Where does really great pronunciation teaching begin? "GrammaRhythm-ing!"

Note: This is definitely NOT your "grandma's way" of teaching pronunciation or grammar!

Classroom work using the KINETIK Method of Haptic Pronunciation Teaching always begins with a  grammar and rhythm process, what we call "GrammaRhythm-ing."

1. Breaking up a written text / of some kind / into rhythm groups / of up to seven syllables, / based primarily on grammatical structure./ In other words, /you pause at places / where one grammar structure begins / and another leaves off. 
1. You also identify / what is probably the syllable / in the word with the strongest energy / or stress, usually the one off to the right. 
2. Reading the text together, once through, with hands touching in some way on each stressed syllable--to get the rhythm of the text.

THEN: You work on something in there using gesture and touch, maybe some vowels or consonants, intonation, expressiveness, or maybe just so that the text is remembered better. 

FINALLY: Use a different fluency and integration-oriented gesture as you read the passage together one last time to help encourage uptake of the haptic work. 

To get a good idea of how this done, join us at Hapticanar #1, Tuesday, June 15th at 6 p.m. (PST). Click HERE to reserve a spot for that!  

In case you missed the Introductory Hapticanar this week, check HERE or earlier the Haptic Story Promo, check HERE.

To gesture or not to gesture (to provide spontaneous correction in language teaching) Part 1

A new study by Nakatsukasa (2019) demonstrates that using simple gesture to correct grammar (use of the 'ed' past tense) may not work. Amen to that. Signalling with a deictic/metaphorical gesture as the instructor recasts (repeats) the piece of language correctly when there is a error--and not requiring any kind of response from the learner--and furthermore still expecting some kind of meaningful uptake or noticing is . . .well . . . silly, but good to see that proved conclusively.

From the study:

"When the participants did not use the past tense in the obligatory context in two tasks, the researcher consistently provided recasts with or without gestures (pointing back over shoulder with thumb) immediately following the participants’ utterances, depending on learners’ assigned conditions."

clker.com

Now that, in principle, sounds like a pretty good signalling technique, one which I have seen used "repeatedly" over the years by teachers (Hudson, 2011). But . . .

"For the VR condition (verbal recast w/o gesture), the researcher provided recast only verbally, putting her hands down next to the side of her body to avoid gesturing."

Now, does that (standing motionless w/hands at sides) sound like anything close to natural teacher behavior/gesture? Really? I have got to see a video of that!  In fact, I’d really have to see a video of everything that went on, to make sense of the study.

"In addition, the researcher tried not to stress any part of the recast in either condition to keep consistency."

Wow. How could you provide anything close to effective, meaningful feedback without stressing the part of the defective sentence or phrase that is being corrected?

"In all the instances, learners had the opportunity to modify their output; however, production of modified output was not enforced in the present study, to keep the flow of interaction and the saliency of feedback as equal as possible across conditions."

Not requiring at least some minimal "embodied" verbal response to such a gesture seems about as disembodying as you can get! Apparently, it was.

The research on the use of simple recasts, as Nakatsukasa points out, is pretty clear that they are, for the most part, not worth wasting your time on. So, "pointing out" a basically ineffectual recast with a disembodied gesture is supposed to make it more effective? It didn't. Surprise.

This is an important study, however, in that it represents quite accurately, I think, the way in which many researchers and practitioners view the place of gesture in language teaching, or even human communication for that matter: "add ons" that can be understood out of context and disembodied (not demanding a corresponding physical response in the body and mind of the other--the learner, as if gesture can be understood independent of the meaningful interaction in which it occurs.)

Something of a “How not to” guide of sorts.

What then is the "right" embodied and contextualized way to use gesture in teaching? Thought you were never going to ask! See Part 2, The right (haptic) way to use gesture in (at least) pronunciation teaching. Forthcoming, shortly!

Source:
Nakatsukasa, K. (2019). Gesture-enhanced recasts have limited effects: A case of the regular past tense, Language Teaching Research (11)1-29.

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.

Perfect form in HICP work

Near-perfect form is essential in early HICP work only in overall body posture, stance and breathing--and pedagogical movement patterns--not in absoute accuracy of the pronunciation of L2 sounds being produced by the learner. In other words, on the physical side, the approach is "form-focused instruction," whereas in terms of phonetic accuracy, it is more "focus on form" based. (See the nice linked 10-point list from RealAge fitness on achieving better form in exercising. I am going to create a slightly adapted version in rubric format for HICP work, in fact.)

It is a crucial distinction, one that is now well-established in the field in terms of how we direct learner attention to form in the process. In grammar work, for example, the difference would be starting off a class with a grammar explanation and drill and the practicing it, as opposed to creating tasks, such as story telling, where grammatical constructions naturally come up that need to be attended to and then giving students a brief, concise mini-lesson, sufficient to manage the problem at hand.

The same applies to pronunciation instruction, in general, of course, but the problem is always being able to adequately "anchor" the new structure or strategy in the mind (and body) of the learner. The research seems to suggest that FonF, when done well in clearly defined contexts should result in better uptake and integration into spontaneous speech. From that perspective, HICP is perfect . . .