The problem set forth in this investigation is to determine which of the two methods is more effective in teaching reading and spelling in the first grade. Recent investigations would lead one to believe that a phonetic approach to reading and spelling is more effective than the non-phonetic approach.

Based on the author's thesis, Stanford University, 1953. / International journal of American linguistics, v. 24. no. 1, pt. 3. Includes bibliographical references.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Thesis (Ed.M.)--Boston University / PLEASE NOTE: Boston University Libraries did not receive an Authorization To Manage form for this thesis or dissertation. It is therefore not openly accessible, though it may be available by request. If you are the author or principal advisor of this work and would like to request open access for it, please contact us at open-help@bu.edu. Thank you. / 2031-01-01

No description available.

"The problem in this study was an attempt to determine whether phonics serves as an aid to the teaching of first-grade reading and to weigh and examine its possibilities in the light of the consequences in the first grade. It has been a question in the minds of authorities in reading as to how much phonics should be taken up during the first year of a child's experience in school and what steps should be taken in presenting this aid. Some related questions suggested by this study are: (1) What is the status of phonics at the present time? (2) What are the views of the leading authorities in this field? (3) Should phonics be taken up during the child's first year in school? (4) How much phonics should be taught in the first year? (5) What steps should be taken up first? (6) What are the advantages to be derived from phonics? (7) What are the disadvantages resulting from phonetic training? (8) What precautions should be taken in teaching phonics? (9) Have any experiments been made; what conclusions were drawn from them? (10) Is phonics the only desirable method of word analysis? (11) Do all children need phonics and if so, do they all need the same amount? (12) Should phonics be presented during the reading period? (13) Is reading the only subject which is aided by phonetic training?"--Introduction. / Typescript. / "July, 1945." / "Submitted to the Faculty of the Florida State College for Women in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science." / Advisor: M. R. Hinson, Professor Directing Paper. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 34-37).

Les transformations dans la structure phonétique ont toujours accusé une tendance prononcée à l'articulation antérieure et labialisée ce qui aboutit à l'enrichissement considérable des consonnes prélinguales ( affriquées > consonnes chuintantes et sifflantes, semi-consonnes ) et des voyelles antérieures; celles-ci comportant deux oppositions importantes: ouvertes/fermées, labialisées/non labialisées. La quatrième série d'oppositions est présentée par l'opposition voyelle orale/voyelle nasale, constituée vers le XVIe s. La différenciation qualitative est à toutes les époques la caractéristique essentielle du vocalisme français: la durée vocalique peut aller de pair ou bien porter un caractère phonétique complémentaire. Les oppositions phonématiques parmi les consonnes sont moins générales que parmi les voyelles. Elles réunis¬sent les groupes de consonnes plus ou moins nombreux, laissant en marge plusieurs autres. Ainsi, l'opposition « sour¬de-sonore » ( srd-snr ) se manifeste seulement parmi les consonnes-bruits, les sonantes étant sonores par excellence. Une autre opposition « orale-nasale » frappe seulement les occlusives, les constrictives étant toutes orales.

No description available.