Connecting "internal" pronunciation memory with "external" movement and vocal resonance

Clip art: Clker

Now, granted, this one is a bit of a stretch but it is certainly headed in the right direction . . . from a new study on motor memory by Smith of Harvard university, summarized by Science Daily, connecting internal (brain only) motor memory with memory for "external," physical body movement. The concept is that the neurons that actually manage physical movement are much more closely related to those that "store" or generate that action in the brain than has been generally assumed in contemporary neurological theory. Now why is potentially very big?

Clip art: Clker

In part, it suggests that in haptic-integrated clinical pronunciation work, for example, procedures that focus learners' attention more on the "physical" or "somatic" dimensions of sound production and comprehension should, correspondingly, have greater impact on memory for the sounds and later recall--than do more cognitive functions such as insight, systems "noticing" and context embedding. In other words, this seems to explain why over-reliance on metacognitive activities in pronunciation teaching such as explanation, reflection and rule schemas may not be all that effective in assisting learners in integrating new and corrected pronunciation into spontaneous speech.

Bottom line: Get connected with haptic pronunciation teaching!

ERN more with self-esteem; correct more (pronunciation) errors!

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

Interesting study by Legault and colleagues of Clarkson University, summarized by Science Daily, which looked at the effect of self-affirmation on responding to errors or mistakes. Self-affirmation was operationalized by having subjects rank their top six personal values and then write a 5-minute mini-essay on the top one. In a subsequent experimental task they proved to be better at correcting errors than the control group. Now having students do something like that every class is probably not feasible but the underlying principle is worth considering. Self-affirmative thought, according to the researchers, activates a neurological response termed "error-related negativity"(ERN)--which, in turn makes one more alert to errors and, apparently, better able to respond to them. In this case, with attention just having been focused on "higher" values, the "negative" reaction proves beneficial. The importance of insuring that learners' attention is continually brought back, if only temporarily, to the tangible progress that they have made--and where they are headed--is almost a given in the field. How that works and how to nurture it consistently (and haptically!) has remained something of a mystery. Until now. But we are l-ERNing . . . 

PTSD?-2: Embodied learning vs learning, embodied

To quote Jean-Luc Godard, ‘It’s not where you take things from — It’s where you take them to.’  There is an excellent piece in this month's TESOL Quarterly by Randal Holme, "Cognitive Linguistics in the Second Language Classroom," which, among other things, focuses the issue of the role of the body in L2 pedagogy. In fact, the first section of the article is entitled, "The Embodied Learning Principle." In essence (to somewhat overgeneralize--Do read this yourself!), what Holme argues--persuasively, I think--is that in order to be "learned," new language has to end up "in the body," that is (from our perspective) strongly anchored, (but from the Cognitive Linguist's perspective, for the most part, that means--in the brain.) It is most importantly a question of directionality of the process: language being essentially "embedded" in the body through any number of portals, including metaphor and affective engagement. He does, in fact, mention a few "kinaesthetic" techniques that appear to facilitate the process, such as clapping hands, etc., but he is in some sense, using Jean-Luc's principle: it is not as critical how the language is taught, just that it gets "embodied." I like that, as far as it goes. Our perspective, however, is that pronunciation teaching must begin as a much more embodied process (Train the body first!)--not just  result in an embodied felt sense and L2 identity. In other words, he has it at least half right. But instead of just "embodied learning" (the L2 embodied as outcome), we would maintain that it must also be "learning, embodied," a strongly somatically-based process that, among other things, enables language acquisition. Progress! 

Good haptic anchoring; good intentions

Heard the old saw about the 10 most depressing words in the English language? (I'm from the government and I'm here to help you . . . ) Well, it turns out, according to research by Gray of the Maryland Mind Perception and Morality Lab (summarized by Science Daily) that perceived good intentions DO reduce pain, increase pleasure, and make things taste better! Wow! This is big. Who'd have thought?

Although I generally do not work much with taste--other than occasionally using those tape-like breath sweeteners that dissolve in the mouth with a "Hyper Type-A" who has not the slightest brain-body connection--we do generally manage pain and pleasure well in HICP/EHIEP work. Problem is it is easy to get too inductive and just let the exercises convince and persuade. On this one the cognitive linguists and phonologists are dead on--except in practice they appear to give only "lip service" to affect, relying instead on the "joy" of insight and understanding as the central motivational driver before getting down to changing anything.

The bottom line: Be nice; show them your really care. After all, the road to good anchoring and intelligibility is apparently paved with good intentions!