English Spelling Is More Regular Than You've Been Told
The Complaint Every Parent Eventually Makes
"English spelling makes no sense." Every parent says some version of this once their child hits words like love, some, done, or enough. It's a fair complaint on the surface - these words don't look like they follow any pattern at all. But the truth is less dramatic and more useful: English spelling is far more rule-governed than it looks, and most of the "crazy exceptions" people point to are following an old, consistent pattern - just one nobody ever explained.
What the Numbers Actually Say
In the 1960s, a research team ran the largest computerized study of English spelling attempted up to that point, feeding more than 17,000 words into an early computer to measure how consistently sounds mapped to letters (Hanna et al., 1966). The finding surprised people who assumed English spelling was close to random: about half of those words followed the rules with no exceptions at all, and another third followed the rules except for one sound. Widen the lens to include word origin and word families, and the true irregulars - words that genuinely require pure memorization - shrink to a small sliver: roughly four percent of English words in print, by a more recent estimate covering the same territory (Moats, 2020).
That means the overwhelming majority of English spelling is either fully regular or off by a single predictable sound. The "chaos" people remember is concentrated in a short, very visible list of high-frequency words, which is exactly why it feels bigger than it is - those words show up constantly, so their irregularity gets noticed far more than the enormous, quiet majority of words that behave exactly as expected.
The "Weird" Words That Aren't
Take love, some, come, and done. Every one looks like it should rhyme with hove the way hope and stone do - a vowel-consonant-e pattern that's supposed to make the vowel say its own name. Instead they all say a short u sound, and worksheets have been calling them "sight words" for generations.
Here's what's actually going on. Centuries ago, before printing presses, English was handwritten in a style built almost entirely from short, straight vertical strokes. The letters u, m, n, and v were all formed from exactly those strokes, so writing u next to any of them produced a smear of identical lines that was nearly impossible to read back. Scribes solved the problem by swapping in the letter o wherever a u would otherwise sit beside one of those crowded letters, because a rounded o stands out clearly next to a run of straight strokes. The pronunciation never changed - only the spelling did, purely to keep the word legible on the page. That's why love, some, come, done, won, and monk all keep an old o-spelling for a sound that's really a short u.
Once you know this, these words stop being random. They aren't irregular in the "nobody knows why" sense - they're regular under a different, older system, one built around handwriting legibility rather than pronunciation. That's a very different story than "English just doesn't follow rules here," and it's one most kids never hear.
Regular Doesn't Always Mean Simple
None of this means English spelling is easy - a system where roughly half of all words are only mostly predictable is still a genuine challenge to learn. And some patterns really do compete with each other: the long-retired "two vowels go walking" rule is a good example of a rule that sounds tidy but fails too often to trust. The point isn't that every spelling puzzle has a clean answer - it's that the ratio of "genuinely arbitrary" to "rule-governed, once you know the rule" tilts far more toward rules than the folklore suggests.
That distinction matters for how a child experiences learning to read. A child told "just memorize it, English is like that" has no strategy for the next new word. A child told "here's why that one looks odd" walks away with a tool they can use again - the same shift in mindset behind why no English word ends in v, another spelling "oddity" that turns out to be a real rule.
Why This Changes How You Talk About "Hard" Words
The next time your child hits a word that looks like an exception, it's worth asking whether it's a true irregular or a case where a rule is hiding in plain sight. Sometimes the honest answer really is "that one's just memorized" - see our post on true heart words for how to tell the difference. But often enough there's a real pattern underneath, and naming it turns a frustrating exception into one more thing that makes sense.
How to Practice at Home
- Ask "what would this word look like if it followed the usual rule?" For love, that's hove - noticing the mismatch is the first step toward curiosity instead of frustration.
- Group the o-for-u words together. Love, some, come, done, mother, brother, other, month, monkey - seeing them as a family instead of unrelated oddities makes them far easier to hold onto.
- Celebrate finding the pattern, not just the word. "You found another one!" builds more confidence in reading than simply confirming a hard word was read correctly.
- Keep a short, honest list of true exceptions. Not every irregular word has a tidy explanation, and that's fine - a handful of real heart words is very different from treating all of English as arbitrary.
How This Shows Up in Sweet Phonics
Sweet Phonics teaches regular vowel-consonant-e words like home, hope, and stove as a single pattern, then hearts a few words that arrive before their explanation - once, two, done, move. Once and two are genuinely odd; done is the scribal-O pattern above. That's not a failure of the phonics approach; it's an honest acknowledgment that even a systematic program still needs a small set of words a child simply has to know on sight, because no amount of rule-following gets there.
The Takeaway
Most of what looks like chaos in English spelling is really an old, consistent system wearing an unfamiliar disguise - whether that's a computed regularity rate well above half, or a centuries-old handwriting fix still shaping how love and some are spelled today. Learning to spot the pattern behind the "weird" word is one of the most confidence-building shifts a beginning reader can make.
Sources & further reading
- Hanna, P.R., Hanna, J.S., Hodges, R.E., et al. (1966). Phoneme-Grapheme Correspondences as Cues to Spelling Improvement
- Moats, L.C. (2020). Speech to Print: Language Essentials for Teachers
How we research and fact-check these guides: our editorial standards.
Keep reading
Try Sweet Phonics Free
Download the app and start with a structured phonics lesson today.
Download on the App Store