Pronunciation work driving you crazy? Could be "pronunciosis"!

Clker.com

Tigger warning*: This post is more "pro-fun" than profound . . . (What I like to refer to as a 3-beet piece!)

The usual negative rap on pronunciation teaching is that it is either boring/meaningless and/or filled with too many “phonetic” words. Neuroscience sympathizes . . . even inspiring me to create a great  new term: pronunciosis, real (mostly justifiable) dislike for pronunciation and its teaching.

In a catchy summary of the research by Rezaii, Walker and Wolff from Emory University, in what is becoming my go-to source for wacky neuroscience, Neurosciencenews.com, entitled, "The whisper of schizophrenia: Machine learning finds ‘sound’ words predict psychosis", we get this:

"Their results show that automated analysis of the two language variables — more frequent use of words associated with sound and speaking with low semantic density, or vagueness — can predict whether an at-risk person will later develop psychosis with 93 percent accuracy."

Does that not "sound" like your typical pronunciation class or lecture on phonetics? Of course what they are studying is the speech of clinically identified subjects with some degree of psychosis already, not classes. Now the actual abstract of the research says it a little differently:

"The results revealed that conversion to psychosis is signaled by low semantic density and talk about voices and sounds." 

Notice that the research focuses on "talk about" voices and sounds, not simply use of such features and apparently you need both variables to get some predictive value. (It is probably relevant that their baseline came from Reddit online chat data as well!!!) That does sound more pedagogical! Any student that I have who begins talking about "voices" they are hearing gets referred to professional help. If it is just sounds, on the other hand, I can help them. 

It is also relevant that the analysis is done using AI (artificial intelligence) systems. Now not to be overly Luddite-ly here, but this, from the summary, is a little spooky: 

"The results point to a larger project in which automated analyses of language are used to forecast a broad range of mental disorders well in advance of their emergence"

This just cries out for an "automated analysis" of pronunciation classes which (predictably) produce all kinds of bizarre speech patterns later as well, even "pronunciosis"? 

Watch your language, eh . . . 

*Tigger warning is used on this blog to refer to posts that contain some playful element reminiscent of the tiger, Tigger, in the classic Winnie the Pooh cartoon series.

Talking about touching sound: haptic rhetoric

Photo credit:
Lessacinstitute.com

In HICP work we often ask "touching" questions: What does that sound feel like? or What is the "felt sense" of that sound? In the arts (in this piece by Wiest, for example), especially those created for the blind or deafblind, the metalanguage and structure of the interaction (its rhetoric, in some sense) seem to be well established--although not very interpretable to those "haptically challenged" of us who do not live in those mediums.

From earlier posts it is evident that the haptic arts and haptic applications are becoming more widely engaged as the technology evolves for it. One of my first encounters with "haptic rhetoric" of a kind was Lessac's use of musical instruments to refer to different vowel qualities and character.

It is only recently that I have come to fully appreciate the genius of Lessac and his ability to "conduct" the voices and bodies of his students--with words that deftly modulate a wide spectrum of intensity, color, movement and emotional content. The language we need to do the same is there, available for us in several disciplines. We just have to "orchestrate" our work in similar ways . . . get on the "band wagon," so to speak!

How sound touches us

There have been many relatively recent studies of synaesthetic metaphor (combing senses, e.g., a moving speech, a sharp flavor) in various disciplines. In a 1996 study by Day, it was shown, for example, that in English literature, the dominate synaesthetic metaphor tends to be "sound-touch," such as a "piercing scream." In music metalanguage, the audio-tactile metaphors related to pitch, loudness and other qualities are so pervasive that it would be nearly inconceivable to speak of musical sound otherwise (e.g., G-sharp or G-flat).

The cognitive-affective-visual-auditory-kinesthetic-tactile "hexus" (see earlier "hexus" post) that is a word or sound in language can be  committed to memory or accessed in any number of ways, but that close affinity between touch and sound, both metaphorically and neuro-physiologically, is especially relevant in teaching pronunciation.

The EHIEP system, with about a dozen distinct touch types tied to pedagogical movement patterns that anchor L2 sounds and sound structures, is certainly a sound, touching step in the right direction . . .