# data[].attributes.body
Both charts can be used as good tools to practice pronunciation in the classroom.

Underhill’s chart is visibly more schematic. As mentioned by most of you, it offers the opportunity for learners to move along horizontally/vertically, and really come to terms with the mechanics of where sounds are produced. However, in my opinion when you first look at the chart, all you really see is a grid full of separate sounds. This chart can be overwhelming to look at.  Another downside of Underhill's chart is that it only provides an accurate representation of sounds produced in British English. I think this makes it a bit outdated, especially nowadays when more and more people are moving away from the traditional speaking model.

On the other hand, Hancock’s chart does a better job of connecting everything together. This is particularly true in the case of the Hexagon, which he uses to illustrate the vowel sounds. He cleverly manages to draw attention to the six pairs of long and short vowel sounds by using this shape. His use of colour is also significant, he uses deeper colours for longer vowel sounds and lighter colours for shorter sounds. At the same time, the chart allows you to move from the outer circle (longer sounds) to the inner circle (shorter) and the schwa – the shortest sound - is positioned in the middle. You can move diagonally and thus compare short and long sounds in a way that is more well-rounded and realistic in my opinion.

Another aspect of Hancock’s chart, which I believe makes it better than Underhill’s original is the fact that he draws attention to accents by using the R symbol in brackets over 4 of the longer vowel sounds (so for example Fork pronounced by somebody with a British accent VS the same word  pronounced by someone with an Irish accent). I think this is crucial today, where English is increasingly spoken by more and more people around the globe. It is common for students to be perplexed when they discover that certain sounds are produced very differently in spoken English, depending on where the speaker is from. Hancock draws attention to accents by using the R and rightly explains that the regardless of whether r is pronounced or not, it is its position after those vowel sounds which makes the sound longer. He therefore also addresses some patterns in spelling, further strengthening a far more comprehensive approach to phonetics.

I agree with what most of my colleagues said about Underhill’s chart being more suited to Lower level learners. It really facilitates drilling and illustrates the mechanics of sound production (part of the mouth: top, middle or bottom) and tongues position by using rows and columns, which are schematic.  On the other hand, Hancock’s chart is more comprehensive and global. It addresses the reality of spoken English and connects different aspects of sound production and pronunciation in a way, which Underhill’s classical method fails to do. Moreover, the chart does not solely allows students to move from top to bottom, indicating how much their jaw drops and from left to right (from front of the mouth to the back) but also allows students to move diagonally from longer vowel sounds to their short equivalents. I believe that his vowel chart would be excellent for B1+ learners.

# data[].attributes.body
I have to put my hand up here and admit that this is the first time I've eve  really had to pay any attention to these charts. And they terrify/confuse me no end!
At a glance, my first thought was that, although Hancock's chart is certainly more attractive to look at in terms of colour and example words for the voiced and unvoiced consonants sounds, Underhill's chart is less contrived.

Underhill allows the student to follow a simple, unbroken line to achieve the target sounds. For me, this suggests it might be better used at lower levels, when a teacher might be able to use the chart for repetition of sounds and minor sound changes. I know drilling sounds with younger learners can cause quite the headache but is well-recognised as a long term investment.
Furthermore, I think the organisation of the sounds makes more sense, especially when looking at the chart for the first time. Although many students may not aim to speak RP, Underhill's himself mentions 'mouthfeel' (or was that Patrick?) and an awareness of where the sounds come from, which, when exploring the sounds of a new language, may be more beneficial to the student.
In guiding the learner through the physicality of where things go in and around the mouth, they are, to my mind, more likely to have a good at practising it themselves at home. Pronunciation is not a sprint but a marathon.

However,  when we look at Hancock's chart we can see that it has been designed with international intelligibility in mind. Gone are the days that one was expected to produce an RP accent, to be replaced by the singular goal of being understood.
Again, Hancock positions the vowels in accordance with traditional vowel quadrant and goes further by pairing the long and short vowel sounds.
To be honest, I think that the chart accompanied by the PronPack Sound Chart info graph makes far more sense as it reminds the learner of its functions - the chart alone is initially just as confusing s Underhill's.
I do like that Hancock has added things like the glottal stop /? and the superscript (r) which for learners not wishing to adopt RP but wanting to consistently differ the target sounds from others is very practical.

In response to what you chaps and chapettes have written below, I have to say that it's a relief that I'm not the only dummy in the class!
Realising that the main goal of this whole program is to heighten our awareness of the practicalities of using either or both charts, I certainly feel more comfortable talking about them now than I did before, and like with most other aspects of teaching EFL, I'm confident that now the can of worms has been opened, it will be easier to dip in and out of it as required.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi guys, I'm coming quite late to the discussion and I think most things have been covered in one way or another. As I commented on Eszter's post I first came across Underhill's chart during my CELTA and I was quite intimidated by it. Nothing much changed on that front until Billy's workshop when I saw past that fear a little to the logic that lies behind it. A couple of lightbulbs started going off, slowly mind you!
Underhill designed his chart to depict the shape of the mouth from front to back, top to bottom and I think that can really an English learner especially if we as teachers go through the sounds and focus on how are mouths change shape and the position of the tongue as we move through different sounds.
Like everyone else I'm not a fan of teaching RP as it's not reflective of my own pronunciation or that of anyone else I know. While I think Underhill may allow for differentiation in accents, Hancock's chart seems to be more evolved in that respect. He specifically says in his article that he attempted to allow for accents and even worked on American accents.
I also like how Hancock pairs the short vowel sounds and it's longer partner. As in /I:/ feet and /i/chin. I also like how he's coloured sounds depending on whether they are long or short sounds.
I'm still more familiar with Underhill's, as intimidated as I may once have been, so I think I may try and incorporate both into my teaching.

Ali

# data[].attributes.headline
Comparing Underhill and Hancock's charts

# data[].attributes.subject
Comparing Underhill and Hancock's charts

# data[].attributes.body
Having spent some time comparing and looking at the two charts, I find the new chart by Hancock more interesting and useful. Underhill's chart seems a little too focused on RP, as some others have mentioned. I think it's appearance makes it seem a little daunting too, and that the large black font might put off students. Also, while I can see some benefit in the idea of placing phonetic symbols on the chart in a similar position to where the sound in made in the mouth, I suspect many students would find it difficult to conceive of "making sounds" in the front-to-back/top-to-bottom (of the mouth) way that Underhill suggests.

Hancock's chart seems a little more flexible than Underhill's in terms of accent. He mentions in his article about the chart that he wanted to create a chart that could be used and adapted to suit the accent of teachers from different countries/regions etc., while also focusing in the necessity of explaining to students that vowel sounds can change from place to place. The small (r) that Hancock adds to the long vowel sound is welcome too, and makes the chart seem less focused on RP, and more open to the fact that English pronunciation exists in different forms (k a: / k ae r for example), and that there isn't a definitive or "right" one to speak or teach. Also, the inclusion of the glottle stop is interesting and potentially useful.

I also find the chart far more visually appealing, something I think is important when you're trying to get students to focus on a new way of thinking aboutpronunciation. If they think it looks daunting (like Underhill's chart) they're probably going to try to avoid it, so the appearance of the chart may well make a considerable difference.

# data[].attributes.body
You've all come up with some interesting and valid comments. For me, it's a matter of choice and what you are most comfortable working with. Hancock's chart is certainly visually pleasing and would appeal to that kind of learner. Just be aware that if you decide to use a chart in class you'll have to raise awareness of how it is organised.

Eszter, you raised a very good point about Handcocks GA version. It is closer to the Irish accent and students are more likely to hear American English over RP. At least Hancock is trying to allow for variations.

Daphne, great point about using Underhill for low-level learners and Handcock for higher levels. There are some versions of Underhill's chat with guide words for pronunciation or you can always write them into the chart.

Patrick, I hear you on RP. I love taking the mickey out of the Queen in my class when I draw attention to RP varients. I'm all for intelligibility too. You raised a very interesting about Hancock's phonics chart and the inconsistency of English spelling for low-level learners. Spelling and pronunciation are really different things in English.

I think Underhill's chart is good when you want to focus on the physicalities of sound production while Hancock's is an easy reference when correcting errors or differentiating sounds. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what chart or what symbols. Just be consistent. Why not create your own version with elements of both charts. Perhaps use Handcock's symbols, especially the rhotic /r/ after vowels and Underhill's organisation.

Well done guys.

Billy

# data[].attributes.body
While reading the article by Mark Hancock, the eye-opening moment for me was when he did an experiment and made a chart according to General American English. Please don't kill me, Irish people, but I feel the GA variety of Hancock's chart is much closer to what most of us speak and teach than some fancy smancy (copyright by Abby) ivory tower Cambridge RP variant such as /ɪə/ for "ear" whereas most of us would just say /ɪːr/.

I read through Hancock's article while trying to look at the chart and actually (maybe I'm just a very visual learner) the infographic posted on the padlet explained the consonant part much better. I think students would enjoy the colourfulness of the Hancock chart, although in a colour-coded way (like in the video) the Underhill chart also looks less daunting.

I saw Patrick mentioned the Hancock's use of phonics as one of its downsides, but I don't think that students would have much difficuly with these words if the teacher ensures that they properly pre-teach and practice the vocabulary in the Hancock chart before moving on to the actual pronunciation bit.

The first time I came across Underhill's chart was at my CELTA courdse and didn't really understand how it was organised without making notes on the margins, so if you presented a bare Underhill chart, I'd have to try and quickly remember/figure out how it's organised, whereas with the shapes and colour-coding of the Hancock chart, I can probably tell you why it looks the way it looks straight away, even though this was my first time looking at it.

Sorry for the pile of disorganized thoughts!

# data[].attributes.body
Looking at the two charts, I believe they both can be very useful in teaching pronunciation, each in a different way.

On the one hand, Underhill’s chart provides a good map of how sounds change depending on the way of articulation. He has categorized vowels according to position of mouth (closed to more open) horizontally and then according to position of tongue vertically. I think this makes it easy for teachers to demonstrate these changes as learners can see them occur. The separation of diphthongs can be useful in order to highlight the changes in sound. For consonants, going from pairs to singles and then in the pairs putting unvoiced beside voiced consonants which have similar way of articulation I think is also beneficial. What I don’t particularly like about this chart is that at a first glance it seems very confusing as the design is in black and white and there are no phonics to help students as a guide. Also, the fact that it is in RP is very restrictive for both teachers and students.

On the other hand, Hancock’s guide positions the ‘schwa’ in the middle of a vowel hexagon. The outer circle is composed of long vowels and diphthongs. I consider this to be an advantage as it is easier to highlight similarities which should not be overlooked. The inner circle consists of short vowel sounds and there is a pattern for mouth positions. Consonants are divided into Friction, Stop + Friction, Stop, Glottal and Vowel-like and again color-coded for voiced and unvoiced. This could be of great benefit for higher levels. For lower levels I think Underhill’s categorization might work better as there are fewer points to consider. Moreover, I like that Hancock uses colors and phonics in his chart as well as the optional (r). It makes the chart easier to use both for the teacher demonstrating/ guiding and for the student to refer back to while leaving room for choice accent.

Finally, I conclude that each chart should be used depending on the level of the class and the point we’re attempting to demonstrate/ teach.

Daphne

# data[].attributes.headline
Comparing Underhill and Hancock's Charts

# data[].attributes.subject
Comparing Underhill and Hancock's Charts

# data[].attributes.body
When considering Adrian Underhill's Phonemic Chart versus Mark Hancock 's Phonic Chart, a few things come to mind. Underhill's chart is excellent for illustrating the way the phonemes are produced areas of the mouth. It has many advantages over Hancock's chart since the phonemes in his chart are mapped to reflect place of articulation. Underhill wants students and teachers to get a mouthfeel for sounds in the mouth and this is of huge benefit when dealing  with pronunciation as you can't correct errors unless you know how sounds are related and produced in the mouth.

The one big downside of Underhill's chart is the prominence given to R.P. Basically Underhill's chart has R.P. as a model so in this regard his chart is heavily prescriptive. Moreover, only 5% of English people can actually speak with this elitist and patronising accent which also happens to be falling out of favour with the general public in England in recent years. Why would you want to teach students an accent which is an absolute marker of class privilege and vile imperialism?

As opposed to Underhill's prescriptive phonemic chart we have Hancock's descriptive phonic chart. Hancock arranges sounds in relation to their similarity on the chart and not in relation to the position of articulation like Underhill's.This is the one big disadvantage of Hancock's Chart. It's basically useless for dealing with learner errors if you don't know WHERE sounds are produced. Another disadvantage to Hancock's Chart is the use of phonics. He uses the spelling of words to represent sounds( phonics). However, English is notoriously irregular in relation to spelling rules so how can lower level learners differentiate sounds if they have a limited vocabulary range?

Having said that, one advantage of Hancock's Chart is It's DESCRIPTIVE nature. For Hancock INTELLIGIBILITY ( being understood) is the goal of prounciation, not acquiring a ridiculous R.P. accent, like in Underhill's chart, which will alienate you from the human race.

I think of we combine Hancock' s goal of INTELLIGIBILITY with Underhill's MOUTHFEEL for sounds we have a good mix for class. We shouldn't strive to make learners "sound" more English or Irish but insead help them to be UNDERSTOOD while holding on to their identity (national accents).

Patrick