"tr" sound and phonograms

[mom2three]

I am confused with the "tr" sound in teaching phonograms. I've looked at different phonogram programs and "tr" is not a phonogram. But to me, "tr" sounds more like "ch" than t-r...

 

For example, "truck" has 4 phonograms t-r-u-ck, but it sounds more like ch-r-u-ck.

 

Am I saying this wrong? Should I be saying t-r-u-ck, t-r-e-e, and t-r-i-ck etc?

 

Thank you in advance for your help.

[Syllieann]

You are saying it incorrectly, at least in my neck of the woods. It should sound like t-r-u-Ck.

[TheAttachedMama]

My daughter (7) has a speech impediment and she also says /tr/ the same as /ch/.   She also can't hear the difference which is one reason I think she pronounces it incorrectly.   But pronounced correctly, it sounds very distinctly like a /t/ sound blended with an /r/ sound to me.   

Truck sounds like this: 

 

Chuck sounds like this.

[UCF612]

When said quickly it sounds like ch to me (and many young children). When we work on it I make sure to "pronounce for spelling" to make the difference clear. My younger son has trouble hearing the sound when he makes it but hears it when I pronounce clearly. He also hears the second sound of th as v a lot.

[mmasc]

We are in AAS 1 and it specifically points out that many people hear /ch/ instead of /t/ /r/ and to make it very clear to your students that it *is* /t/ /r/. So rest assured, you aren't the only one who thinks it sounds like /ch/! :)

[mom2three]

My daughter (7) has a speech impediment and she also says /tr/ the same as /ch/.   She also can't hear the difference which is one reason I think she pronounces it incorrectly.   But pronounced correctly, it sounds very distinctly like a /t/ sound blended with an /r/ sound to me.   

Truck sounds like this: 

 

Chuck sounds like this.

 

Thanks for the link for the site. I hear the difference, but it still doesn't sound like t-r-u-ck...it sounds more like tr-u-ck. But I do hear the difference between "ch" and "tr".

[mom2three]

We are in AAS 1 and it specifically points out that many people hear /ch/ instead of /t/ /r/ and to make it very clear to your students that it *is* /t/ /r/. So rest assured, you aren't the only one who thinks it sounds like /ch/! :)

 

That's really good to hear! Thank you!

[mom2three]

When said quickly it sounds like ch to me (and many young children). When we work on it I make sure to "pronounce for spelling" to make the difference clear. My younger son has trouble hearing the sound when he makes it but hears it when I pronounce clearly. He also hears the second sound of th as v a lot.

 

I can hear it when I say it slowly. I need to practice saying it slowly. Thank you!

[Ellie]

Thanks for the link for the site. I hear the difference, but it still doesn't sound like t-r-u-ck...it sounds more like tr-u-ck. But I do hear the difference between "ch" and "tr".

 

When you are teaching it, you need to say each phonogram separately, even if it doesn't sound natural. It isn't supposed to sound natural at that point.

[Ms.Ivy]

TR sounds like CHR to me. Maybe it is a dialect issue. Anyway, in phonics lessons I always exaggerate the t-r sounds a bit, and don't say it with the ch sound. The kids are confused about the word at first but after I translate, they get it and are able to understand that we have slightly different pronunciation. I am always mentioning to them that we have lazy speech, that a word used to be pronounced the way it's spelled, but now we slur it and say ______.

[silver]

My son had problems with words with "tr" (sounded like ch-r to him) and "dr" ("drum" sounded like j-r-u-m to him). I told him that in English there aren't words spelled "chr---" where the "ch" makes the /ch/ sound (it's usually making the /k/ sound); so if he hears "chr", it's really "tr" blurring together and to spell it with "tr". Same with the "dr" sound.

[Ellie]

 

Am I saying this wrong? Should I be saying t-r-u-ck, t-r-e-e, and t-r-i-ck etc?

 

 

Yes, you are saying it wrong. Yes, you should be saying t-r-u-ck, and  t-r-ee and t-r-i-ck. "Tr" is not a "sound." It is two single-letter phonograms, each with its own sound. "ck" is a phonogram. "ch" is a phonogram.

[HomeAgain]

We introduced 'tr' and 'dr' with the same reasoning as "the" pronounced "thuh" instead of 'thee'.  People slur their speech.  They get complacent.  Talk slow, then talk fast, and the sounds appear to change, but what really changes is our attention to their individuality.

[maize]

Yes, you are saying it wrong. Yes, you should be saying t-r-u-ck, and  t-r-ee and t-r-i-ck. "Tr" is not a "sound." It is two single-letter phonograms, each with its own sound. "ck" is a phonogram. "ch" is a phonogram.

 

Language as commonly used is never wrong.

 

tr does in fact take on a chr sound in some dialects, and it is completely correct and right for that dialect.

[Ellie]

Language as commonly used is never wrong.

 

tr does in fact take on a chr sound in some dialects, and it is completely correct and right for that dialect.

 

It is not how it is being taught *in this method.*

[RootAnn]

My kids hear ch in train, too. They also hear me mispronounce picture/ pitcher. Spelling is partially knowing how to think to spell the words.

[Tanaqui]

You are not saying it incorrectly. I'm not going to try to use IPA here, so don't expect me to :) I know lots of people can't read it, and I never could type it without referring to a chart to c+p!

 

The sounds we hear are called phonemes. However, many times phonemes are formed slightly differently depending on the environment. For example, in English, when we say pin we say that /p/ with a little puff of air (aspirated), but when we say nip we don't say it with a puff of air. The sounds we make are called phones. Phonemes are the sounds we hear, phones are the sounds we make. When one phoneme has multiple phones, we say that those extra phones are allophones of the phoneme. So in English, aspirated p (which we write as /p^h/) is an allophone of the phoneme /p/, one which only occurs at the beginning of a word or stressed syllable. (In other languages, /p^h/ might be a phoneme on its own! This can be tricky when learning a language that makes distinctions you don't. But I digress.)

 

In all languages, people tend to make easier sound combinations rather than harder ones. /t/ and /r/ aren't articulated in exactly the same place, so in English, we usually add an intermedial sound in between them - /sh/. T + sh = ch. So we say that /ch/ is an allophone of /t/ that is realized before /r/. Most English speakers don't hear this, especially once they learn to read and have been thoroughly indoctrinated that the sound before an /r/ must be /t/, never /ch/. (Okay, and the correct IPA for the /ch/ is /tʃ/. You can see it's just as I said - you have a /t/ plus a /ʃ/ which represents the sound we usually write in English as /sh/, and that gives you the unvoiced post-alveolar affricate, or /ch/. Unvoiced means we don't use our vocal cords to make the sound (that'd give us j), post-alveolar means we say the sound with the tip of our tongue located behind the alveolar ridge, affricate means it begins as a stop, a sound where we stop the air entirely, and ends as a fricative, a sound where we only block the air a little. Every single phone in every spoken language has a descriptive name.)

 

If you are the one who is confused, I hope this has cleared things up for you :) If your child is the one who is confused - and both my girls got caught up with this! - I suggest you explain why this is the case. "I know you hear /ch/, and that is the sound you make, but in English, when /ch/ comes before the sound /r/, we write it as a /t/. I know it seems strange, but that's just the rule."

 

It is not how it is being taught *in this method.*

 

Then the curriculum is wrong, especially if it encourages judgmental thoughts like other people have expressed, such as that speaking this way is "slurred and complacent" or "wrong".

Edited March 11, 2016 by Tanaqui

[Ms.Ivy]

That was a very interesting post, Tanaqui.... thanks! I will add that when I teach my kids that a word is pronounced differently than the spelling, because of our lazy speech, it's in a non-judgemental context. What I mean is that it's a normal development of language and not wrong, it's just what happens. For example, we talk about the silent "gh" and how it used to sound hundreds of years ago (or how it still sounds in related German words). And we talk about English speakers got lazy and dropped it. But it's obviously not a bad thing when speech patterns change. It's just that spelling doesn't keep up. Hence, orange is not spelled ornge. Sorry to all you who still pronounce the middle syllable, but we don't. Haha

[BatmansWife]

 

My name is Tracy.  To me, Tr and Chr are different...yes, very very close, especially if you say my name fast...but they are different.  

 

My name is Tracy, not Chracy.   :001_smile:

 

 

[Matryoshka]

Around here we say TR like... TR.  Doesn't sound even remotely like CHR.  Definitely a dialectal difference!  And orange has a vowel in the middle, even if does make the schwa sound. ;)

 

Do say 'water' like 'wadder', though.  And butter like 'budder'

[Ellie]

 

 

 

Then the curriculum is wrong, especially if it encourages judgmental thoughts like other people have expressed, such as that speaking this way is "slurred and complacent" or "wrong".

 

No, it isn't wrong. It is teaching English, not other language or cultures. Goodness. What a strange thing to say. :huh:

[SparklyUnicorn]

I can vaguely catch your drift with this.  I say "tr", but I can imagine a hint of that "ch" sound in the way some people say it.  Maybe some sort of accent?  Which part of the country do you live?

 

I don't have any advice though!

 

 

 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

No, it isn't wrong. It is teaching English, not other language or cultures. Goodness. What a strange thing to say. :huh:

 

To be fair the Brits would tell us we are pronouncing a lot of things incorrectly or differently than the way they pronounce things.

 

My older kid...ohhh.  See my husband was taught British pronunciations and his first language is German.  So he and I don't say things the same way.  My older kid gets a kick out of driving me crazy with his pronunciations.  Some stuff he pronounces our way.  Some the British way. Depends on his mood.  Oddly both come naturally to him.  I used to get annoyed, but that didn't make him stop.  LOL

[maize]

No, it isn't wrong. It is teaching English, not other language or cultures. Goodness. What a strange thing to say. :huh:

 

It teaches the phonetics of a specific codified dialect of English.

 

Which does not account for the rich, living variations of the English language.

[SparklyUnicorn]

It teaches the phonetics of a specific codified dialect of English.

 

Which does not account for the rich, living variations of the English language.

 

It's true. There are a lot of variations.  In Germany they teach one very specific German in school, but there are tons of dialects.  Some are so different it's almost a different language.  But I don't know if we have something comparable in the US.  I mean where schools always teach one specific dialect that has been officially mandated.  I could be wrong, but I've never heard of that.  I assume it does not vary much, but again, I am not aware of any official mandate regarding this.

[Tanaqui]

No, it isn't wrong. It is teaching English, not other language or cultures. Goodness. What a strange thing to say. :huh:

 

It is wrong if it states that an extremely widespread and common aspect of the English language is incorrect. It is wrong if it states - or otherwise encourages students to believe - that some dialects are more correct than others. It is wrong if there is no room to correctly explain how the phonetics of the English language work.

 

I didn't state anything about other languages or cultures. I'm not sure what exactly you're replying to there.

[Ellie]

It is wrong if it states that an extremely widespread and common aspect of the English language is incorrect. It is wrong if it states - or otherwise encourages students to believe - that some dialects are more correct than others. It is wrong if there is no room to correctly explain how the phonetics of the English language work.

 

I didn't state anything about other languages or cultures. I'm not sure what exactly you're replying to there.

 

It doesn't "state" anything. It teaches standard English spelling and pronunciation. It doesn't discuss dialects or anything else. It just teaches standard English spelling and pronunciation.

[Tsuga]

It is not how it is being taught *in this method.*

 

In that case, what I usually do is break apart each sound and then explain how when we (meaning, in our dialect) say those sounds together, they sound different because our tongues take shortcuts.

 

So, I would say: "It says t-r-uck because that is how it was and is pronounced by many English speakers when they decided how to write it. But around the world, people's tongues and mouths take shortcuts. Let's see how that happens. Say t- r. (Repeat a few times.) Now say tr. Say that five times. Now do it faster. See how your mouth tries to get to the r so fast it turns the "t" into "ch"?"

 

Or you can try with "ancient". A-n-c-i-e-n-t. An-ci-ent. Anci-ent. Ten times fast. Look at how the mouth changes and gets lazy when preparing to move from c to i. 

 

Isn't vs. Is Not, c'm'ere vs. Come here, etc. are all cases in which spoken English diverges from formal written English. Then I emphasize that in school we learn formal written English.

 

This sets the ground for greater learning around linguistics as well, phonological and morphemic evolution. Germans say drei, we say three. Those came from one language!

 

"Standard" or "formal" or "economically viable", whatever you want to call it, that's what we teach in school. It's important that you speak and write in the same language as your boss. I guess from the boss' perspective it sounds odd to hear that that's why some of us value formal English, and not just because it sounds pretty, but it's true for me. I don't mind sharing with my kids the pragmatic reasons for learning formal English even if that's not how they talk.

[Tsuga]

TR sounding like CHR

 

My name is Tracy.  To me, Tr and Chr are different...yes, very very close, especially if you say my name fast...but they are different.  

 

My name is Tracy, not Chracy.   :001_smile:

 

That is a great video.

[Tanaqui]

It doesn't "state" anything. It teaches standard English spelling and pronunciation. It doesn't discuss dialects or anything else. It just teaches standard English spelling and pronunciation.

 

1. You're assuming that your pronunciation is standard. I most definitely have the opposite assumption here.

 

2. Any writing or reading curriculum that has no room for dialectical variation other than "Yes, you are saying it wrong" (those are your words) is problematic and also - if directed towards native speakers with no speech impediments - incorrect. I don't know if this curriculum outright says "this is wrong". However, I find it telling that you are here supporting this sort of material, and you also seem to have absorbed the message that some dialects are "right" or "wrong". Any material that reinforces this falsehood is problematic... and not particularly helpful for children whose dialect verges very much from the prestige dialect. (Yes, Standard American English is a dialect. We all speak dialects.) This really is common sense, but I believe I can still cite it (if I can find it via google), children learn reading and writing better when the code is explained in terms of their own speech, rather in terms of somebody else's speech. And when we don't muddy the waters with "right" and "wrong" or "good" speech and "bad" speech, it's easier for them to become bidialectical.

 

Edit: Ah, I found at least one citation. And here's an article that cites a few more pieces.

 

To sum up: Everybody speaks a dialect. Everybody who is learning to read speaks a dialect. I promise you, everybody's dialect diverges from the prestige dialect in some ways (and yet, everybody always seems to think they're the exception to this rule!) Speech is primary, and any form of instruction in reading or writing that doesn't offer any tools for navigating the mismatch between how the student speaks and the standard is missing the boat. If the only answer a curriculum can give for these mismatches is "varying pronunciations are wrong", then that curriculum is factually incorrect, and also seriously problematic. As the eighth axiom of sociolinguistics puts it, quite rightly, bias against a dialect (and calling aspects of that dialect flatly "wrong" is a bias) stands in for bias against the speakers of that dialect. This issue of dialects touches in on classism, racism, sexism... to not address it in the primary years is to be as remiss as not discussing handwashing or good touch/bad touch.

[MistyMountain]

This was an interesting discussion. I never heard truck as chruck but I guess I can see how it may be a distinction some people have trouble hearing or that some people may pronounce that way because of a regional accent. My youngest has trouble hearing the difference between certain similar sounding vowels and digraphs.

Edited March 12, 2016 by MistyMountain

[RKWAcademy]

My daughter (7) has a speech impediment and she also says /tr/ the same as /ch/.   She also can't hear the difference which is one reason I think she pronounces it incorrectly.   But pronounced correctly, it sounds very distinctly like a /t/ sound blended with an /r/ sound to me.   

Truck sounds like this: 

 

Chuck sounds like this.

 

I agree with this.

My son's speech therapist has been working specifically with this, also.  /tr/ is not supposed to sound like /ch/.  My son (and I, by extension of daily practice) has been working on this for a long time!  Per our speech therapy, you have to get the /t/ and /r/ clear and separate before you can blend them in speech like you and I would do.

[Ms.Ivy]

I agree with this.

My son's speech therapist has been working specifically with this, also. /tr/ is not supposed to sound like /ch/. My son (and I, by extension of daily practice) has been working on this for a long time! Per our speech therapy, you have to get the /t/ and /r/ clear and separate before you can blend them in speech like you and I would do.

Dropping the R due to a speech impediment is different than pronouncing it as CHR. It is nearly universally pronounced CHR in my area. I think if you listen to the pronunciation of TR words carefully you can hear it sound like CHR. It's on this audio pronunciation:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/try

[SparklyUnicorn]

It doesn't "state" anything. It teaches standard English spelling and pronunciation. It doesn't discuss dialects or anything else. It just teaches standard English spelling and pronunciation.

 

So what is standard English?  Who sets the standard?

[lindsey]

This topic has interested me ever since I took a course on phonetics in college. My professor told the class that 'tr' sounds like 'ch' when most people say it, and it blew my mind--it definitely doesn't when I say it, in my opinion! Lol, but my son usually spells things that way...'chruck' or 'chrain,' for example. Same with 'dr' coming out as 'jr'...he will spelling driving as 'jriving.' 

[maize]

It doesn't "state" anything. It teaches standard English spelling and pronunciation. It doesn't discuss dialects or anything else. It just teaches standard English spelling and pronunciation.

There is no universal standard that applies to English pronunciation.

 

There is just the pronunciation that exists in various communities.

[BatmansWife]

This topic has interested me ever since I took a course on phonetics in college. My professor told the class that 'tr' sounds like 'ch' when most people say it, and it blew my mind--it definitely doesn't when I say it, in my opinion! Lol, but my son usually spells things that way...'chruck' or 'chrain,' for example. Same with 'dr' coming out as 'jr'...he will spelling driving as 'jriving.' 

 

This thread kind of blew my mind because I never knew people said chr for tr.  I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that.  It's almost mind boggling to me.   :lol: 

 

Again...my name starts with Tr so this is kind of fascinating to me.   :001_smile:  

[ElizabethB]

A bit more than halfway down my dyslexia page, I have a link to a program you can use to look at pictures of sounds you make when you say words, you can record yourself and see after you get the program! I have some pictures showing how different sounds in isolation get chopped when they combine vs. how syllables combine with basically no distortion.

 

http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Reading/dyslexia.html

 

Now, I would be fascinated to see someone who can say it both ways record both and see how they compare!! (It would have to be the same person to get a good comparison unless you could compare dozens of examples of each.)

Edited March 15, 2016 by ElizabethB

[mom2three]

We introduced 'tr' and 'dr' with the same reasoning as "the" pronounced "thuh" instead of 'thee'.  People slur their speech.  They get complacent.  Talk slow, then talk fast, and the sounds appear to change, but what really changes is our attention to their individuality.

 

Actually, I was wondering about "the" too. Can you explain the reasoning for "thuh" instead of "thee"? Thank you.

[BatmansWife]

I was thinking more about this.   :001_smile:   

 

Over the years I have heard some people say Schtr for Str.  As an example, I say: Street, Strong, Stream.  But I've heard people say: Schtreet, Schtrong, Schtream (or maybe it would be written as Shtreet, Shtrong, Shtream, I don't know...they say shh before the T).  I've always thought that was odd.  I thought they were saying it wrong...it honestly still sounds wrong to me...but maybe it's a regional thing, I don't know.  Maybe it's kind of the same thing...like saying chr for tr.  Just last night my husband was watching something on youtube that had Michelle Obama speaking and she said Shtrong.  That's when I remembered about all of this.  

 

Language is so complex...and interesting.  

[maize]

I was thinking more about this. :001_smile:

 

Over the years I have heard some people say Schtr for Str. As an example, I say: Street, Strong, Stream. But I've heard people say: Schtreet, Schtrong, Schtream (or maybe it would be written as Shtreet, Shtrong, Shtream, I don't know...they say shh before the T). I've always thought that was odd. I thought they were saying it wrong...it honestly still sounds wrong to me...but maybe it's a regional thing, I don't know. Maybe it's kind of the same thing...like saying chr for tr. Just last night my husband was watching something on youtube that had Michelle Obama speaking and she said Shtrong. That's when I remembered about all of this.

 

Language is so complex...and interesting.

Language really is fascinating. The "sh" sound before tr happens in German is well. As was pointed out up thread, "t" is a sound made at the front of the mouth, while "r" is at the back. "S" is also at the front. When the sounds are in close sequence "chr" or "shr" or "jr" is often substituted because those sounds are produced close together.

 

Some people seem to really struggle to understand that spoken language is always in transition and that there is no such thing as "standard English" as opposed to dialects; there are only dialects; everyone speaks in a dialect. And there is no inherent superiority of one dialect over another.

 

It reminds me of the people who say "I don't have an accent"--because of course their particular accent sounds like normal and proper language to them and they think people with different accents are doing something unique and odd to the language.

Edited March 16, 2016 by maize

[Laura Corin]

Some people seem to really struggle to understand that spoken language is always in transition and that there is no such thing as "standard English" as opposed to dialects; there are only dialects; everyone speaks in a dialect. And there is no inherent superiority of one dialect over another.

 

It reminds me of the people who say "I don't have an accent"--because of course their particular accent sounds like normal and proper language to them and they think people with different accents are doing something unique and odd to the language.

 

It's interesting that different languages have different attitudes to this.  In Mandarin, there is a dialect that is described as 'biaojun', which translates as 'standard'.  The word definitely has a positive connotation, verging on 'acceptable' or 'correct'.  In general use, it can often be translated by the slang use of 'kosher' or 'catholique' (in French), maybe even 'cricket' (as in, 'that's not cricket') in British English. 

 

Edited March 16, 2016 by Laura Corin

[maize]

It's interesting that different languages have different attitudes to this. In Mandarin, there is a dialect that is described as 'biaojun', which translates as 'standard'. The word definitely has a positive connotation, verging on 'acceptable' or 'correct'. In general use, it can often be translated by the slang use of 'kosher' or 'catholique' (in French), maybe even 'cricket' (as in, 'that's not cricket') in British English.

 

I think there have always been prestige dialects, and sometimes governments or influential institutions promote one form of a language as standard. I'm guessing both of these are at play with Mandarin.

 

Languages can unify or divide, and a country with as much dialectical and linguistic variation as China may see real advantages through the adoption of an official dialect.

 

None of which, of course, makes that dialect inherently superior to any other (I realize you are not arguing that it is).

 

I have heard I think of "Received Pronunciation" in the UK--or is that only in England? Is that an official sort of thing? I really know nothing of it other than a vague recollection of having heard the term.

 

Globally there is certainly no such thing as "standard English", nor is there an official standard of pronunciation in the United States.

Edited March 17, 2016 by maize

[Laura Corin]

I have heard I think of "Received Pronunciation" in the UK--or is that only in England? Is that an official sort of thing? I really know nothing of it other than a vague recollection of having heard the term.

 

 

RP is descriptive rather than prescriptive now, but it certainly was the language of the ruling classes and the BBC.  You will still hear it amongst most politicians but the BBC is more varied now.  Certainly thirty years ago, speaking RP would have improved your chances in the job market.  I don't think that this is the case now; in fact perhaps the opposite.  

 

There are some accents that are still out of favour: the accent of the South West, where I come from, is considered 'yokelly' and lacking gravitas.  I've yet to hear a serious broadcaster with a Devon or Somerset accent.

 

There's been an odd shift amongst politicians: the previous generation actually had more varied accents, because Labour politicians were more likely to have had a background in the Unions and to have come up from the shop floor.  This generation of Labour politicians are more likely to have gone from university to internships, research positions, then candidacy.  It's not a good development - leaving aside the accents - because it means that the candidates don't have any life experience outside of politics.

[eternalsummer]

When I was at teacher's college in NZ, there was a guy in our classes who was also from overseas, from Liverpool (I think).  He was 45 or 50 and balding, and he had the absolute best voice ever.  Everything he said sounded like he was singing.  

 

When the NZ students imitated my accent (in fun), the first thing they did was flatten out the tones.  I have a Midwestern US accent (think news broadcaster).

[maize]

When I was at teacher's college in NZ, there was a guy in our classes who was also from overseas, from Liverpool (I think). He was 45 or 50 and balding, and he had the absolute best voice ever. Everything he said sounded like he was singing.

 

When the NZ students imitated my accent (in fun), the first thing they did was flatten out the tones. I have a Midwestern US accent (think news broadcaster).

I've noticed that while we tend to think of accent as differences in pronunciation it is often differences in the intonation, lilt, and rhythm of the language that are most striking.

[Laura Corin]

I've noticed that while we tend to think of accent as differences in pronunciation it is often differences in the intonation, lilt, and rhythm of the language that are most striking.

 

Yes: for a while, Calvin had a Tagalog lilt to his accent because we had a housekeeper from the Philippines.  It wasn't the pronunciation but the more varied up and down way of talking.