(Hapic) Teachable moments in pronunciation teaching

One of the FAQs on the new Acton Haptic website is worth considering for a moment:
------------------------------------------------------------
Q: OK, what is really different about AH-EPS from other methods?
Simple: Haptic-based, in-class pronunciation change and teaching strategies (what we actually say to each other in trying to help) for instructors and students! AH-EPS focuses first on how to communicate better with learners face to face about their pronunciation. Using gesture+touch in any class, at any time, in such personal but professional conversation, is very effective at providing good models, assisting with correction and promoting integration of change into spontaneous speaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------

One FAQ in pronunciation teaching research in general today is: How can we help learners better integrate new or changed sounds into their spontaneous speaking? 

There is actually a better question: How can we (as instructors) better integrate attention to new or changed sounds into our own spontaneous interaction and speaking in the classroom? 

Credit: Presentermedia.com

There are numerous studies of classroom discourse focusing on grammar and vocabulary correction, feedback and modelling, but none that I am aware of on spontaneous interventions on pronunciation by instructors in the classroom, in real time. (Research on formative, spontaneous interaction is, of course, the focus of research in many disciplines, such as counselling psychology.) 

If you do do spontaneous pronunciation feedback and correction in your "regular" classroom work, record some of it and report back. Perhaps we should make that the basic qualification for anybody wanting to join IAHICPR. (Check out the note on the website on how to!)

Grafting melodious bird song on to animal, utilitarian pronunciation

This is just too much to resist. Miyagawa, Berwick and Okanoya of MIT make an interesting observation, following on from comments by Darwin, summarized by Science Daily: " . . . human language is a grafting of two communication forms found elsewhere in the animal kingdom: first, the elaborate songs of birds, and second, the more utilitarian, information-bearing types of expression seen in a diversity of other animals." The choice of term there, the "grafting" metaphor, is worth unpacking a little. It is one used frequently by theorists who focus on a narrow piece of a process and then leave the clean up to somebody else, the implication being that something is inserted into or combined in the organism and then we just step back and watch it morph! I do want to get the full article and see where that line of argument goes.

Clip art: Clker

Let's run with that metaphor a bit and see how it relates to pronunciation teaching . . . Perhaps the way to approach pronunciation should, indeed, be to address the two functions, the melodic and "informational," more independently, from a "grafting" perspective in the learner, rather than seeking to actively integrate them. In other words, we should not be so concerned with how or whether the learner manages to wind up using the sounds or terms in spontaneous speaking or writing. (That is apparently somebody else's bailiwick.) We are probably talking prosody vs lexical-level word stress and related grammatical-morpho-phonemic changes in the pronunciation of a word. I recently got an email from a well-known colleague, that, in effect said precisely that: Our job is to provide guidance, rules and opportunity for practice--not get "all worked up about" integration into spontaneous speech.

In reality, that is what goes on in much of pronunciation instruction anyway: the two "levels" are treated in relative isolation; conscious practice and explanation of the two "communication forms" are integrated in the syllabus but not in the moment-by-moment in the classroom. Those that assume that the learner will then just go ahead and integrate things in his/her spare time or cognitive processing may be right. But I doubt it still.

Got to be a way to better graft our song and dance into our clinical practice . . .  

Pronunciation more than communication?

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

In yet another study for your "Well . . . duh . . . straw man" file, (Summarized by Science Daily) Trofimovich of Concordia University and Isaacs of the University of Bristol report on a study based on what they term 'comprehensibility': "Understanding accents: Effective communication is about more than simply pronunciation." That question has been the subject of research for decades. That it should be "news" in the popular science press still should not be surprising. Comprehensibility is partially defined, at least in the summary, as simply " . . . linked to vocabulary and grammar." But to what extent is pronunciation just "accent", what is potentially problematic for the listener? The socio-political strategy of educating the public to learn to attend less to accent in some contexts is absolutely valid. But equating or trying to parse the two terms in that manner is a mistake, in a couple of senses. First, as any Linguistics 100 student knows, pronunciation is at least a morpho-phonemic (grammar + phonology) problem. A mispronounced segmental can cause a grammatical ending to "disappear." Conversely, a syntactic breakdown may impact very directly the intonation of the constituent structure. In addition, calling attention to grammar may bring with it even more inherent bias. Second, and more importantly for our work, pronunciation is, indeed, more than just interpersonal communication in how it is experienced by the speaker and the effect that just the act of speaking has on the speaker. For example, resonant, rich, (haptic-integrated) strong pronunciation can have a very positive effect in itself, on both the speaker's state of mind and sense of identity, "intra-personal" communication of a sort, the essence of embodiment.--which in term affects one's attitude toward one's accent. A "pronounced" difference, to be sure.

Scattergunning: A-systematic pronunciation instruction

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

Nice set of slides from Derwing's plenary: What should L2 learners be able to expect from their language classrooms? A research perspective. from Pronunciation Symposium at the recent ACTA conference. The current case from a research perspective for what should be the focus of pronunciation-related instruction is (as usual) well articulated. The last two slides are worth the tour through the other 62: Moving from ~ Moving to. One in particular: (Move to) "Focus mainly on problems likely to interfere with communication--as opposed to "Scattergun pedagogy, giving everything equal importance." Interesting. The idea that limited, highly selective attention to problematic targets of intelligibility is the optimal approach in integrated pronunciation instruction needs to be (re)examined carefully. One of the "casualties" of current thinking on achieving greater intelligibility for learners is disregard for the systematic nature of speech production. For example, just because final devoicing of word endings seems to be the presenting problem does not mean that rhythm, stress and intonation can be neglected--in part because re-integration of change seems to depend critically on prosodic involvement. Likewise, orienting learners briefly to "problems that they don't have" may have any number of tangible benefits, from general awareness of the sound system and "healthy" vocal production to affirmations of "Hey, I can do that!" A little integrated pronunciation "scattergunning" may not be a bad thing after all . . .  Much more on this topic later!

Correcting pronunciation: Widdowson's error

Widdowson
Photo credit: ied.edu.uk

Recall Widdowson's famous dictum "Learners should communicate to learn, not learn to communicate." It doesn't take a great deal of reading or research to come to the conclusion that "error correction" in pronunciation work is both essential--and probably not a very useful concept. The relationship between what comes out of the learner's mouth and the appropriate target form is, of course, very much context dependent. For example, I have often used Hammerly's 1991 article as an example of structuralist error correction that probably worked. In week 4 of a tightly controlled, audiolingual method-based foreign language program for college freshman, his framework for providing appropriate feedback seems both workable and potentially very effective. (I know that it was, in fact.) However, once you step outside of that type of setting and into today's post communicative methodology, it gets very messy.

In previous posts we have explored many of the factors that can override or at least undermine haptic-based integration of sound change, effective "uptake" of modified forms--most recently visual field distractions. Ironically, the most powerful distractor of all may be genuine, fluent communication, as strange as that might sound at first. Pulling learners away in the middle of good communication and then struggling to get them back on course can often be pointless, at best.  For that to work in HICP both the engaging nature of the ongoing communication and the strong, anchored felt sense of the focus of the brief haptic aside must be in balance.

In spontaneous, efficient haptic integration and anchoring in the classroom, it is as if learner and instructor momentarily are able to "drop out" of the flow of communication to attend to formal feedback and then step back in, returning to the "higher level" work of the lesson naturally, seamlessly--as long as the lesson, itself, is inherently coherent and attention-grabbing as well. The seed of change is well planted and the learner's immediate conscious point of reference and interaction is seemingly unaffected.

Widdowson was actually right--as long as we understand "communication" in our work to also involve "talking directly to the body," in a sense, by passing the frontal "executive" part of the brain during some pronunciation feedback and adjustment. In fact, what I just described, the effective cutaway to attend to form and then return to the narrative, is the basic stuff of hypnotherapy. If that doesn't make sense now, it will later . . . "These are not the Druids you are looking for . . . "

Touching sound to teach it

image credit: yvonbonenfant.com

When contemporary vocal artists, in this case Yvon Bonenfant, create in multi-senses, the interplay between sound and touch often becomes the focal "zonenubergang," the crossover. As has been evident in posts related to haptic interfaces and, more recently, deafblind communication, our touch metaphors, e.g.,"How touching!" connect much more than simple mental concepts. Bonnefant describes the sense of the engagement of touch and sound in his work as best experienced as a silk-like "membrane" between us where the sound passes through into tactile meaning and understanding almost unimpeded. That is a remarkable characterization of what we are after in linking pronunciation with the felt sense of producing it.