# data[].attributes.body
Comparison of Underhill’s and Hancock’s phonemic charts.

Being a visual learner, my bias drew me directly in favor of Hancock’s chart. I have always felt that organised pattern, layout and colour simplify the learning process tenfold, regardless of topic. Underhill’s chart for someone like me is completely off putting.

In Hancock’s chart, the vowel sounds are paired with their short equivalent, long sounds appear on the outer side of the hexagon, and shorter sounds appear on the inner portion. Hancock has also colour coded his chart to reinforce pattern. Long sounds are a deep shade, short sounds are a paler shade of the same colour of their counterpart. The hexagon shape also allows Hancock to position diphthongs in their appropriate place (the outer portion as they are long vowel sounds) without interrupting the connection of the long and short vowel pairs. I also appreciate that Hancock has chosen to include a model word for each sound that are suitable for elementary level learners. Consonants are colour coded in relation to voice/ unvoiced sounds. The biggest pitfall with Hancock’s chart, and something that is at the forefront of importance in pronunciation, is the complete lack of guidance for articulation of the sounds.

Articulation of the sounds appears to be of key importance in Underhill’s chart. Although visually this chart doesn’t appeal to me, there is a lot of logic behind the pattern. Vowels, diphthongs and consonants are grouped together. Sounds are arranged in relation to position of articulation. Students need to understand where sounds are produced in order to produce words accurately and Underhill’s chart undoubtedly aids the learner in doing so. With that being said Underhill’s chart is missing cues to help the learner remember what sound they are actually looking at. It goes without saying that the prominence given to R.P. in this chart is counterproductive for both teacher and learner.

Taking everything into account, I feel the ideal phonemic chart would be a combination of both Underhill’s and Hancock’s depictions.

# data[].attributes.body
The first element that I noticed in Hancock’s chart is its user-friendly layout. The hexagon imitating the shape of the mouth gives it an immediacy that is lacking in Underhill’s chart, and I can see how it could be understood at a glance by most students, once minimal guidance is given.

The positioning of short vowel sounds in the inner circle is an appropriate indicator not only of the manner/position of the utterance, but also of the fact that they can never be put at the end of a syllable. This could be beneficial for speakers coming from some Latin-based languages, for example with the classic issue of /i:/ vs /I/ for words like tree, me, etc.

The addition of the rhotic r is a valuable one, as it makes the experience of learning how to utter and understand sounds in English significantly more inclusive. As it was mentioned by other teachers in the discussions, it is unrealistic to expect students to replicate an accent that they would almost never encounter outside the academic environment, while not devoting nearly as much attention to the other (more popular) variants of the language at this moment in time. It is important to keep in mind that English, like any other language, is a tool used by a variety of people living in very diverse contexts.

A few elements of this chart could be improved, as for instance the use of words with the various sounds. On the one hand it helps the user, in the sense that it shows a familiar code to refer back to. On the other hand, it could cause some confusion, as some letters can be associated with different sounds, as for instance in girl / tough / general.

As a matter of fact, the lack of any words related to the sounds is, in my opinion, Underhill’s chart strong point. Its minimal structure can be a solid base on which students (and teachers) can build sound awareness, especially if the students are coming from a linguistic background which uses a different alphabet/code. It was a clear base for Hancock’s chart and I believe it should not be completely dismissed.

Its structure made me also reflect on its potential use with students who are struggling with the alphabetical structure because of learning disabilities like dyslexia. Does anyone have more information or comments on this issue?

Fran

# data[].attributes.body
Underhill and Hancock’s phonemic charts can both be very useful for teaching pronunciation in class, however, certain elements set them apart. What I think is one of the great advantages of Underhill’s chart, is that it is designed to illustrate place and manner of articulation - especially in terms of jaw and lip movements. This design is useful to show students the difference between sounds that might appear similar to them, but once they understand how and where they are produced they can find it easier to reproduce them correctly. For instance, certain language groups might struggle with sounds which are produced at the front of the mouth, by referring to Underhill’s chart they might find it easier to hear the difference between the sounds they produce and the ones they should be producing. Although Hancock also designs his chart taking these factors into consideration, I feel that Underhill’s chart is more straightforward and easier to interpret.

One of the biggest differences between Hancock and Underhill’s chart is their descriptive vs. prescriptive approach to teaching pronunciation. What I see as one of Hancock’s chart biggest strengths is his focus on intelligibility rather than achieving RP – which Underhill clearly favours. As teachers I believe that is important to emphasise that it is not better or worse to have X, Y, or Z accent, as long as it does not hinder communication. Another aspect I find advantageous about Hancock’s chart is the use of colour and including the optional /r/ sound. Finally, the choice of monosyllabic words to use as guide for the different sounds can create a divide in teachers’ opinion. I believe that if dealt with carefully, using typical spellings for a sound can make it easier for the students to remember how to produce it correctly – with the proviso that we raise awareness of the many irregularities that can be found in English regarding spelling and pronunciation.

I think that a good approach could be to combine -where possible - the positive aspects of Underhill’s chart (place and manner of articulation) and the descriptive nature and more colourful design of Hancock’s chart.

Lucía.

# data[].attributes.body
Firsty I like the infograph of Hancocks phonemic chart, especially the images of mouth shapes. With tongue in a low/ medium/ high position - useful for students too! Given the choice I would rather teach from Hancocks graph as there is a distinct difference between vowels and consonants - they are separated in different shapes which is more useful visually as you can tackle them separately.

Comparing Hancock and Underhills phonemic charts. The order of consonants are different between both charts, but Hancock arranges sounds by similarity in smaller groups- p,b,m,f,v - it rolls of the tongue easier and visually easier to understand 5 rows across and 5 rows down.This contrasts with Underhills with 8 symbols across by 3 down. Too many phonemic symbols together can be intimidating to students and teachers.

The same can be said for Underhills arrangement of vowels. We tend to use the schwa symbol much more than we think which is illustrated well by Hancock’s central placement. We don’t immediately see this in Underhills chart. The fact that Hancock used a hexagon shape for the vowels to illustrate how your mouth changes the closer in you go is very clever - easy to explain and understand !!! Outer symbols - are long vowel sounds while inner symbols are short vowel sounds until the schwa which is barely stressed at all - I really like this and would feel confident explaining this to my students in classes!

Hancock also chose to leave out the vowel sound /:ɔ/ - with the example being poor vs pour again this has very little variation depending on accents - I think this also shows he was thinking of teachers in mind rather than fancy smancy cambridge English which isn’t spoken widely around the world. Another difference between Underhill's chart vs Hancocks is Underhill chose not to include words in his chart only symbols, I know they often are accompanied by pictures but again I find Hancock has an advantage with visually simple words + and sounds

Overall - due to being visually pleasing,  good colour shading as well as shape of the chart I’d definitely opt to teach Hancocks chart - It now seems a shame that the majority of English schools/ books I’ve worked in seem to push Underhills chart.

# data[].attributes.body
Since the pronunciation workshop took place I've been trying to incorporate elements of Underhill and Hancock's charts into pronunciation activities in my elementary and intermediate classes.

Underhill's chart has been a really useful reference point for focusing on the articulation of sounds, where and how these sounds are made. I have found Underhill's guide particularly useful for trying to help students who may find it challenging to produce certain sounds.

Hancock's chart is in colour and seems to endeavour to give students visual reference points. It also gives examples of common words that exemplify each sound. The differentiation it makes between pronouncing the letter r or not in certain words can be very useful for many students. This has been quite useful in my intermediate class as many students in the class are aware of a variety of pronunciation features in English.

On the whole, I think both charts serve as guides to give teachers ideas that may benefit both individual students and entire classes in terms of offering learners opportunities to think about how they are producing sounds (Underhill)) and how they exemplify sounds (Hancock - with particular regard to short and long vowel sounds).

# data[].attributes.body
I found both charts interesting and they both have their advantages. Hancock's chart with its colours and shapes may be more appealing to younger learners whereas the more technical aspects of Underhill's chart may work better with higher levels. Based on a couple of presentation videos I watched I like Underhill's   idea of the sounds being 'neighbours in the mouth', 'organised in relation to each other', 'obstruction with consonants and flow with vowels.' Personally I would not give either to my students. I think the English File charts we have on the wall are far simpler to understand. Students now more than ever respond to visual stimulus and we have that in the form of pictures in the chart. Underhill and Hancock's charts are something I would have a copy of for myself going into class which I could then use when I am teaching mouth position and other more technical aspects. When we used Underhill's chart in our recent training I found I had to really concentrate in order to understand how it works. Therefore I feel it might add to possible confusion and would give students the feeling that they have to learn it by heart. With its pictures, typical spellings and less frequent spellings, I think the chart is an easier to understand reference tool for students.

# data[].attributes.headline
I found Billy's teaching of Underhill's Chart to be very persuasive; especially the way it illuminates the almost geographical locating of sound production within the mouth; and how the very geography of the mouth is mapped in a holistic manner by the chart itself. I feel that if this chart were to be partnered with even a rudimentary sketch of the inside of the mouth it can precisely identify any student's difficulty with specific instances of sound production. The holistic nature of Underhill's chart (a single square) is not replicated by Hancock's; making it seem almost as though the sounds were created by two different mouths rather than one.

# data[].attributes.subject
I found Billy's teaching of Underhill's Chart to be very persuasive; especially the way it illuminates the almost geographical locating of sound production within the mouth; and how the very geography of the mouth is mapped in a holistic manner by the chart itself. I feel that if this chart were to be partnered with even a rudimentary sketch of the inside of the mouth it can precisely identify any student's difficulty with specific instances of sound production. The holistic nature of Underhill's chart (a single square) is not replicated by Hancock's; making it seem almost as though the sounds were created by two different mouths rather than one.

# data[].attributes.body
I also find the simple black and white quadrant appealing. I am aware this is my own personal bias, but I am not the type of learner, or teacher, who is drawn towards colour (Hancock) or how it could be twinned with meaning. For me, this adds an extra layer of symbol to something that does not necessarily need more significance than it is given in the discreet but existing pairings that already exist with Underhill's chart (P-B T-D: voiced, unvoiced, etc). Counter-intuitively, perhaps, I also feel that Underhill's usage means that there is less opportunity for sounds to be mixed up with letters, as the way English words are spelled and the way they are spoken diverges a great deal. I feel the inclusion of example words in Hancock could lead to too rigid an understanding of how spelling produces sound.

For me, the most appealing element of Hancock is the prominence of the rhotic R. I also definitely see the advantage of Hancock for younger learners as it is a more navigable chart, and somewhat easier to understand.

Still, if I were to use a chart I would use Underhill because of the way it has grouped and mapped the vowel sounds. However, I believe both charts would be equally basically incomprehensible to an English learner that was teaching themselves; and our duty as teachers is to guide students through whichever chart we choose. I can't imagine a situation where I would combine both as, at best, you may only have a student for twelve weeks, and I can't see a massive advantage to combining two charts with such a limited amount of time for learning language. But perhaps I am wrong.

I find the English File posters on the wall are a lovely tool when it comes to distinguishing individual sounds. They are a great supplement to modelling.

Finally, I do plan to do a lesson in the near future on vowel sounds, using Underhill; as producing vowel sounds at Elementary (and of course at higher levels) is a perpetual problem; and one I will try to eradicate using the mouth mapping method Billy showed us, and I look forward to it.

# data[].attributes.body
Underhill’s chart provides a clear and logical pattern to follow. Its layout neighbours sounds that stem from similar places in the mouth. The chart is designed to mimic the shape of the mouth and sounds are organised into groupings of monophthongs, diphthongs and consonants. It’s easy to interpret and provides a visual of how to articulate sound, and I’ve found it particularly useful with beginners. Underhill’s chart falters for me in its lack of example words and its unfamiliar RP. I feel Hancock’s chart is better in that he provides us with examples of the sounds in speech – easy for quick reference for both student and teacher.

Hancock’s chart is more inviting. It’s color-coded - the darker the colour the longer the sound, which I think is automatically x10 more appealing for students. It’s arrangement I feel could be less daunting for students – Underhill’s is quite dense in comparison. The hexagon is carefully organised: long sounds surrounding their short equivalents with the schwa placed carefully in the centre. The placement of the schwa stresses its importance as the shortest vowel and diphthongs are treated as long vowel sounds. It’s better, I think, to place diphthongs in the chart with the other sounds rather than separate them off in their own block as in Underhill’s; this and his addition of the rhotic R I feel encourages learners to produce the sounds more naturally.

While Hancock’s chart is visually more appealing, Underhill’s deals with articulation more efficiently, which (at least at the beginning), I feel is more important. That being said, both charts have equal strengths and weaknesses, and perhaps a combination of the two would be a good idea.

# data[].attributes.body
At first glance, I was immediately swayed in favour of Hancock’s chart.

The shape and the colours are intriguing and would arguably be more appealing to students.  However, to fully appreciate the improvements that Hancock has made, we have to understand Underhill’s model. Underhill’s chart is logically laid out and is beneficial for students in understanding jaw and lip position, especially in teaching students their ships & sheeps.

Hancock has embraced this model and improved on it. While he has maintained this pattern to a certain extent, I feel that the long shorter vowel sounds on the inner hexagon and the longer vowel sounds on the outer hexagon give another dimension to this. Pairing them with partner sounds is also helpful as a visual aid for students and teachers in class. Similarly, it was a great idea to put the shwa in the centre of the hexagon. It serves as a great reminder to both teachers and students that the often overlooked sound is an intrinsic part of the English language.

The inclusion of the rhotic r is another advantage of Hancock’s chart. The likelihood of most students being exposed to the RP pronunciation of Underhill’s chart is slim at best; many of them watch American movies or listen to singers that sing with an American accent, as well as studying in Ireland, therefore hearing the rhotic r more often than not.

All of that being said, I think that Underhill’s chart should not be ignored. It’s design is arguably more simplistic than and just as effective as Hancock’s. Ultimately, to understand Hancock’s chart, you must understand Underhill’s. On a practical level, I think that while Hancock’s chart is visually appealing and well designed, perhaps it would be a little bit lost on lower levels. The simpler layout of Underhill’s chart & focusing on the jaw/lip placement would probably be easier for lower levels to grasp and Hancock’s would be more effective with more confident, higher level learners.

# data[].attributes.body
Underhill's chart has been around for a long time and it seems to be the standard go to when it comes to pronunciation. Having attending the first module, I could see why it is so popular as so much of it makes sense. The way the vowels are placed based on tongue and mouth position, the pairing of the consonants and how the diphthongs are arranged based on the second vowel sound. All this seems to create a chart that can be easily understood and followed.

However, I didn't understand it. I had looked at it in classrooms for years and never really got it at all. Perhaps this was through my own laziness but it never spoke to me. It was black and white and boring and I never used it in class. I like the English file posters on the phonemes. They colourful and visual, they have pictures to help me make a connection to the sound.

This is the main advantage of Hancock's chart. It's visual, which immediately attracted my attention. There's no separation in the vowel sounds. It starts with the schwa, the shortest sound in the middle and moves out to short and then long sounds and diphthongs. The colour scheme also matches this. It also keeps close sounds together, which would be great for comparison. In terms of consonants, the pairs are put together in 'joined boxes' whilst also having separate sections for stops,  fricatives and affricates. It also included the tapped 't' sound, which I believe is overlooked by Underhill.

If I were to use one of the charts, I'd definitely go with Handcock's. Not only is it more visual but I feel comparing neighboring sounds would be a useful tool in the classroom. That's not to say Underhill's is obsolete, maybe verbal learners would benefit from his methodical approach.

# data[].attributes.body
For me, the main strength of Hancock's chart is the attention and pride of place given to the schwa. The more you look into it, the more you realise it's an exceptional sound and it's placement in the Underhill chart always seems a bit sloppy as it's not really easily comparable to any other vowel sound. As the schwa is never used in a stressed syllable, functions as a lazy vowel to aid sentence stress and is almost inaudible, it deserves special attention at the centre of the vowel sounds. When focusing on each individual vowel sound one by one, the schwa is almost impossible to drill on its own, unlike the other vowel sounds.

The colour coding of the Hancock chart is also visually stimulating and it helps draw students focus towards how the sounds are formed rather than how they sound. The can aid practice of the sounds when teachers are focusing on the position of the jaw or tongue etc. However, on a basic point of user friendliness, I think when students look at the wall and see Hancock's hexagonal grid of vowels, they may find the concentric layout a bit confusing and convoluted.

Underhill's chart feels very inexact and arbitrary at points, for instance, with the place of /I/ and /i:/ together as if they were just an exact variation of one another seeming clumsy. On the other hand, Underhill's chart is laid out with simplicity and is probably more accessible for students. The idea to ignore the glottal stop in 'button' that Hancock uses is probably better too. Grouping diphthongs together has some weakness as pointed out by Underhill but for drilling in class it's very convenient to have them neatly together to focus on.

Overall, I prefer the Hancock chart but wouldn't dismiss the Underhill one and feel that they could be used side by side as teaching aids, possibly in combination with a chart showing positioning of the tongue, teeth and lips.

# data[].attributes.body
Upon first glance I thought Underhill’s chart seemed more user- friendly. It is neatly and logically organised and easy to follow and understand, especially for pronunciation “newcomers”. Although visually more striking and impressive, I shuddered when I first saw Hancock’s chart, immediately being taken back to Junior Cert science and the dreaded Periodic table. However, I decided I’d give it a chance.

What I like most about Underhill’s chart is its simplicity. With the 12 vowel sounds, the sounds of the top row are coming from the top of your nearly closed mouth. Whereas with the bottom row, your mouth is more open and the sound is coming from the bottom of your mouth. The column layout from left to right representing the backwards progression of the tongue is simple but very effective. Agreeing with Hancock, where I think Underhill’s chart falls short is the lack of importance being placed on the schwa and putting the Diphthongs into a league of their own.

This is what I most like about Hancock’s. The schwa is rightfully placed in the centre with no example word alluding to its importance and flexibility. I think dealing with diphthongs as longer sounding vowels and keeping them in close proximity to their shorter counterparts, as in /eǝ/ and /e/, is way more convenient for comparing and contrasting similar sounds. I also think the inclusion of the rhotic r is a huge point for Hancock in this game of phonetic one-upmanship. I’m frequently questioned in class, particularly by higher levels, about the correct pronunciation of bird, car etc. I think it’s vital that students are aware of certain deviations in English pronunciation regardless of whether they can reproduce it or not.

I think both charts have their place when it comes to teaching pronunciation. In class, particularly with lower levels, I think I would be more inclined to use Underhill's due to its simplicity, accessibility and at this point I feel more comfortable and confident using it. I think it’s great for drawing student’s attention to the physicality of sound articulation and providing an easy to follow mouth map. Hancock’s is a great personal tool for me, though I’m still getting used to its layout. I’m not comfortable enough with it yet to use in class, but I think it would be good for higher level students who are already familiar with Underhill’s chart and want to expand on it.