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

Pronunciation work driving you crazy? Could be "pronunciosis"!

Clker.com

Tigger warning*: This post is more "pro-fun" than profound . . . (What I like to refer to as a 3-beet piece!)

The usual negative rap on pronunciation teaching is that it is either boring/meaningless and/or filled with too many “phonetic” words. Neuroscience sympathizes . . . even inspiring me to create a great  new term: pronunciosis, real (mostly justifiable) dislike for pronunciation and its teaching.

In a catchy summary of the research by Rezaii, Walker and Wolff from Emory University, in what is becoming my go-to source for wacky neuroscience, Neurosciencenews.com, entitled, "The whisper of schizophrenia: Machine learning finds ‘sound’ words predict psychosis", we get this:

"Their results show that automated analysis of the two language variables — more frequent use of words associated with sound and speaking with low semantic density, or vagueness — can predict whether an at-risk person will later develop psychosis with 93 percent accuracy."

Does that not "sound" like your typical pronunciation class or lecture on phonetics? Of course what they are studying is the speech of clinically identified subjects with some degree of psychosis already, not classes. Now the actual abstract of the research says it a little differently:

"The results revealed that conversion to psychosis is signaled by low semantic density and talk about voices and sounds." 

Notice that the research focuses on "talk about" voices and sounds, not simply use of such features and apparently you need both variables to get some predictive value. (It is probably relevant that their baseline came from Reddit online chat data as well!!!) That does sound more pedagogical! Any student that I have who begins talking about "voices" they are hearing gets referred to professional help. If it is just sounds, on the other hand, I can help them. 

It is also relevant that the analysis is done using AI (artificial intelligence) systems. Now not to be overly Luddite-ly here, but this, from the summary, is a little spooky: 

"The results point to a larger project in which automated analyses of language are used to forecast a broad range of mental disorders well in advance of their emergence"

This just cries out for an "automated analysis" of pronunciation classes which (predictably) produce all kinds of bizarre speech patterns later as well, even "pronunciosis"? 

Watch your language, eh . . . 

*Tigger warning is used on this blog to refer to posts that contain some playful element reminiscent of the tiger, Tigger, in the classic Winnie the Pooh cartoon series.

Loss of faith in pronunciation teaching?

Library of Congress

According to this new study by Gervais at University of British Columbia, summarized by Science Direct,  use of analytic thinking, problem solving and "subtle experimental priming" such as taking questionnaires in hard to read fonts, has been shown to "decrease" (religious) faith. The study was based on " . . . a longstanding human psychology model of two distinct, but related cognitive systems to process information: an “intuitive” system that relies on mental shortcuts to yield fast and efficient responses, and a more “analytic” system that yields more deliberate, reasoned responses." I have known, intuitively, for some time that the EHIEP method is truly a "no brainer," producing "fast and efficient responses." Experiencing it is believing. Likewise, I have felt that too much analysis, linguistics and reasoning undermines belief in the efficacy of pronunciation work. Q.E.D. Keep the faith, eh!

Pronunciation teaching techniques: Going over to the "dark side"

Clipart: Clker

Linked is a Science Digest summary of research by McCaffrey of Univ. of Mass., looking at overcoming obstacles to innovation. One outcome was the development of a procedure, the "generic parts technique," that appears to facilitate the process. It is based on asking two questions when working on a problem: " . . . Can it be broken down further? and. . . . Does my description of the part imply a use?" How does that principle apply to pronunciation teaching? How about this "simple" technique: Repeat after me! One could easily write a book, trying to unpack all that is involved in that "simple" classroom practice. (I may even attempt that, myself!) Imagine yourself a "neuro-ethnographer "in the class, attempting to "get down" all the micro and macro behaviors of instructor and student involved--and let's throw in availability of a few fMRI's as well. Once you begin to "drill down" into the parameters of the technique your list of variables that can potentially affect effectiveness grows exponentially. Pronunciation instruction has, in many quarters, a bad rap--in part because of the other "uses" of its parts and all the intra- and interpersonal pieces involved. Unless you are willing to "part with it," disassembling your favorite pronunciation procedure is not recommended. For other less engaging routines . . . what use(s) are they, anyway?

Pronunciation change is just (like) a piece of (cup) cake!

Clip art: Clker

Another nice summary from Science Digest. It is, indeed, so intriguing that I really hesitate to even explain it. What the study demonstrated was that word of mouth (WOM) explanation had differing effects on attractiveness or emotional engagement, depending on whether the object in question was to be a sensory or "hedonic" experience (such anticipation at eating a cupcake) or more practical or functional (such as buying a new USB stick.) As the researcher Moore (University of Alberta) notes, "Although we have a natural tendency to explain the events in our lives, it is not always in our best interests to do so." Explanation tended to enhance attractiveness of the USB stick and diminish appeal of the cupcake.

Likewise, the parallel for our work--since we certainly do do WOM!-- would be that to the extent that pronunciation change is essentially physical/somatic (Cognitive Phonologists' "manifesto" not withstanding), excessive explanation and "meta-cognating" on it may work against adequate engagement. On the other hand, doing the same with grammar or rhetorical analysis or verb conjugations might just have the opposite effect. Delicious thought, eh? Don't mention it . . .