One of the simplest strategies when one gets stuck on a word is to use a synonym. In my “Silly Sally” acronym, the “S” stands for synonyms and antonyms. In the FAVOR-C acronym, the “O” stands for opposites and synonyms (see the November 2 post). Language therapy is always about helping a child be more successful in expressing himself. If he can get his point across by telling his friends about his new mini-computer, it doesn’t matter if he says “notebook” or “Chromebook.” If she wants to tell about a smart phone, does it matter if she says “cell” or “mobile”??? This strategy is definitely limited, because many of the synonyms and antonyms we use are nouns and adjectives. But the larger vocabulary a child has, the more choices from which he can draw. Vocabulary is so very crucial to reading comprehension and academic success.
But why antonyms? Research tells us that synonym production is improved by antonym production, although the reverse has not been shown to be true (Powell, 1986). Using antonyms helps define a word’s meaning: using opposition (i.e., antonyms) helps “establish extremes of a word’s meaning.” So if a child learns that “freezing” is the opposite of “boiling,” he learns more than “hot” vs. “cold.” Many subtleties in word meaning are related to degree or extremes: Understanding the differences between pleased, happy, and ecstatic can help understand the differences between disappointed, sad, and depressed. Learning opposites can increase a child’s vocabulary and provide more alternatives when he is stuck on a word.
There are a number of commercially-available sets of cards, lists, and other therapy materials to increase a child’s repertoire of synonyms and antonyms. Some of my favorites are the Fun Decks available from Super Duper. Please “comment” and let me know what materials you find helpful.
It’s important for a child to know that he has a variety of strategies available. This is just one more arrow he can have in his quiver.
Source: Powell, W.R. (1986). Teaching vocabulary through opposition. Journal of Reading, 29, 617-621.