Haptic phonetics: bridging from L1 to L2 pronunciation!

Clker.com

Please join Eileen McWilliams and myself in our 90 minute workshop tomorrow at the annual 2017 BCTEAL Island Conference at Camosun College in Victoria, British Columbia. Here is the program summary:

"Some familiarity with phonetics is essential to pronunciation teaching, both for student and teacher. This workshop presents a basic haptic (gesture+touch) phonetic framework for helping students better understand and work with the relationship between key aspects of their L1 vowels and consonants and those of English. In addition to an introduction to haptic cognition and haptic pronunciation teaching, “bridging” techniques from 8 L1s are demonstrated. Participants are provided with basic materials for haptic bridging and access to web-based demonstration videos."

Saturday 25, 2017, 1~2:30

 See you there. We'll post the presentation to Slideshare and Research Gate next week.

Keep in touch!

Gesture the cause of pronunciation problems?

That's right! You should try it! Here's why . . .

 Referring to ways in which learners' L1s differs from their L2s is generally not a priority in pronunciation teaching--or in general language instruction. In some contexts, however, especially EFL-like courses where phonetics or translation serve as the point of departure, the structure of the L1 may be among the early topics addressed. For a number of reasons, nonetheless, many contemporary methodologists avoid it. A quick, informal poll among colleagues recently came up with a nice range of opinion:

"Why confuse things?"

"Best avoided."

"Not that confident, myself."

"May cause even more interference."     

That last comment is interesting. Clearly, if not done carefully or well, that could be the case. So, how might you "do that well?" (If you have some suggestions in that regard, in addition to the one I am about to recommend, please post a comment w/it!)

In haptic pronunciation teaching, we often and very effectively lead learners across "gestural bridges" between L1 and L2 phonological elements, such as individual sounds (vowels and consonants), rhythm patterns and tone movement (intonation). We do that by having learners mirror us or a video  as they perform "pedagogical movement patterns" (PMPs),  gestures synchronized speaking, that represent both the L1 and L2 sounds or sound patterns--and often the relative distance between them--in the visual space in front of the learner. 

Recently published research by Carlson, Jacobs, Perry and Church in Gesture, The effect of gestured instruction on the learning of physical causality problems, suggests why the "contrastive haptic PMP approach" may work. (Now granted, the analogy between video instruction on how gears work and the relationship between how an L1 sound is physically articulated and that of its L2 near-equivalent--that may cause serious interference or negative transfer--may be something of a stretch! But stick with me here!)

In the study, subjects either viewed a video where the instructor (a) explained the process without gesturing or (b) the "speech plus gesture" protocol.  Their conclusion: 

"Results showed that . . .  instruction was . . .  significantly more effective when gesture was added. These findings shed light on the role of gesture input in adult learning and carry implications for how gesture may be utilized in asynchronous instruction with adults."

What the conclusion misses, but is unpacked in the article, is the potential importance of the nature of the concept being taught in the first place, as it says in the title: physical causality, meaning that the contact and motion of one  gear as it affected the state and movement of the other gear. In other words, the impact of the gestural protocol was so pronounced, in part, because it was portraying and embodying a physical process.

Studies of the connection of gesture to more abstract, far less embodied concepts such as interpretation of emotion or intent are much less consistent, understandably. Pronunciation of a language is, on the other hand, an essentially physical, somatic process. Hence, using gesture (and touch) to anchor it makes perfect sense. 

Just thought I'd point that out . .

Navigating, resetting and remapping pronunciation change

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

When is a pronunciation "error" or mis-speak so serious that it interferes the developing L2 interlanguage model in the learner's  brain? Some early Behaviorists' models would have (and may still) predict(ed) that avoiding errors of almost any kind is critical. Contemporary theorists and methodologists see that differently, for a number of reasons. When it comes to spatial navigation "errors," (at least in rat brains) research by Valerio and Taube of Dartmouth College summarized by Science Daily suggests that there is a discernable threshold in that regard:

"When the animal makes a small error and misses the target by a little, the cells will reset to their original setting, fixing on landmarks it can identify in its landscape. "We concluded that this was an active behavioural correction process, an adjustment in performance," Taube says. "However, if the animal becomes disoriented and makes a large error in its quest for home, it will construct an entirely new cognitive map with a permanent shift in the directional firing pattern of the head direction cells." This is the "remapping.'"

In haptic-integrated work, coordination of sounds and pedagogical movement patterns is central to the methodology. Numerous blogposts have made that connection, especially as it contributes to how well learners of different cognitive preferences (e.g., visual, auditory, kinaesthetic or tactile) relate to the EHIEP system. We have repeatedly seen an effect analogous to what is described by Valerio and Taube: For some, if the visual model on the screen which learners are moving along with deviates "substantially" from their perspective from the anticipated, regular point in the visual field, they quickly become very frustrated and report that they seem to lose that "node" at least temporarily. Minor deviations, like allophonic variations are ok. 

In this case, to paraphrase Bateson, a difference that (does) make a difference--does make a difference. Rats . . . 

The power of PowerPoint Pronunciation

Photo credit: Wired Magazine

I love this 2003 prophetic piece from Wired Magazine (and the wonderful "visual" from AP/World Photos.) In the "competition" between visual and haptic for the attention of the learner, research linked in several earlier blog posts demonstrate convincingly that visual wins almost every time. In other words, in a very fundamental way, visual schemas can interfere with and work directly against (haptic-integrating) pronunciation change. So, before you fire up that PowerPoint for your next pronunciation lesson, stick that in your visual field (or maybe not) . . . See what I mean?

Remembering: Just close your eyes to block out that distracting sound in the background or pronunciation

Clip art: Clker

Here is (an abstract only of) a study by Perfect, Andrade and Eagan (2011) which demonstrates that under certain conditions, closing the eyes effectively blocks out background/environmental  auditory clutter (in this case.) The technique seemed to enhance or at least protect both visual and auditory recall. Earlier posts have reported on research related to the impact of eye closure (or purely haptic, nonvisual engagement) on encoding, showing a parallel effect. It is as if once the eyes have done their part in establishing an object's properties or pattern, in some contexts or stages, it may be better to carefully limit further, potentially distracting gaze.

Most disciplines deal with directed eye engagement in some form, especially in expert practice and performance. That can be done any number of ways from full closure to fixed positions in the visual field. (I'm sure you have students who, themselves, use similar strategies at times. Regardless, the implication for pronunciation instruction is intriguing: To get or recall the optimal auditory felt sense of a sound, simply cut out external auditory interference. That appears to be relatively easy . . . you can  do it with your eyes closed!

Keeping listening in the picture . . . or out of it!

Clip art: Clker

Several posts have addressed the question of the relationship between learning modalities in general learning and pronunciation teaching. What this important 2010 study by Lavie and Macdonald of the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at UCL, reported by Science Daily, demonstrates is that in some contexts visual input appears to trump auditory input. In other words, being engaged visually in a task may limit ability to hear critical information.

We know from experience that some highly visual learners may find learning pronunciation especially difficult. This helps to explain why. From whatever source, even stunning visual aids or computer displays, "visual interference" with learning new sounds may be significant. The implication for EHIEP instruction is that haptic and auditory input, key components of  multiple modality instruction--along with a modest amount of video on the side, perhaps, is the best overall learning format. Get the picture . . .or the sound . . . take your pick!