John Wells (UCL) : A view from phonetics . [click here for full paper]
Rhona Stainthorp (Institute of Education) : A view from psychology (presented in absentia)
Chris Jolly (publisher of Jolly Phonics reading scheme) : A view from phonics.
Wells used extensive examples to illustrate how some aspects of English spelling are equally difficult (e.g. river / diver ; its / it's ) or equally easy (e.g. paint / pint ) for all speakers, whatever their accents. In other cases it is possible that some words may be harder to spell for speakers of some accents than others. For example, someone who has a rhotic accent will find it easier to learn the spelling distinction between peninsula and peninsular than will someone who pronounces these words identically, while someone who speaks an accent with yod coalescence will find it harder to learn the spellings of due / Jew than will someone who distinguishes these words. Wells added that his suggestions were based on likely outcomes given the patterns of English accents, and that it was important to establish by reseach how this in fact related to actual difficulties in learning English spelling.
Stainthorp's paper emphasised that reading consisted of decoding + comprehension and was a complex cognitive process, of which literate adults were unaware. There are many routes to decoding, including a direct (lexical) route, a semantic route and an indirect (sub-lexical) route based on grapheme-phoneme correspondences. Instruction in phonics, built on phonological awareness, is well supported by research, which shows how skill in phonological awareness at an early stage is predictive of skill in reading later. Accent is not an issue for the learner, but for the teacher. Teachers have to work with the accent of the children in their classes, and need to become phonologically aware themselves.
Jolly began by explaining the methods embodied in his phonics handbook, which is used in 40% of UK primary schools, and is also widely used overseas, especially in New Zealand, and in Ontario (Canada). Children learn the 42 letter sounds which are identified in the scheme, using mnemonics linked to actions. This allows them to connect sounds to common letter representations, and Jolly is developing a way of printing English while retaining normal orthography in a way which will make sound correspondences transparent. He said that linguists should consider the market for their advice as including teachers, parents and publishers, as well as the government. Jolly felt that where pupils speak what he described as 'lower status accents' (such as regional accents in England and Wales) phonics materials should be based on RP, and bidialectalism should be promoted, which he feels is in line with parental wishes. However, he said that where pupils have what he termed a 'high status regional accent' (as in Canada and New Zealand), speakers do not defer to RP and it is appropriate to modify materials to the regional accent.
Most of the discussion centred on the philosophical difference between Jolly and the other two presenters. Is it the case that parents in England and Wales do want their children to be able to speak RP? Will it make the development of phonological awareness harder if it is based on an accent not the child's own? To what extent is it possible to produce multiple editions to cope with different accents?
There was also discussion of the notion of 'preform' reading, where the spelling out of sounds creates an artificial word, which the child then adjusts to their own pronunciation -- children really have no problem making adjustments and even with phonics, reading is a psycholinguistic guessing game. Jolly's experimental orthography was compared to the Initial Teaching Alphabet, and the uncertainties of the research on ita were outlined.