer course years ago and just keeps on moving forward! You can see a video clip of Sharon walking me around her amazing classroom a few years ago.

This correspondence was sparked when Sharon read Geri’s post and investigated the materials Geri so generously made available to everyone. Sharon noted an error in the materials and decided to write Geri directly to see what she thought. Sharon copied me and then, as you will see, Geri copied me in her response. I could not resist responding and sharing my opinion. It was Geri who first suggested we consider editing our emails for clarity and then posting our conversation on Vocabulogic.

I want to highlight the open, evidence-based discussion, modeling intellectual curiosity and reflective thought. Our hope is that by sharing this correspondence other Vocabulogic readers will be inspired to treat the identification of errors in their own thinking as opportunities to learn, and that sharing that learning is just an opportunity to push the community of learners knowledge forward. This might serve as a model for classroom discussions as well as collegial conversations.

Geri, Sharon, and I hope you find this discussion productive. Thanks to Susan for providing the venue!

Sincerely,
Pete Bowers
www.wordworkskingston.com
******************************************

Hi Geri,

I was reading Susan's Vocabulogic blog today and I was linked to your wonderful hands on activities. It is wonderful that you are sharing usable resources like this with teachers. I see three errors that I wanted to discuss with you. I have studied Real Spelling with Peter Bowers in Kingston, you may know him. 

1) On page 34, you have an activity that incorrectly highlights the suffix <-tion>, but this is incorrect, because <-tion> is NOT a suffix. More correctly, <-ion> is the suffix and the <-t-> is always part of the base. For example <dict> is a bound base meaning 'to say or speak' and <diction> is the base <dict + ion> and <prediction> is pre + dict + ion. An easier example to look at is the word action. Clearly if you look at the word morphologically you can see it is the free base <act> with an <-ion> suffix. 

2) On page 15, where you give reasons for single silent <e>, there is another reason that is not included. No word likes to look like a plural if it's not, so words that end in <s> usually have a single silent <e> to show it's not plural. “house” for example, the role of the single silent <e> is to make it clear that the word is not more than one “hou.” hou + s which clearly makes no sense. I'm not positive but I believe the reason for the <e> in the word <are> is to make the word longer but Pete would probably be able to explain it better. (I've cc'd him on this email). There is a reason for the <e> in “come” and “some” but again Pete will be able to explain it better. 

3) On page 18, the last reason you show for not changing <y> to <i> is that there is a rule that says two <i's> cannot go side by side in English because in cursive writing they look like a <u>, therefore if it's a suffix beginning with <i> you keep the <y>. 

Hope this helps and makes sense.

~Sharon
******************************************

Sharon,

Thanks for your thorough proofing of my vocabulary activities. I have provided similar kinds of activities to classrooms to try and I have given the kids $1 for every mistake they find. One time, it was enough for pizza for the entire class! I will admit, that time I purposely left in errors to see if they could find them. Of the three things you mentioned, I have a couple of comments:

1) First, I realize that -ion is considered the suffix but, in the dictionary, -tion is defined as a suffix. It is probably better that -ion be labeled as the suffix because it then takes into account session, crucifixion, etc.

2) The silent e rules I took from the Spalding method of reading instruction. I can see your point about the reasons why we add an "e" to house, etc., but in the Spalding method it only works with the 5 rules I listed. Besides, it doesn't make sense to protect the reader from thinking "hous" might be thought of as more than one "hou" when there is no "hou." I would think that, for kids learning to read, that is more information than they need, although it's probably great fun to relate the story. As for "are," "come," and silent e words like that, I'm sure there are numerous stories for their spellings as well. I still have a lot to learn, but I'm not sure how much kids need or want to know about some of the things that you and I (and Peter?) find fascinating. I try to keep it simple for kids when it's possible.

3) I guess the same goes for the 3rd reason for not changing the y to i. What you say makes sense and provides a reason for not spelling with two i's together.

All that said, you may note that the packet comes in Word as well as pdf, which means that you may change/repair anything you want if you choose to. As for me, I will probably leave it as it is because I no longer teach kids or teachers. But, if I ever decide to do more with these activities, I will change the -tion and replacing the 3rd reason for not changing y to i to your explanation. IF you decide to use the Word version and correct these things, I would love to have that version!

Thanks again for your scrutiny. I'm sure there are other issues as well. For instance, I provide keys to all of the activities, are they correct? I doubt they are 100% accurate. If, by chance, you find other errors, I would really appreciate your letting me know.

If you're interested, I have also created a fun game format to learn/work with the 1000 most frequent words (Fry's). I would be happy to share.

~Geri

(gerimohler@gmail.com)

******************************************

Hello Geri and Sharon,
I've very much enjoyed being included in this discussion.
Geri, I am delighted to see a maker of teacher resources who seeks out being corrected by students and asks for further advice from people they don't know that show an interest.

I understand that some of the conventions that Sharon described are not typically addressed in schools and may seem too complicated. I also understand that often teachers who are interested in those linguistic details are trepidatious about imposing their own interest on students.

But it has been my experience over and over that not only do children find these kind of conventions fascinating to discover, doing so helps them make ever better sense of how their writing system works, and deeper motivation to investigate those kinds of questions.

1) Geri, you write:
“First, I realize that -ion is considered the suffix but, in the dictionary, -tion is defined as a suffix. It is probably better that -ion be labeled as the suffix because it then takes into account session, crucifixion, etc.”

This statement of yours is excellent in that you show that you realize that it is quite possible that there is a flaw in the dictionary, and then you give evidence supporting why the <-ion> suggestion by Sharon makes more sense because it explains more words. Here you are applying the scientific principle of seeking the deepest structure that accounts for the greatest number of cases. When you look at any examples that dictionaries give for words with a <*-tion> suffix, they never work.

Here's what my Oxford says:  -tion: suffix forming nouns of action, condition, etc., such as completion, relation.  ORIGIN from Latin participial stems ending in -t + -ion .

I love encouraging students to make word sums with these two examples:
complete/ + ion --> completion
relate/ + ion --> relation

That is all that is needed to show that the dictionary must be wrong in this case as there is no such thing as <*comple> or <*rela>.

The interesting thing about this is that students love it, but teachers are often a bit nervous about it. Students, in my experience are much more keen to find examples of authoritative sources being shown to be wrong than are teachers.

To refine our understanding of the world, I like to base my conclusions on a scientific principle than on what one authority or another suggest. And that, I would say is what I would like to help children do. And I must say your eagerness to receive feedback from strangers suggesting errors in your work suggests that you are of a similar opinion.

I will provide just a couple of examples of what can happen when we invite children to join us as scientists investigating the structure and meaning of words with the aid of learning subtle conventions that most people don't know.

2) If you go to this link, you can download a pdf showing a story of a Grade 4/5 class at a school in a very poor neighborhood of my home town. Their teacher in this case has taught the students about the "single, silent <e> as a plural cancelling marker" first with the word <please> vs. <plea>, but he may well have shown that this convention also leads to the <e> at the end of <house> even though we don't know of a word spelled <hou>.

That is in the background knowledge of this group when they do an engaging activity in science on <condensation>. When the student brings up the question about how to make a word sum for this word, the students independently make use of that "silent <e> marker" convention to help them discover the connection between <condensation> and <condense> and thus discover the connection in meaning between two words that were new to them by using a spelling hypothesis based on that information to look in the dictionary.

I know it sounds a bit complicated. The point is, it wasn't complicated for the kids because they had been working on this content for some time with their teacher.

The other example I will share is this video of a Grade 7 student at this link,  explaining his wonderful learning about current events in Social Studies via morphological analysis of the word <dissident>. I think you will find it a fascinating use of linguistic knowledge to deepen and explain understanding of a rich subject area.

I can assure you there are errors in my publications too. Just this week a friend pointed to an error in my book, one I had never seen before. I must correct it before my next print run!

Cheers,
~Pete
*********************************************

Hi Pete and Sharon, 

I enjoyed this conversation immensely. You know what--we should post this entire dialogue in Vocabulogic. Should we send it to Susan?

~Geri
************************************************

Developing Language, Knowledge, and Vocabulary via Dialogic Reading Methods (Urbani)

Jacquelyn M. Urbani, Ph.D., contributed this post. Dr. Urbani specializes in reading research and in educating students who are deaf and hard of hearing, where learning to read and developing a broad vocabulary is particularly challenging. Her groundbreaking doctoral research involved helping teachers use dialogic reading procedures during storytime in deaf education classrooms. Before gaining her doctorate at UC Berkeley, Jaci was a teacher for 12 years.

Recent posts have described ways to optimize student vocabulary growth through storybook reading (see prior posts one and two). Reading to children is considered one of the best activities for developing the language, knowledge, and vocabulary essential for future success in reading (1). In particular, reading to children is considered valuable because of the simultaneous presentation of oral and written language as well as its interactive nature (2). This post will describe a specific kind of reading to children, dialogic reading, developed for the express purpose of facilitating students’ expressive language.

What is Dialogic Reading?

Dialogic reading aims to make students more active participants in the reading process by having adult readers engage students in discussion and retellings of the stories (3). Parents and teachers are encouraged to use specific kinds of interactions with children, based on the acronyms PEER and CROWD. PEER stands for Prompting of the child, Evaluating and Expanding upon their responses, and asking children to Repeat correct responses. Prompts are further described using the acronym CROWD: Completion questions (asking students to complete a phrase); Recall (asking children to remember details); Open-ended questions (encouraging student discussion of story ideas and the use of new vocabulary); Wh-word questions (who, what, where, when); and Distancing (making connections between the book and the students’ lives). Examples of dialogic reading prompts are provided below (4), referring to the children’s classic storybook Corduroy, by Don Freeman.

CROWD 
A mnemonic for types of questions and interactions: Completion, Recall, Open-Ended, Wh-word (who, why, where, what, when), Distancing

• Completion       "Corduroy lost a _____________." 


• Recall               "Do you remember what happened with the security guard?" 


• Open-Ended     "What happens when Corduroy looks for his button?" 


• Wh-word          "Who found Corduroy in the bed?" 


• Distancing        "What are your favorite toys?" 

PEER 
A mnemonic for Prompt, Evaluate, Expand, Repeat

• Prompt        (prompting the child -- a question or comment) 


• Evaluate      Provide gentle correction to student misinformation: "This is not an elevator. It's      called an escalator." 


• Expand        Provide further information: "Escalators are like stairs that move for you, so you don't have to use your energy." 


• Repeat         Ask students to repeat a correct response: "Tell me again why Lisa's mom does not let her buy Corduroy." (First, discuss the reasons.)

In my research, I found that teachers often responded to a description of dialogic reading by saying, “I’m already doing that. I ask lots of questions.” However, I found that teachers initially were using simple question types, such as yes/no questions or comprehension checks that required only a one-word response from students. As teachers became aware of the kinds of questions they were asking (this can occur through team teaching, mentoring, and/or critical friends), they were able to modify their language to incorporate more recommended features. Similar to previous posts, the recommendation with dialogic reading is for multiple readings. The first reading serves to engage students in the story and plotline. Subsequent re-readings provide opportunities for students to discuss topics and concepts presented by the book. However, typical teacher-student ratios of early childhood classes often limit such opportunities—which can be particularly problematic for students with language delays and/or English Language Learners. Therefore, teachers are encouraged to work with small groups of three to five students.

Potential Challenges When Implementing Dialogic Reading
Dialogic reading does require effort: quite honestly, it is easier to conduct a storybook reading if the teacher is the only one talking. Using dialogic reading emphasizes the multi-tasking nature of teaching. The teacher is reading and managing behavior as well as engaging students by using specific prompts, encouraging comments, facilitating conversational turn-taking, and keeping track of who has yet to enter the discussion.

Facilitating this student conversation is often uncomfortable for teachers, as they leave their comfort zone and give up some control. In my research on implementing dialogic reading practices, one teacher remarked that she was not sure how far to allow the conversation to go. My response was that if students are asking questions and making comments, these may indicate areas of interest and areas where they do not have the necessary background knowledge; she could then offer explanations to further both their conceptual knowledge and the conversation. However, it is also important to recognize when the conversation has strayed and it is necessary for the teacher to refocus the group on the storybook reading.

Dialogic reading may be difficult to implement, especially initially. An important feature for success is pre-reading the book. While teachers expressed frustration that they did not have time to pre-read the book, when they did make the time, they found it allowed them to consider appropriate prompts and questions, which were more easily integrated into the reading activity. (Because of the multiple readings of the book, this means teachers only need to read one book per week, which should be much easier than reading a new book per day.)

Because of the re-readings of the same book, I suggest reading to the same small group of students during the week. If it is necessary to stop the reading, teachers can resume at the appropriate place the next day. Also, teachers can continue previous conversation by saying, “Remember yesterday Talia asked about . . . and Billy commented on . . .” This also brings focus and support to the social aspect of learning. Students can rotate to new small groups weekly so they learn from each other and are not in static peer groups.

There are days when teachers will say, “Today, I’m just going to read, and we’re not going to make comments, and you all can relax and calm down.” This is necessary—for general sanity—every once in a while. But it shouldn’t be the nature of reading everyday, especially when dialogic reading offers clear benefits for language development, including vocabulary growth.

Dialogic reading is a recommended practice of the What Works Clearinghouse. Further description and research can be found there.

____________________________________
1.  Adams, 1990; Dickinson, McCabe, & Anastasopoulos, 2003; National Academy of Education, 1985.
2.  Ezell & Justice, 2005; National Academy of Education, 1985; and Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2005).
3.  Whitehurst, et al., 1988; Whitehurst, Arnold, et al., 1994; Whitehurst, et al., 1999).
4.  Adapted from Pearson Early Learning, 2006.

References: 

• Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT   Press.
• Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., & Anastasopoulos, L. (2003). A framework forexamining book reading in early childhood classrooms. In A. van Kleeck, E. B. Bauer, & S. Stahl (Eds.), On reading books to children: Parents and teachers (pp. 95–113). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Ezell, H. K. & Justice, L. M. (2005). Shared storybook reading. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
• National Academy of Education (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission on Reading. Washington, DC: Author.
• Pearson Early Learning. (2006). Read together, talk together: A dialogic reading program for young children. Available from Pearson Early Learning at www.PearsonEarlyLearning.com.
• Snow, C. E., Griffin, M., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.) (2005). Knowledge to support the teaching of reading: Preparing teachers for a changing world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D.S., Epstein, J.N., Angell, A.L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J.E. (1994). A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from low-income families. Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 679-689.
• Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., et al. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 552-559.
• Whitehurst, G.J., Zevenbergen, A.A., Crone, D.A., Schultz, M.D., Velting, O.N., & Fischel, J.E. (1999). Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention from Head Start through second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 261-272.

The Popular Prefix in- (Survey Results)

minor content update including image and link fixes 11-9-25

Thank you for participating in the prefix survey (641 responses). In this post, I discuss the prefix in- first. Then, I respond to the survey results.

(Click images to enlarge and/or download them.)

The prefix in- is a chameleon: This affix changes its color to blend in, so to speak, having four different forms, in-, im-, ir-, or il-, depending on the base to which it is attached. When the base begins with the sound /b/, /m/, or /p/, we use im-, as in imbalance, immeasurable, impolite. When the base begins with the sound /l/, we use il-, as in illegal, illogical, illegitimate. When the base begins with the the sound /r/, we use ir-, as in irregular, irreverent, irreligious. The standard form is spelled in-. These varied forms enable easy flow of smoothly blended speech, through a process called assimilation--where the final sound of the prefix is assimilated into the beginning sound of the base or root. See also a wealth of affix teaching tools at Word Works Kingston website, compliments of Pete Bowers.

The prefix in- is popular. According to The American Heritage Word Frequency Book (Carroll, Davies, & Richman, 1971) the most common prefix in school texts spanning grades 3-9 is un-, as in unbroken, unhappy, uncertain. The second-most common prefix is re-, as in reheat, reverse, rewind. The third-most common is in- (including im-, il-, ir-) meaning 'not' or 'without' as in inescapable, inedible, impossible, improbable, illegible, irreversible. Click the chart above to see the top 20 prefixes in school texts in grades 3-8, as ranked some years ago by Carroll et al. and applied to 3rd-grade research by White, Sowell, and Yanagihara (1989). 

Note that over is on the long-published prefix list, and commonly taught in schools, but over can also go at the end of a word, as in moreover, handover, makeover, allover, takeover, etc. One can parse a word into its morphemes with Ramsden’s free Mini-Matrix Maker. Here, building a matrix with the base joy, Ramsden includes overjoyed, where over is more properly called an element, rather than a prefix.

 

Technicalities aside, there are more prefixes —not on the chart— but worth knowing. For example, students need to know uni-, mono-, bi-, di-, tri-, deci-, multi-, poly-, etc. 

The prefix in- is polysemous. This prefix has more than one meaning, so it is polysemous. The primary meaning is 'not' but the secondary meaning is 'in, into' or something of that nature. This secondary meaning of in- (aka im-, il-, ir-) is 7th among the 20 most common prefixes identified by Carroll et al. (1971), as shown on the chart provided. Examples of words that contain the prefix in- meaning 'in, into' are income, inlet, insightful, etc.

In some words, the prefix in- 'in, into' is not strictly necessary and is added for emphasis or intensity, as in the word incandescent, 'to glow from within'. Wouldn't *candescent* serve just as well? To learn more about the prefix in- as 'in, into', see www.affixes.org. 

Such nuance aside, for the purpose of teaching youngsters, I think it best to show that the prefix in- has two meanings, 'not' or 'in' and four forms, in-, im-, il-, ir-, and that context helps us decide which meaning best fits the word.

Survey Discussion: 

See graphed survey results. Having considered these aspects of the prefix in-, would you change any of your survey responses?

The purpose of the survey was to prompt reflection through this question: "Where does the prefix denote 'not'? Click each word that applies." I sought to determine the extent to which the two meanings and four forms of the prefix in- were known. I was also curious about the relationship between semantic knowledge and morphemic knowledge. For each word, I provide a link to the word origins provided by the Online Etymology Dictionary.

inviolate: (54% of 641 voters responded correctly.) Yes, in this word the prefix in- denotes 'not'. If someone is inviolate, they have not been violated. Given that only about half the group responded positively to this item, I wonder if some did not know the word itself. If the word is not known, it is difficult to decipher which meaning of in- applies. Even though knowledge of morphology facilitates word learning, it does not replace contextualized word study.

inestimable: (80% of 641 voters responded correctly.) Yes, in this word, the prefix denotes 'not' because if something is inestimable, it is of such great worth that its value cannot be estimated or counted. It is priceless.  The pronunciation might call to mind the word esteem (not estimate). If so, one might think the word means not *esteemable* or something of that nature. A careful look at the orthographic structure of the word, including an examination of the base and affix, would shed light on things. 

insert: (98% of voters responded correctly.) No, this word does not contain a prefix that means 'not' as virtually every participant knew. Rather, the prefix denotes 'in, within, inside'. Here, knowledge of the word itself seems to virtually deliver prefix knowledge. 

impossible: (94% of voters responded correctly.) Yes, the prefix in- denotes 'not' and the counterpart is possible. This word has an assimilated form of in- (in this case, im-) which might account for the 38 incorrect responses.  (I expected this item to be easier than the previous one, insert.)

implant:  (97% of voters responded correctly.) No, the prefix in- does not denote 'not' in this word; it denotes 'in, inside', as nearly everyone knew. Again, the assimilated prefix, spelled im- rather than in-, may explain the slight confusion.

inflammable: (30% of voters responded correctly.) No, the prefix in- does not denote 'not' in this word; it denotes 'within, inside, in.' The word flows from flam, inflame--to burst into flames, from within, so to speak. Because of the confusion created by this word, many combustible substances are labeled FLAMMABLE, doing away with the largely unnecessary prefix altogether. Details at When the Word Does Not Appear to Add Up.

incandescent: (70% of voters responded correctly.). No, the prefix in- does not mean 'not' in this word; it denotes intensity or emphasis, and also a slight sense of 'in, within', with the root cand meaning 'to glow'. Words derived from this root are candid, candent, candle, candelabra, the French chandelier and chandler, a candler maker.

irregardless: (A largely unanswerable question due to the lack of agreement between the morphemes and the word, or lexeme, but interesting to think about!).  This is illustrated by a comment posted under the survey:

•  J. Chantler: You know, of course, that irregardless is not properly a word, although it is commonly used. Regardless is the correct form. If you parse the word, it is easy to see why - it doesn't work. IR not- regard to pay attention to - less, not having any - what???    
• My response: That is why I have included the word irregardless in the survey, to prompt just this type of discussion. Thank you for doing so! I concur, except I am not sure I would say it is not "properly" a word, as anything becomes a word once used widely enough. Do you hold that if a word does not parse correctly it is not properly a word? Would that make the morpheme more weighty than the word?

(See also the subsequent comment by Pete Bowers. For more discussion of irregardless, read Michael Quinion's World Wide Words.)

intact: (7% of voters responded correctly.) This is tricky if you do not know what the root means. Yes, the prefix in- does indeed denote 'not' in this word. The root tact is Latin for 'to touch' as in tactile, so intact might be paraphrased as "not touched, untouched," etc.

impound: (94% of voters responded correctly.) No, the prefix in- does not denote 'not' in this word; it denotes 'in, inside', as in locking the dog in the pound.  Here we have the assimilated form of in-, spelled im-, because the base (pound) begins with the sound /p/. If impound denotes to place an animal in the pound, how do we say "release from the pound?" Expound?? Nope. Depound???

So, there we have it. Interesting and promising results! Thanks for participating!

Application: Beginning in primary grades, with easy words and the most common prefixes, students need to engage in word study that coordinates sounds, spellings, morphemes, and semantics, with context (Berninger, Abbott, Nagy, & Carlisle, 2010). Teachers might begin with some explicit instruction followed by interactive word sorting, word summing, and word building, with a partner. For modeling, activities and ideas, see posts by Pete Bowers, Geri Marshall Mohler, or Marcia Henry. Also, scroll through See Spot for videos, morphemic flip books, etc.

Comments are welcome.

References:

Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Nagy, W., & Carlisle, J. (2010). Growth in phonological, orthographic, and morphological awareness in grades 1 to 6. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39(2), 141-163.

Carroll, J.B., Davies, P., & Richman, B. (1971). The American Heritage word frequency book. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

White, T.G., Sowell, J., & Yanagihara, A. (1989). Teaching elementary students to use word part clues. The Reading Teacher, 42, 302-308.

Ask: Past, Present, and Future Perspective

Some time ago, a correspondent asked about the varied pronunciations for the word ask. "Why do people say axe instead of ask?" I was not sure how to respond; this query goes beyond my field of expertise. Finally I did some exploring, accessing a new book on language variation and several excellent websites (see links and references). What I found was interesting and surprising. Below, I discuss only the theory that appears to be the least speculative, but keep in mind that scholars are still investigating this topic.

(Note: Letters inside slash marks indicate the pronunciation of a word. In student-friendly terms, the pronunciation for cup would be shown as /kup/, for example.)

This question is relevant to Vocabulogic because the underlying query is whether or not ask pronounced /aks/ is even a word. The question seems to be a popular one, too: When I entered the search term "pronounce ask" I got 4, 790,000 results from Google.  On the first page of results were the following headlines, among others:

• "I axe you, why can't Blacks pronounce the word ask?"
• "Why can't some people pronounce ask properly?" 

Some headlines and/or related comments were not kind. Language indexes all kinds of histories, practices, and stereotypes; this can evoke strong feelings, often nourished by misinformation. 

The pronunciation /aks/ might be discussed as a nonstandardized alternative for /ask/. It is not slang. We can examine this phenomenon through three lenses: the past, the present, and the future.

The word ask flows from old Germanic roots. Various  forerunners of ask were used by Anglo-Saxon writers (a form of Germanic) during the period known as Old English. Anglo-Saxon writers preferred to begin their word for ask with sounds similar to /aks/. Two different forms of the word appeared in Beowulf, ācsian and āxian, each one representing the pronunciation more similar to the modern-day /aks/. This epic poem dates to about the eighth century, but the only known print was made between 1000-1100 (dates are debated).

About 700 years ago, during Middle English, Chaucer included three different spellings for the word in Canterbury Tales. Here is one example, with the axe-variant:

Axe not why : for tho' thou axe me
I wol not tellen goddes privetee.
(Chaucer, Miller's Tale, v3557)

In American history, /aks/ was fairly common in New England and in the South, across cultures. Both pronunciations were used, but at some point /ask/ was standardized.

Today, if we say /aks/ for the word spelled ask we are reversing two adjacent sounds. This is called metathesis, an alteration in the normal sequence of elements, especially sounds (Crystal, 1995, p. 455).  This phenomenon occurs more frequently in words with unusual sound structure. We frequently hear neighboring sounds reversed in nuclear, jewelry, and realtor. Reversal of sounds in ask might be intuitive: There is some thought that it is mechanically easier to articulate /aks/ compared to /ask/.

At present, the pronunciation /aks/ for ask is heard across numerous dialects. Professors Anne Charity Hudley and Christine Mallinson (2011) explain it thus:

While the pronunciation of ask as axe is considered to be a nonstandardized pronunciation today, it is nevertheless very common. Many African Americans pronounce ask as axe, as do many speakers in the South, in Appalachia, in other pockets of the United States, in the Caribbean, and in parts of the United Kingdom. Part of the reason that this pronunciation is almost instantly noticed when it is used by African Americans is because it has come to be viewed as a stereotyped feature of African American English. (p. 80)

Peering into the future involves theory-driven conjecture. In The Story of Human Language, linguist John McWhorter (2004) hypothesized that within about 200 years the majority of Americans will say /aks/ for ask. Why? He suggested that saying /ks/ is easier, mechanically. Consider how easily we say words like fox, box, six, mix, wax, tax. One must work harder to articulate the final sounds /sk/ as in ask, desk, and mask. It may be easier to say /aks/ because after the vowel, we start at the back of the mouth for the /k/ sound and move to the front for /s/, whereas we must move backward in the mouth, from /s/ to /k/ when we say /ask/. Notice, too, there are not many words that end with the sound /sk/; I can think of ask, mask, task, brisk, desk, tusk, musk. It becomes even harder to say these words in plural form: Try articulating desks three times. It is true that if we make plural the words that end with /k/ we find many more words ending with /ks/, as in tracks, blocks, tricks, decks, ducks, likes, bakes, etc. But is that comparable? After all, there is a morpheme barrier between the base word and the final plural marker, -s. This morpheme barrier provides a cognitive clue that aides with speech, yes? 

Educational implications: Through discussion, educators can illuminate language as a living, morphing entity and a part of our identity. Hopefully, these insights will help older students and beginning teachers appreciate and understand the rich history and the broad diversity of language. Anne Charity Hudley and Christine Mallinson (2011) provide several more essential implications for teachers:

When working with African American English-speaking students who may not be confident in their use of standardized English and who may be engaging in verbal behaviors that vary from the language patterns that are expected to be used in school settings, it is important not to assume that variation in student's communication patterns signals low intelligence, uncooperativeness, or hostility. Rather, students may be using features of African American English to assert their identity. Students gain confidence and are able to enjoy academic and social success when they know and recognize academic English forms and when they recognize and value the language patterns they bring with them to school. (p. 100)

References:

Web-based sources:

Read Axing for trouble: Beowulf and metathesis at Stæfcræft & Vyākaraṇ, where linguist Benjamin Slade provides excerpts from the original texts of Beowulf and Canterbury Tales. 

Read The Atlantic, where Ta-Nehisi, senior editor for the journal, discusses conversate and /aks/ with Jesse Sheidlower, editor for Oxford Dictionaries.

Read Karen Nakumura's brief post at Photoethnography.

Listen to a podcast at With Good Reason, where several experts discuss "Spoken Soul: Black English in the Classroom" (the pronunciation of ask is addressed about 10 minutes into the podcast by linguist Anne Charity Hudley).

For a student-friendly story of ask, read Words at Random: The Maven’s Word of the Day.   

For more on language variation in general, see the prior post: Dialect, Slang, Jargon, and Register. 

Books:

Charity Hudley, A. H. & Mallinson, C. (2011). Understanding English Language Variation in US Schools. Teachers College Press: New York.

Crystal, D. (1995). The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language. Cambridge University Press.

McWhorter, J. (2004). The great courses: Social sciences: The story of human language (audio lectures). The Teaching Company.