Abstract
One common characteristic of reading instruction is the teacher's attempt to describe the “phonic” rules of the writing system. But modern linguists question whether English spelling is related simply to what phonic teachers call “sounds.” The classical linguistic view of English orthography was that it is a graphemic code for the abstract units of speech technically termed “phonemes” but that this code is marred by numerous irregularities of grapheme-phoneme relations. In recent years this has been challenged in two revolutionary proposals. Though their theories are different, both Chomsky and Venezky deny that English orthography is a phonemic system. A third possibility is that neither the classical nor the revolutionary view of English orthography is correct. Albrow, Lefevre, and Vachek have each independently proposed that English orthography is a system of systems. One system is phonemic but, in addition, there are others representing non-phonemic aspects of language. Teachers of reading who believe that their pupils need to understand the underlying system of English orthography must consider these alternative explanations if they are to choose which one should be the basis of their instruction. This article reviews the evidence for these alternative descriptions and discusses their feasibility as a basis for teaching young beginners.