Standing up for pronunciation teaching:12 rules

Clker.com

Reading (and thoroughly enjoying) Jordan Peterson's recent 2018 book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote for Chaos. Although every 'rule" could be applied to pronunciation teaching, two in particular present useful, unique "Petersonian" perspectives for us: (Ch 1: Stand up straight with your shoulders back, and Ch 10: Be precise in your speech.) Here we'll consider the application or extension of the first chapter, the idea that posture and movement could contribute importantly to effective pronunciation teaching, identity and confidence--the subject of more than a few posts in the past. Peterson adds a new, more contemporary and neuroscience twist.

Part of the focus of that first chapter is on the neurobiology of confidence and social dominance, much of it related to serotonin, which--at least in lobsters--strongly influences both upright posturing and the corresponding feeling of relative well being as correlates with the relative place of the individual in the social dominance hierarchy. Peterson's point is that the same principle applies to us all: our position in society is reflected in our biochemical makeup. Likewise, our physical posturing can affect, among other things, serotonin levels in the brain that are not easily changed or modified over time but can be by significant events or context.

What that means for haptic or more kinesthetic pronunciation teaching would be something like the following:

1. Stand up a little straighter when you do pronunciation.
2. Use more confident-sounding, slightly louder speech (possibly a bit higher or lower in pitch.)
3. When doing public speaking, prepare enough so you sound confident, with planned gesture on key concepts or ideas. 
4. (Always) use gesture for modeling or correction.
5. Use fluid upper torso movement that naturally leads to better, upright posture and breathing.
6. Use forward "bobbing-like" upper torso movement on main stress syllable when practicing just one word. 
7. Position written text to be read or imitated at eye level (especially on your PC or laptop).
8. Briefly warm up the body to activate key muscle groups.
9. Structure homework practice to use the in-class postural and gestural principles.
10. Oral reports should be done standing up, with clear guidance as to how to hold and position note cards, moving them at times for emphasis. 
11. Be more precise in articulation but work on body rhythm at the same time. 
12. Practice pronunciation using really meaningful text that has either marked or very transparent phrasal and sentence stress placement (anchored with gesture or upper torso body movement). 

How does your teaching M.O. stand up to that model?

Keep in touch!

Passionate about teaching pronunciation? Amygdala for your thoughts . . .

Tigger warning*: The following contains neuro-science-related material that may be perceived by some as being mildly political . . . This research by Kaplan, Gimbel and Harris of USC, summarized by SciencDaily, is just too "target rich" a piece to pass up.

Clker.com

The research question was something like: Why is it so difficult to get people to change their opinions on things like religion and politics? (The same problem is evident in changing attitudes toward pronunciation--and in many ways, perhaps, for the same reasons, I think.) In essence, here is what they did:

• Found 40 self-identified, political liberals and then  . . .
• Had them respond to statements that seemed to contradict either their political beliefs or their beliefs about non-political things such as who is smartest guy who ever lived, etc. 
• Connected them up to fMRI technology to observe how their brains lit up in each condition

What they found was that:

• On nonpolitical challenges, most expressed some change in position, however slight--and the brain response was relatively unemotional.
• On the political issues, however, there was virtually no change in position, accompanied, however, by a stronger emotional response in their collective amygdalas. 
• And their conclusion (get ready): " . . . when we feel threatened, anxious or emotional, then we are less likely to change our minds." (In part because our core identity and "deep" thinking responses have been threatened or intruded upon.)

Caveat emptor: The subjects were all political liberals, self-professed, no less--from Southern California. Why so? Why was it not a "balanced" design, say with political conservatives from the Napa Valley of California, or . . . Texas? Was it that that group tended to be more emotional in reacting to challenges to their beliefs? (Liberals, more reactive or conservatives, less, in general? Nah!) Was it that it was impossible to find 40 conservatives in Southern California? The researchers do not comment on that . . (I will leave that rabbit trail to the interested reader . . . ) But see earlier research on this topic!

As research on teacher cognition has repeatedly demonstrated, beliefs about pronunciation tend also to be emotionally charged. Based on this research, I may have to go back and review the subject pools of that earlier research to check for political orientation of the teachers/subjects/researchers, too! Who knew?

The study may, however, as the researchers suggest, give us some additional insight into how (carefully and circumspectively) we might go about persuading others to do more pronunciation work in class.

But by allowing teachers to avoid pronunciation entirely for fear of triggering emotional reactions and violating safe identities, have we just been too "conservative" on this issue--or not conservative enough in interpreting the research in the first place?  As is evident now in most contemporary stress reduction systems, inoculation and gradual introduction of problematic stressors has been proven to be far more effective than either avoidance or relaxation/coping methods.

So, Just do it, eh!

Tigger warning (used on this blog in lieu of "trigger" warnings)
Translation of "Amygdala for your thoughts . . ." in the title.

Alexander Guiora - Requiescat in pace

Last month the field of language teaching and language sciences lost a great friend, colleague, researcher and theorist, Alexander Guiora, retired Professor Emeritus, University of Michigan. To those of us in English language teaching, his early work into the concepts of empathy, "language ego" and second language identity, the famous "alcohol" study and others, were foundational in keeping mind and the psychological self foregrounded in the field. As Executive Editor of the journal, Language Learning, he was instrumental in elevating it to the place it holds today, the standard for research publication by which all others are to be measured.

Working with him, doing research as a doctoral student was a unique experience. His research group, composed of faculty and graduate students from several disciplines over the years, met every Friday morning. There was always a project underway or on the drawing boards. Several important, seminal publications resulted. Shonny was an extraordinary man. I recently shared the following with his family:

I think the great lesson we learned from him early on was how to be brutally honest--and yet still love and respect our colleagues unconditionally. All of us, recalling when were newbie grad students, "cherish" memories of being jumped all over for making a really stupid mistake-- which we would surely never commit again! And then, minutes later, he could just as well say something genuinely complimentary about an idea or phrasing in a piece that we were responsible for. Talk about cultivating and enhancing "language researcher ego"! He taught us to think and argue persuasively from valid research, how to not take criticism of our work, personally. Few of us did not develop with him a lasting passion for collaborative research.

Triggering pronunciation and accent change, safely: the drama, not the "trauma"

Clip Art: Clker.com

A recent article in the Economist has a great cartoon up top with a sign posted at the front door of a campus: CAUTION: LEARNING MAY CAUSE TRAUMA! Avoiding emotional discomfort, especially events or micro-agressions that might trigger it (See earlier blogpost on that!) is apparently becoming a priority, a growth industry on campuses in North America (according to this recent piece in the Atlantic)--and pronunciation teaching as well.

I had two related conversations about a week ago, one with an instructor who did not do pronunciation, in part because it could make students uncomfortable. One further response to the question why (no pronunciation work) by the part-time instructor was something to the effect that: If students complain of hurt feelings, I'm out of work!

And a second, with a student who had recently completed an "awesome course that had totally transformed my thinking."  Even though the student reported that it had been an extraordinary "growth" experience--and the course, itself, was rated very highly--he had, nonetheless, severely taken the instructor to task on the final course evaluation for "inflicting" temporary, but undue pain and emotional distress along the way.

For decades many in the field have been focused on avoiding discomfort in language teaching, the theory being that learning is always best facilitated in relatively "stress-free" classrooms. (I realize that perspective may still be very much limited to North America, Europe and other pockets of excessively "consumer-sensitive" educational culture.) Research has long since established that some degree of stress is fundamental to learning of all kinds. Inescapable. Unresolved stress is another issue, of course.

From the "traumatized" student's perspective, the process trumped the product. In many ways, the institution's system of course evaluation, focusing on feelings and global judgements, is biased in that direction as well. In effect, his point was that there simply had to be a less emotionally "unsettling" way to achieve the same degree of understanding and "enlightenment". So, how do we construct "safe" challenges for today's students that at least momentarily move them just far enough out of their comfort zones long enough for the requisite learning experience without offending them?

Think back. How many of your "great" teachers could use the same tactics today and still keep their jobs? Two of my all time favourites are the "Rassias Method" founder, John Rassias, who, for calculated, dramatic effect in one famous demonstration, breaks eggs over the heads of select students, and, second, the "theatre of the absurd" approach to French, something like this at Amherst, that I survived as an undergraduate back in the 1970s!

One of the key elements of the earlier attention to culture shock, for example, was attributing emotional ups and downs of the adjustment process to the encounter with the new worldview and cultural norms--not just the teaching style of instructors. There was a time, too, when instructors were  not as vulnerable. As evident in the Atlantic article, even the tenured are no longer "safe" from the consequences of injured student egos and feelings, regardless of source or justification.

Most of the cross-cultural research on culture shock, including my own, was done during the more structural/behaviourist era in the field, where the role and authority of the instructor were quite different from where we are now. Although we have since found any number of ways to mediate the social and cultural dimensions of the cultural adjustment process, something like "pronunciation change shock", often a most personal and unsettling experience, often remains to be consistently and safely overcome or integrated. Can it, too, be made relatively "stressless"? To the extent that relative judgment as to speech "accuracy" is a public, interactional phenomenon, probably not.

A better approach has to be informed instruction that fully recognizes, manages and realistically embodies the essential, natural psychological processes of new identity formation that are especially evident in pronunciation and accent change (focussing on the broader, inherent DRAMA, not the inevitable--but passing--emotions that are being targeted, and consequently exaggerated and triggered much more readily, today).

Again, how do we do that? The "simple" answer is explicit use of drama, both as a metacognitive construct to understand the process and a classroom activity. (My favourite "go-to" or at least place to begin for newcomers to the idea is Gary Carkin's website.)

I have had a book project on the back burner for sometime now, one that, essentially, is composed of videos and annotated transcripts of classes from colleagues in the field that illustrate how that transformative "drama" safely and creatively plays out in the classroom.  I'll talk more about how I, personally, approach that shortly, here (and in v4.0 of the EHIEP system and the accompanying "Best of the HICPR Blog" book, available later this fall.)

In the meantime, I'd welcome your perspectives.

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 

Haptic Highlights at TESOL 2015 - 2 (Macdonald on Pronunciation and Identity)

Probably the highlight of the conference for me, personally, at least theoretically, was a presentation by Macdonald of Victoria University/Melbourne, based on his 2015 paper, “The tutor never asked me questions”: Pronunciation and student positioning at university, (See full citation below.)

Quoting from the abstract: " . . . puts forward a model for understanding pronunciation and its role in speaker identity formulation. Theory underpinning this model is based on sociolinguistic work on speaker identities as formulated through spoken interactions (Bucholtz and Hall, 2005)".

What Macdonald's framework provides is an intriguing approach to bringing together constructs from a number of fields of study related to pronunciation, including drama, music, voice training, sociolinguistics, paralanguage--and, of course, embodiment. The key is to begin from the perspective

Clipart: Clker.com

of learner identity as a point of departure, focusing on three of the five components of Bucholtz and Hall (2005): Positionality,
 relationality
 and
 partialness (the other two being, emergence, and indexicality).

Macdonald's striking conclusion in his TESOL 2015 paper, Pronunciation and Speaker Identity, cuts both ways. First, pronunciation, itself, probably does not contribute as much variance to L2 identity as is currently believed. Second, that a wide range of variables related to speaking production and social context must be taken into account to understand L2 identity formation and the relative role of pronunciation or accent in the process.  

And finally, the real impact of L2 pronunciation development at any point in time can ONLY be understood in the context of the identity of the individual learner, not in relative isolation. Will unpack the implications of Macdonald's perspective for haptic pronunciation work in subsequent posts.

Full Citations:
Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4-5), 585-614.

Macdonald, S. (2015). "The tutor never asked me questions”: Pronunciation and student positioning at university, Journal of Academic Language Learning 9(2), 31-41. 

Postmodern pronunciation practice . . . as therapy

The "clinical" in "Haptic-integrated clinical pronunciation" is key to understanding the focus and methodology of EHIEP (Essential Haptic-integrated English Pronunciation)--and much of what passes as pronunciation instruction in general. The central focus of Scott's 2007 article, Teaching as Therapy, is the postmodern replacement of the "moral" in education with "emotion," in part realized in the "hyper-individualization" of contemporary Western culture:

"Contemporary approaches to teaching (‘constructivism’), then, are not necessarily an educational cause to celebrate, or indeed the ‘reform’ that the dominant rhetoric paints them to be. Rather they are a remaking of education and schooling to match the ideals of the postmodernist (hyper-individualist) era, which, it would seem are neither better nor worse than what went before, merely different . . . the pain and uncertainty of the postmodernist project of self creation, with its heavy and inescapable burden of responsibility, goes a good way to explaining why ‘constructivist’ approaches are resisted by students. Sensibly, it would seem that they prefer to leave the responsibility with their teachers rather than to risk being found inadequate for the task of constructing themselves and their learning."

That we must now "manage" emotion in teaching is, as Scott later notes, both inevitable and predictable. But the degree to which we are actively involved in assisting students in "the task of constructing themselves and their learning" is the question--especially the latter. The EHIEP system does, from that perspective, depart from radical constructivism, exerting extensive and direct control over early pronunciation learning, including responsibility for moment-by-moment classroom instruction. 

Great, Scott! I feel better already . . . 

Hehehe! (De-stressing with high front tense vowels!)

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

This should be enough to make you smile--or at least make your students smile . . . 2009 research by Kraft and Pressman, reported by Psychological Science, appears to demonstrate that even faking a smile can be de-stressing. In pronunciation work we often tell students to smile as they pronounce high, front tense vowels, like in "Hehehe!" or when attempting to make the distinction between 's' (as in see) and 'sh' (as in she), slightly rounding the lips on the latter. I'm not saying that that is the best way to fix and s/sh problem necessarily, but sometimes it is helpful. I have also used something similar when working on word-final velar nasals, as in 'ing'. In effect just activating the muscles of the face to look and feel like a smile "orders" the brain to feel better, less stressed, physiologically. For the native speaker, we generally think of facial expression as being driven by attitude or "feelings." For nonnative speakers--and actors--it often happens in the opposite direction, taking on the paralanguage of the other results (if only temporarily) in changes in attitude and personna. Even if you don't believe that is the case, at least smile when you say it. 

Eliminating the "FATuous" from pronunciation teaching: the Jenny Craig approach

Good behavior change and integration systems all share certain basic features. If you have ever been on a serious diet, you know that most are simply useless. (New research seems to suggest that many actually make matters much worse in the long term.) Once you slip off the formula, you are "cooked." The systems that do "work" are those that effectively integrate lifestyle changes that persist once you are off "life support."

The Jenny Craig method, one of the oldest and most successful, has a well-tested "theory" or model. Its basic principles:
(1) Sensitizing the client to portion size--what amounts feel like in the hands,
(2) Establishing physical exercise regimen,
(3) Training in time (and priorities) management, scheduling in essentials,
(4) Providing (virtually) all food to the client initially--both taking away the "problem" of selecting/thinking about what to eat, and modelling effective nutritional meals and snacks, and
(5) Gradually establishing a new "thin" identity that embodies and integrates 1-3 as "permanently" as possible.

See the nice parallel there to EHIEP work--or any effective language instruction program? Pronunciation teaching advice in methods texts typically assumes that the "sweet, addictive, engaging, enlightening, and mind-blowing" classroom experience is where it is at. Not so. Simply the expectations created without clear strategies for accomplishing them run the gamut from frustrating to "FATuous," to put it mildly. For most--given the limited amount of time now recommended for pronunciation instruction, unless you have trained students in better managing their pronunciation work outside of the classroom, the chances of efficient integration happening are often "slim to none . .. "  

Sensory grounding and integration in HICP

Clip art: Clker

In this MIT research summary, a range of therapeutic, haptic applications are reviewed. Of those, two are particularly relevant here: grounding and integration. HICP/EHIEP work generally procedes in two phases, a set of three techniques (protocols) that basically establish the felt sense of English vowels, consonants and rhythm, and then a second set of three which serve to integrate new or modified words in speech.

HICP isn't therapy, but not infrequently learners report that just "getting their (rhythmic and sensory) feet (of English anchored firmly) on the ground" in this system appears to contribute to resolution of other personal, identity-related issues--in addition to pronunciation. Can't get your pronunciation teaching off the ground and integrated in the classroom? Senseless!

L2 Identity, pronunciation and body imaging

 One of the effects of haptic anchoring and attention to the felt sense of the L2 sound system for many learners is an inevitable refining or consolidating of their L2 image and identities. There has been a great deal of research on the nature of L2 identity and its socio-cultural dimensions in the field but relatively little in our field on the dynamics of how language, and especially one's pronunciation or accent figure in to that process. (There is, however, a great deal of research and writing in the general  area of embodiment theory and identity.)

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

We need only turn to professional actors for insight. Here is the "mission" statement from an ongoing project at the University of London: "In a long-term enquiry this project is investigating the best methods of maintaining psychological and physical health within the acting community, regarding informed and intelligent awareness of self/body/identity within the complexities of professional and industry contexts." Much of the discussion could apply as well to our work where the learner's professional image and identity, from any number of perspectives, come into play.