Multiple meaning words can be a source of frustration for students with language disorders. These lessons will bring that to a screeching halt!
- Identify homophones and homographs
- Master the multiple definitions of homophones and homographs
- Use homophones and homographs in sentences
- Improve performance in reading, writing, and test taking
English is the language that uses the most multiple-meaning words. They sound alike and can be spelled alike. No wonder students with language disorders get frustrated.
This Spotlight uses direct instruction techniques to teach the spelling, pronunciation, and definitions of multiple-meaning words. The results are improvement in reading comprehension, writing compositions, and standardized test performance. Pre- and post-tests document your student's progress.
In-depth training teaches students to:
- distinguish homophones (e.g., break/brake)
- identify homographs (e.g., words that are spelled the same but have different meanings as in "close")
- write multiple word definitions
- match word definitions to the correctly spelled word
- use context to determine word meaning
- generate sentences with homophones and homographs
- identify changes in word meaning from prefixes and suffixes
The sections of this book, homographs, homophones, and mixed multiple meanings, are based on the fact that all multiple-meaning words are either homographs or homophones.
The activities are written in the successful Spotlight series format. Students with language-learning disorders benefit from:
- uncomplicated grammar
- clear explanations with examples
- lessons written in ascending order of difficulty so the teaching progression and performance demands are gradual and reinforcing
- varied lesson formats with plenty of practice activities
- a variety of curricular content as well as daily life experiences
You may purchase Spotlight on Figurative Language Multiple Meanings individually or as part of the Spotlight on Figurative Language 6-book set. The 6-book set consists of:
Copyright © 2012
The research base for specific forms of figurative language comprehension and usage is sparse, but "metaphor" and "metaphoric language" have been explored to some depth. The types of figurative language presented in these books can be classified under the general umbrella of metaphor, and the evidence under that label is relevant to the series.
- Reynolds and Ortony (1980) investigated the comprehension of similes and metaphors by second- through sixth-grade typical children. They found evidence of an ability to understand figurative language by children at all grade levels when adequate contextual supports were provided (Seidenberg & Bernstein, 1986).
- Many learning-disabled children appear to have the requisite abilities and strategies for metaphoric comprehension in their cognitive repertoires but fail to spontaneously and appropriately access and apply them when they should . . . learning-disabled children often fail to spontaneously identify the need to use appropriate, cognitive processing strategies that are well within their cognitive competence (Seidenberg & Bernstein, 1986).
- Metaphoric competence reflects an individual's cognitive level, abstract reasoning ability, and linguistic competence. The likelihood of [identifying] nonliteral responses [in figurative contexts] depends primarily on these competencies but is also influenced by an individual's familiarity with the specific figurative forms being studied (Lee & Kamhi, 1990).
- The ability to understand the motives and intentions of others is essential. Assisting children with ASDs to decode figurative language may improve their social skills in relating to others (Mackay & Shaw, 2004).
- Understanding a speaker's communicative intention is a central goal of communication and involves going beyond the literal meaning of an utterance. Children who do not understand these intentions have major communicative difficulties. Often, they are rejected by their peers, further reducing opportunities for interaction. Perhaps they struggle on with their frustration and confusion unnoticed, as the people around them continue to use figurative language. Our closer attention to the specifics of their difficulties should help them when they try to work out the meanings and intentions in the figurative language of their communicative partners (Mackay & Shaw, 2004).
Spotlight on Figurative Language Multiple Meanings incorporates these principles and is also based on expert professional practice.
Lee, R.F., & Kamhi, A.G. (1990). Metaphoric competence in children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(8), 476-482.
Mackay, G., & Shaw, A. (2004). A comparative study of figurative language in children with autistic spectrum disorders. Child Language Teaching & Therapy, 20(1), 13-32. doi: 10.1191/0265659004ct261oa
Reynolds, R.E., & Ortony, A. (1980). Some issues in the measurement of children's comprehension of metaphorical language. Child Development, 51, 1110-1119.
Seidenberg, P.L., & Bernstein, D.K. (1986). The comprehension of similes and metaphors by learning disabled and nonlearning-disabled children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 17, 219-229.