Language teaching insights from other fields? (a new book from TESOL Press)

Credit: TESOL Press,
TESOL.org

Although only a few chapters qualify as directly applicable to haptic pronunciation teaching, Language teaching insights from other fields, (from TESOL Press) edited by Stillwell, certainly captures the spirit of the HICPR blog in demonstrating the great commonality in principles of teaching and learning across disciplines.

Most importantly, however, I think it makes another point, albeit indirectly,  that research studies and practice paradigms from other fields should be seen as potentially valid and credible evidence to support teaching practice in this field.

That was, understandably, more in vogue a couple of decades ago, before more empirical studies (in the area of pronunciation, for example) began to appear. Like all developing fields, we borrowed heavily from models of  related disciplines--until our "native" research base and identity emerged. A sign of the recent maturation of the field is appearance of  the new Journal of Second Language Pronunciation.

Lately the pendulum has also begun to swing back in the other direction, however, a trend evident in the social sciences in general: the territorial, professional, "pedagogically correct" (PC) imperative: (For at least some theorists today) only research done in the classroom or the laboratory of language teaching by language professionals/researchers can be considered as adequate or sufficient support for classroom practice.

This book provides some welcome perspective on that issue.

Kudos!

The future of pronunciation teaching: It's simple, Haptics!

Clip art: Clker

Well . . . actually what Moussette proposed in a 2012 doctoral thesis at Umeå University, Sweden, reported by Science Daily, is the term "Simple Haptics," which " . . . advances that haptic attributes (how things feel through touch) are increasingly part of the qualities that make up the interactions and the experiences we have with objects and the interfaces that surround us, and that these considerations can and ought to be knowingly and explicitly designed by designers." This is from the abstract: "The main knowledge contribution relates to the massification of haptics, i.e. the intentional realization and appropriation of haptics—with its dimensions and qualities—as a non-visual interaction design material." Now I'm not exactly sure what "massification" means in that context but I like it, especially as it is used in this example by Wordnik online dictionary--which couldn't locate a definition apparently--quoting ANC Daily News Briefing: “This process, known as massification, would have to be accompanied by changes in curriculums and qualifications and the introduction of multiple entry and exit points.” (Italics, mine.)

That is us; that is Haptic-integrated Clinical Pronunciation! Along with Moussette, now we "simply" need to get the word out to the "masses" of language teachers and curriculum designers who have yet to be "touched" by haptics in pronunciation teaching!

The "Rhythm method": a piece of cake

One of my early heros was Louis Hjelmslev, originator of the linguistic theory or model called, Glossematics. It laid the foundation for structuralist work in semiotic network-based models, which have since morphed into contemporary frameworks of mind and brain. His book, Prolegomena to a Theory of Language (published the year I was born!), had--and still has--a major influence on how I look at language production from the perspective of the learner. Hjelmslev's central epistemological principle was that of the "glosseme," the minimal meaningful unit of analysis in describing a language system. In phonology, for example, it was the phoneme; in semantics, the 'cememe'; in grammar, the morpheme, etc.

In other words, within an experiential system, you focused initially on the "sign" (in the semiotic sense of an icon that has independent meaning and point back to something.) In another type of analysis, even on the same data, that might not be the place you begin your analysis, but it was acceptable from a functional perspective. (I am grossly oversimplifying this . . . but glossematically . . . that is probably ok?)

My point here? In HIPC/EHIEP work, the key organizing principle, as noted two post earlier, is grammar/rhythm grouping of the words that are being haptically anchored. The best analogy I have come up with, and I welcome your recommending a better one, is a piece (or slice) of cake. In this sense:
(a) We begin with defining the mood of the spoken discourse--what kind of cake is this?: What is the emotional felt sense of the speakers. If it is as simple classroom exercise, we might term it "business-like" or "boring to the extreme."
(b) We identify the prominent words or syllables--what will be it's visual features or distinct "flavors"
(c) We mix the ingredients and bake the cake: We read it over quickly to get the story or narrative.
(d) We cut out a piece of it, each piece containing one prominent syllable or more,
(e) We examine the prominent syllable more carefully and anchor it for vowel quality.
(f) We practice/anchor the piece, by itself, focusing on rhythm and the prominent syllable.
(g) We add on the analog "wave" contour (intonation contour) that is contained by the boundaries of the piece.
(h) We add on any necessary additional expressiveness--in the form of dynamic pitch changes.
(i) We go back to a rhythm focus, blending all the ingredients back together, still staying centered on the prominent syllable(s).
(j) Finally, we shrink-wrap the piece and all others in the sentence or conversational turn, haptically compressing all the syllables but the prominent one--into more natural, native-like pace or speed.

Like I said . . . it is just a piece of cake.