Micro-aggression in (pronunciation) teaching

Photo credit:
Clker.com

One of the common responses in research as to why contemporary instructors don't deal much with pronunciation or attempt to correct it is what might be characterized as (fear of) committing a "micro-aggression." New term for you?

In a recent workshop, one of the participants stated his reason for being hesitant about correcting pronunciation (paraphrasing slightly): I'm just afraid that I might hurt their feelings or mess with their identity. He had a good point. How do you avoid that?

The topic of micro-aggression is in the news currently after comments by University of California President, Napolitano, claiming that attention to micro-aggression as an essential way to " . .  . build and nurture a productive academic climate." It is defined, according to the UC Tool: Recognizing Microaggressions and the Messages They Send)  as:

" . . . brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmenral indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, (emphasis, mine) that communicate hostile, de­rogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of colour. Perpetrators of micro-aggressions are often unaware that they engage in such communications when they interact with racial/ethnlc minorities."

Noting that "The context of the relationship is critical," the Tool, nonetheless, lists about two dozen statements and "attitudes" (and interpretations) to be avoided such as these four language-related, examples:

• Asking: "Where are you from or where were you born?” 
• Attempting a compliment: "You speak English very well." 
• Inquiring of a Latino: "Why do you have to be so loud/animated? . . . " 
• Telling an Asian: "We want to know what you think. . . . Speak up more."

There are at least four general types of micro-aggressions, according to the original formulation by Wing, et al. (2007) of Teachers College of Columbia University: (a) micro-assaults, (b) micro-invalidations, (c) micro-insults, and (d) environmental micro-aggressions. 

We could easily add some more potentially micro-aggressive statements of the b, c and d varieties that could "hurt," related to pronunciation instruction: 

"I don't understand what you just said." 

"I have no trouble understanding you." 

"X is a good model for your pronunciation." 

"X isn't a good model for your pronunciation." 

"There is no need for you to sound like Tom or Penelope Cruise." 

"There were several pronunciation problems that came up during the discussion . . . " 

"That's a "th" at the beginning, not "d" . . .  

"Listen to your partner's pronunciation. Write down any mistakes you hear."

"You need to improve your pronunciation a little."

"You have a delightful accent."

"Stick out your tongue . . . "

"That's pronounced X, not Y."

"Repeat that after me, please."

(Nonverbal) Grimace but didn't say anything.

(Nonverbal) Smile, despite unintelligibility. 

All of those could, according to Wing, et al.'s framework,  convey the message that there is something seriously "wrong" with the learner's pronunciation--or identity. How do you insure that the target is only the former, not the latter? Or can you? Or is it better not to take the risk of "micro-agressing in the first place? Look forward to your comments. (No micro- or macro- aggression, please!) 

Full citations:

Sue, D., (2010). Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender and Sexual Orientation, New York: Wiley & Sons.

Wing, S., Capodilupo, A., Toprlno, D., Bucceri,J., Holder, A., Nadlll, K. and Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial Micro-aggressions in Everyday Life: implications for clinical practice, American Psychologist 62:4, 271-286 

Guidelines for being good "Outer Circle" English speakers (and doing HICP with them!)

Here is a handout from a 2009 TESOL-France Plenary by Ur In it is a very interesting set of guidelines for Outer Circle English users which raises a number of issues for HICP/EHIEP work. It is, I think, in some sense, rather "cutting edge" (but also, possibly rather "outer edge" as well!) The bracketed comments are mine. Here they are in abbreviated form:

Clip art: Clker

" . . . Aim to

[1]  . . . be 'English-knowing bilinguals,' [rather than true balanced dual-language "native speakers"]

[2] . . . learn internationally acceptable English rather than a particular native variety [She probably means something approximating what is now termed, English as a lingua franca.]

[3] . . . try not to think in English . . . [God forbid you should actually think like an Englishman or American!]

[4] . . . accept that we are native speakers of our own language, and use it, where appropriate, to help us learn English better (compare, translate etc.)" [I like that one, where appropriate, of course.]

I could do a blog post on any of those but one overriding issue emerges. Given that framework, what conceivable model (verbal and nonverbal) would be acceptable for use in the classroom? The video-based program of EHIEP, which teaches everything through haptic video, uses a great looking model (yours truly!) to train learners and instructors in how to learn and anchor (and provide corrective feedback in class for) vowels, stress, rhythm and intonation.

The pedagogical movement patterns (PMP) have been developed to be as "internationally acceptable," as humanly and critically pedagogical as  possible--but the basic "felt sense" of the sounds presented and facial expression on the video are still undeniably "Inner Circle-ish." Apparently, however,  as long as learners consistently try to not think in English, we should be ok.  Now that I think of it, that may be the case with the system already, in fact. (Only in the Don't think! Just do it! sense, of course!) I'll have to think about that, too,  and get back to you . . .