Let's talk (and analyze) pragmatics . . . with students!

There is no shortage of "talk" about pragmatics in research and pedagogy. In terms of methodology of teaching, most of it boils down to (a) explaining to students what pragmatics is, basically awareness and performance in context-appropriate conversational interaction, (b) either listening to examples or some kind of classroom practice such as roleplay, identification of good response language techniques and (c) after the fact reflection of various kinds on B, (Hennessy, Calcagni, Leung & Mercer, 2021).

In an earlier post, I reported on a TESOL 2022 presentation that I did with Angelina VanDyke, "Spontaneous classroom conversational analysis supporting development L2 pragmatic competence." (Published in Educational Pragmatics.)  A key feature of the classroom discourse in that study was "dialogic meta-pragmatic analysis," where instructor and students together, analyze, post hoc (after the fact), aspects of conversations that students have just participated in. 

The second phase of analysis focuses on evidence of student uptake of the instruction in pragmatics related to coursework they had just completed and features of the instructor's spontaneous feedback, supporting that development. We have submitted a manuscript based on that analysis which, if you are interested, we'll be happy to share in the interim. Only one condition on that . . . in return, you "dialogue" with us on it! 

Now I'm sure you are asking "Where is the usual connection to haptic pronunciation teaching and the KINETIK method?" The answer is in the anchoring and embodiment in memory of new or corrected forms and expressions that students go on to practice in context and as homework. For more on that, see upcoming blogpost unpacking that and announcing an exiting, new all-day workshop concept we will be offering focusing on "pragmatics and prosody!" 

Source: 

Hennessy, S., and  Calcagni, E., Leung, A., & Mercer, N. (2021). An analysis of the forms of teacher-student dialogue that are most productive for learning, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2021.1956943

Clker.com

Metacognitive competence: Know thy L1, L1C and inner parts to better acquire L2 and L2C

Clker.com

As reported in the Journal of Cognitive Enhancement (and summarized by medicalxpress.com), Böckler of the Max Planck Institute and Maxmilians of the University of Würzburg seem to have established empirically yet again--or maybe for the first time--what the ancient Egyptians had observed: "Man, know thyself, and you are going to know the gods". Well, their study is a bit more modest. You should at least be capable of gaining a better understanding of the "mental state" of others.

In the 3-month study that focused on "perspective taking" skills, including their "superpersonalities" and (I like this) their "inner parts" subjects developed enhanced ability to understand the position of the Other--which should result in improved engagement and learning. Psychologically healthy empathy operationalized, not just the ability to "sync" with others but beginning from a realistic and grounded understanding of who we are.

Have been unable to find any recent research or even reports on current practice where learners first go through a systematic "pre-language learning" program, gaining formal metacognitive and experiential knowledge of their L1 and L1 culture before actually getting to the L2. (My only first hand experience with that was the 3-months or so of military basic training that I went through in the US Air Force prior to beginning a one-year ALM experience in Russian language. Near perfect preparation!)

There are, of course, hundreds of studies looking at learner readiness and aptitude. In addition, most of us would contend that we continually do things and set up conditions that work toward enhancing learning, in effect accomplishing the same thing, in some sense like the B&M study. Culture and pragmatics are now thoroughly integrated (in theory) in instruction; L1 usage and reference are now much more widely accepted as well.

Many programs and courses place importance on general cultural awareness; some use the structure and sound system of the L1 as a point of departure as well. In haptic pronunciation teaching (EHIEP), for example, it is recommended, whenever possible, to train learners in the basics of the L1 sound system before introducing them to English or at least early on in the process. 

In our MATESOL program we are now using for the first time a "know thyself" instrument, the Strength Deployment Inventory, that shows promise in developing some of the same kind of "metacognitive competence". Tell us how you get at the same target in your pronunciation (or any other kind of) teaching! That is if you are aware of it . . .

Anne Böckler of the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Science and Julius Maximilians University Würzburg in Germany

Read more at: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-05-thyself.html#jC

nne Böckler et al, Know Thy Selves: Learning to Understand Oneself Increases the Ability to Understand Others, Journal of Cognitive Enhancement (2017). DOI: 10.1007/s41465-017-0023-6

Read more at: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-05-thyself.html#jCp

nne Böckler et al, Know Thy Selves: Learning to Understand Oneself Increases the Ability to Understand Others, Journal of Cognitive Enhancement (2017). DOI: 10.1007/s41465-017-0023-6

Read more at: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-05-thyself.html#jCp

Haptic phonetics: bridging from L1 to L2 pronunciation!

Clker.com

Please join Eileen McWilliams and myself in our 90 minute workshop tomorrow at the annual 2017 BCTEAL Island Conference at Camosun College in Victoria, British Columbia. Here is the program summary:

"Some familiarity with phonetics is essential to pronunciation teaching, both for student and teacher. This workshop presents a basic haptic (gesture+touch) phonetic framework for helping students better understand and work with the relationship between key aspects of their L1 vowels and consonants and those of English. In addition to an introduction to haptic cognition and haptic pronunciation teaching, “bridging” techniques from 8 L1s are demonstrated. Participants are provided with basic materials for haptic bridging and access to web-based demonstration videos."

Saturday 25, 2017, 1~2:30

 See you there. We'll post the presentation to Slideshare and Research Gate next week.

Keep in touch!

Gesture the cause of pronunciation problems?

That's right! You should try it! Here's why . . .

 Referring to ways in which learners' L1s differs from their L2s is generally not a priority in pronunciation teaching--or in general language instruction. In some contexts, however, especially EFL-like courses where phonetics or translation serve as the point of departure, the structure of the L1 may be among the early topics addressed. For a number of reasons, nonetheless, many contemporary methodologists avoid it. A quick, informal poll among colleagues recently came up with a nice range of opinion:

"Why confuse things?"

"Best avoided."

"Not that confident, myself."

"May cause even more interference."     

That last comment is interesting. Clearly, if not done carefully or well, that could be the case. So, how might you "do that well?" (If you have some suggestions in that regard, in addition to the one I am about to recommend, please post a comment w/it!)

In haptic pronunciation teaching, we often and very effectively lead learners across "gestural bridges" between L1 and L2 phonological elements, such as individual sounds (vowels and consonants), rhythm patterns and tone movement (intonation). We do that by having learners mirror us or a video  as they perform "pedagogical movement patterns" (PMPs),  gestures synchronized speaking, that represent both the L1 and L2 sounds or sound patterns--and often the relative distance between them--in the visual space in front of the learner. 

Recently published research by Carlson, Jacobs, Perry and Church in Gesture, The effect of gestured instruction on the learning of physical causality problems, suggests why the "contrastive haptic PMP approach" may work. (Now granted, the analogy between video instruction on how gears work and the relationship between how an L1 sound is physically articulated and that of its L2 near-equivalent--that may cause serious interference or negative transfer--may be something of a stretch! But stick with me here!)

In the study, subjects either viewed a video where the instructor (a) explained the process without gesturing or (b) the "speech plus gesture" protocol.  Their conclusion: 

"Results showed that . . .  instruction was . . .  significantly more effective when gesture was added. These findings shed light on the role of gesture input in adult learning and carry implications for how gesture may be utilized in asynchronous instruction with adults."

What the conclusion misses, but is unpacked in the article, is the potential importance of the nature of the concept being taught in the first place, as it says in the title: physical causality, meaning that the contact and motion of one  gear as it affected the state and movement of the other gear. In other words, the impact of the gestural protocol was so pronounced, in part, because it was portraying and embodying a physical process.

Studies of the connection of gesture to more abstract, far less embodied concepts such as interpretation of emotion or intent are much less consistent, understandably. Pronunciation of a language is, on the other hand, an essentially physical, somatic process. Hence, using gesture (and touch) to anchor it makes perfect sense. 

Just thought I'd point that out . .

Intelligible pronunciation for dummies

To understand why some relatively intelligible interlanguage pronunciation can be so resistant to change, spend a week training to be a ventriloquist. What you learn quickly, is that with practice--a visually striking dummy, basic distraction techniques and a little extra aspiration--you can get away with some amazing substitutions, such as:

Clipart: Clker

a. Instead of 'b', blow out a strong blast of air, aiming at 'v'.
b. For 'f', substitute a strongly aspirated 'h'.
c. For 'm', leave lips open but inhale sharply.
d. Avoid works with 'p'--or drop the first letter if it is a 'p'.
e. For 'w', wiggle the tongue and articulate the word at the back of the throat.
f. 'Y' is the ventriloquist's shibboleth. Once you have that one, you are in the club. Do it, too, with a violent blast of air, rather than much tongue movement.
g. For 'th', most anything works, depending on the accent you are affecting.
i. Vowels are a piece of cake, as long as you don't need to sound too intelligent.
Our students, of course, aren't dummies--but they sometimes do need to be persuaded to improve for no apparent reason . . . like . . .  "watch my lips and repeat after me!" 

L2 Identity, pronunciation and body imaging

 One of the effects of haptic anchoring and attention to the felt sense of the L2 sound system for many learners is an inevitable refining or consolidating of their L2 image and identities. There has been a great deal of research on the nature of L2 identity and its socio-cultural dimensions in the field but relatively little in our field on the dynamics of how language, and especially one's pronunciation or accent figure in to that process. (There is, however, a great deal of research and writing in the general  area of embodiment theory and identity.)

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

We need only turn to professional actors for insight. Here is the "mission" statement from an ongoing project at the University of London: "In a long-term enquiry this project is investigating the best methods of maintaining psychological and physical health within the acting community, regarding informed and intelligent awareness of self/body/identity within the complexities of professional and industry contexts." Much of the discussion could apply as well to our work where the learner's professional image and identity, from any number of perspectives, come into play.

(With Child L2 pronunciation learning) Haptic or not too haptic?

Clip art: Clker

In this study by Gori et al (2008) we get a glimpse into why children up to the age of 8-10 are more haptic in some contexts. For example, in determining relative size they will tend to rely on relative touch and motion; in figuring out orientation in space, more visual. Beyond that age, modalities are gradually more and more integrated. In working with L2 pronunciation of children with the EHIEP protocols it is striking (but from this research not surprising) how quickly they are able to "get" and mirror accurately the pedagogical movement patterns across the visual field and beyond. And, at the same time, they learn the haptic anchoring of sounds and recall them without the teacher even mentioning what is going on.

Later, as we have seen, as adults the senses are capable of working together or in opposition, depending on a number factors. To the old canard, "learn like a child," we can here see why it can be so difficult to get into that state--and how we may be able to construct frameworks that do allow occasional access to more uni-modal, direct learning when necessary.

Seen from that perspective, haptic is not just for kids.

The felt sense of a new or "replacement" vowel: Y-buzz and beyond

Clip art: 

Clker

The first phase of EHIEP training is involved with haptically anchoring the vowels of English. Even if the learner "has" a vowel already in his or her repertoire, it is essential that a new and more focused, conscious awareness of the somatic qualities of the vowel be established to facilitate later change and monitoring of spontaneous speaking.

That concept is based on Lessac's notion of the "Y-buzz" sensation. Here is a 2007 study by Barrichelo and Behlau that looked at the perceptual salience of that highly resonant sound/sensation, as opposed to "normal" production by subjects of the acoustically similar [i] sound (as in the word, "me,' for example.) The unique, therapeutically created Y-buzz vowel felt sense is the model for our work. The learner's ability to produce the Y-buzz is almost entirely body-based, not auditory. In that way, the learner can produce it without having to "go through" the possibly "defective" [i] vowel in his or her current interlanguage phonology. (See earlier post on "changing the channel.")

Need to put a little more "buzz" in your teaching?