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.

 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.  

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 

 

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. 

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.

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.