Killing pronunciation 11: Ortho-phon-a-phobia

Number 11 in the "Killing Pronunciation" series of blogposts.

Clker.com

Ortho-phon-a-phobia or OPP, fear of correcting or correct pronunciation, a term I just coined, was inspired by new research from McComb and Mills of York University on orthorexia nervosa: Orthorexia nervosa: A review of psycho-social risk factors  (To see the previous 10 posts, just enter "Killing Pronunciation" in the blog search field!) The parallel between the two psycho-social "conditions" is, well, near frightening . . . From the summary in Neuroscience News:

"Orthorexia Nervosa, an eating disorder associated with a pathological obsession with healthy eating, has been associated with OCD traits, poor body image, preoccupation with personal appearance and a prior history of eating disorders. Researchers report those who practise vegetarianism or veganism are at an increased risk of developing orthorexia."

Now, granted, I sometimes go pretty far analogically afield in exploring the dynamics of (haptic) pronunciation teaching, but the connection is not as much a stretch as it might at first appear. Two diagnostic questions for you:

• Are you afraid of correcting pronunciation? 
• Are you afraid of talking about "correct" pronunciation? (For fear of sounding pedagogically incorrect in suggesting a specific model of accuracy or dialect to learners?)

If so, then, you got it: OPP. My condolences . . . but there is an antidote! Notice the specific features:

• Obsession with healthy eating (Read: just intelligible pronunciation, instead of aiming at a higher target)
• OCD (Obsessive compulsive disorder) (Read: need to control every nanosecond of class time or tending to view L2 pronunciation as pathology)
• Poor body image (Read: dislike of moving body when speaking or doing gesture/kinaesthetic or haptic techniques--or any number of psycho-social or cultural reasons)
• Preoccupation with personal appearance (Read: neurosis brought on by teachers who worry excessively about relationship of pronunciation to identity, instructor's or learners'--or not quite enough)
• Prior history of eating disorders (read: past experience with really bad or null pronunciation teaching, either as learner or instructor)

I said there is a cure. Have no fear! The meta-analysis suggests a couple basic principles that apply to both orthorexia and orthophonaphobia; (1) treatment must be multidisciplinary and integrated, psycho-social, and (2) the "problem" must be faced incrementally and systematically, with multiple methodologies, not through simple avoidance or replacement. 

What that means is that for effective feedback and correction of pronunciation, teaching the sound system in isolation, as a parallel discourse or channel, should be abandoned; it must be blended, instead, into all class work so that "it" becomes a normal, everyday, appreciated and low stress activity. (For examples of how to do that, see Jones, 2016, listed below.)

Most importantly, however, the idea that you can or should "ignore" or shield students from confronting or dealing with pronunciation errors or being corrected on the spot or models of the L2 that for them may not be realistic to aspire to or aim at (at least in the short term) is just fundamentally wrong.  

Instead, effective instruction requires careful, studied exposure to, not stereotypical rejection of these issues based simply on "desirability" or "achievability" criteria. The effect is to basically inform learners and provide them with controlled practice so they can understand and interact better, not the default of avoidance or uniformed biases . . . 

Integration and inoculation, the cure for orthophonaphobia . . . 

You can either "OPP out" or join those of us in field who do know how to do this and can help you do the same. In addition to taking courses or workshops in pronunciation teaching locally, online or at conferences, for starters, I now recommend two sources: Murphy's books and/or HaPT-Eng courses. 

• Murphy, J. (2013). Teaching Pronunciation (in the English Language Development Series), available from TESOL.org. or elsewhere.

• Murphy, J. (Ed.) (2017). Teaching the Pronunciation of English: Focus on whole courses, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

And, of course, Haptic pronunciation teaching courses or webinars!

If you have no background in teaching or pronunciation teaching, pick up at least Murphy's inexpensive 2013 book. (The 2017 text is a great reference, too. Full disclosure: I have a chapter in that book!) and then join us hapticians for the real antidote!

Sources:

 Jones, T. (Ed.) (2016). Pronunciation in the classroom: the overlooked essential. New York: TESOL

“Orthorexia nervosa: A review of psychosocial risk factors”. McComb, S. and Mills, J.  doi:10.1016/j.appet.2019.05.005

Mission unpronouncable: When there's no method to the madness . . .

Clker.com (the kitchen sink)

Caveat Emptor: I am a (a) near fanatical exerciser (b) language teaching method/ologist with about 50 years in the field, (c) compulsive researcher, and (d) this post is maybe a little "retro." You'd think that the (b) and (c) skill sets would naturally combine to make me a near world-class athlete. In my dreams, maybe . . .

For years, when asked how to get started exercising like I do, my standard response has been:

• Pick your grandparents well.
• Get a trainer or sign up for a class -- Don't do it on your own. 
• Follow the method.
• Be disciplined and consistent.
• Run the long race: a life of better fitness. 

Should have taken my own advice. I (mistakenly) thought that I was perfectly capable of creating my own system to run fast, based on research and my understanding of how methods and the body work. My self-assembled and constructed "method" has always been reasonably good for staying fit and strong . . .

I typically don't have time for classes, am genetically averse to following other people's methods and figured that I am smart enough to research my way to excellence. Not quite. I had fallen prey to a common version of the electronic post-modernist's "Decartes' Error" (I think, therefore I am) able to do this myself, with a little "Google shopping".

So, I  present my "method," a full report on what I had done the preceding two weeks, to my new coach. In retrospect, it had everything but the kitchen sink in it. She was kind, to put it mildly. When I first explained my essentially ad hoc method her reaction was (in essence):

"Hmm . . . Nice collection of tools . . . but where is your method? Aren't you a teacher?"

Turns out that I had many near-appropriate techniques and procedures, but they were either in the wrong order, done without the correct form or amount of weights or repetitions. In other words, great ideas, but a weak or counterproductive system.

So, how’s your (pronunciation) method?  Tried describing it lately? Could you? (Ask my grad students how easy that is!) When it comes to pronunciation, I think I know how to do that and help others in many different contexts construct their own, unique systems, but when it came to competitive running, turns out that I really didn’t have a clue, plan . . . or effective method.

I have one (plan+coach) now, one that applies as much (or more) to fast running as it does to effective pronunciation teaching or any instruction for that matter. Some features  of "our" new method:

• Reasonable and really achievable goals that will reveal incremental progress.
• Progress is not always immediate and perceptible, but it becomes evident "on schedule" according to the method/ologist! (Good methods "future pace", spell out what should happen and when.)
• Near perfect form as a target is essential, if only in terms of simplicity of focus, but combined with the ongoing assessment and assistance of a "guide," gradual approximation is the gold standard.
•  Having a model, in my case, Bill Rogers, Olympic marathoner perhaps, or a native speaker in teaching, is OK as long as the goal is the good form of the model, the process, not the ultimate outcome.
• Regular, proscribed practice, coupled with systematic feedback, probably from a person at this point in time, is the soul of method. "Overdoing" it is as counterproductive as "under-doing" it.
• Lessons and homework are rationally and explicitly scaffolded, building across time, for the most part at the direction of the method/ologist. That can't be "neo-behaviorist" in nature, but the framework has to be there in some cognitive-behavioral-neurophysiological form, where focus of attention is engineered in carefully.
• Unstructured, random meta-cognitive analysis of the method (not the data) undermines results, but near absolute concentration on movement and intensity,  moment by moment, is the sine qua non of it all. 
• Meta-communication (planning, monitoring) of the process, should be highly interactive, of course, but generally more controlled by the method/ologist than the learner, flexible enough to adjust to learners and contexts, of course, and but only when the brain/mind is allowed such "out of body" experience. 

To the extent that pronunciation is a more somatic/physical process, does that not suggest why efficient pronunciation work can be illusive? If you are in a program where there is a pronunciation class that approaches some or most of that criteria--and where the other instructors in the program can support and follow up to some extent on what is done there-- things work.

If not, if it is mostly just up to you, what do you do? Well, you pick some strategic targets, like stress, intonation and high functional load consonants for your students. In addition, you selectively use some of the features above, many of which apply to all instruction, not just pronunciation, and hope for the best.

Method rides again, but this time as a comprehensive body-mind system that is more and more feasible and achievable, e.g., Murphy's new book, but still potentially time consuming, expensive and maddening if you have to go it alone. 

Of course, if you don't have the time or resources to do relatively minimal pronunciation work, you can still probably find an expert-book-website to send yourself and students to for basics. There are many. Of course, I'd suggest one in particular . . .

A "reptilian brain" approach to pronunciation teaching (What Haskel says neuroscience says!)

Clker.com

Fun, superficial, slightly funky 2015 blogpost by Haskel at Neurosciencemarketing.com on marketing, appealing to the "Reptilian brain". "Appeal to neuroscience" (what was formally called "brain research") has now become one of the favorite foils of both educators and comedians. A recently discovered "bug" in the use of fMRIs may cast some additional, welcome doubt on that, in fact.  No matter what you want to "sell" . . . there seems to be some neuroscientist's often pseudo-scientific research study to back you up.

Haskel identifies 7 findings of neuroscience that suggest how to market anything (even your pronunciation teaching, I assume!) as long as you aim your pitch right at your students' "reptilian brains": pain, selfishness, contrast, tangibility, beginning and endings, visual metaphors, and "strike an emotional chord".
 
A. Pain - "All native speakers hate you because of your pronunciation or accent! Shed it!"
B. Selfishness - "Your accent is your identity, your inner Komodo. Next time somebody criticizes it, just tell them to be more multicultural and get over it!"
C. Contrast - "Have a good snake as a model: Justin Trudeau, David Cameron, Vladimir Putin or Barack Obama--take your pick."
D. Tangibility - "You do these tongue twisters long enough, they'll fix anything--including your lizard-like sun-tanned appearance."
E. Beginning and end - "Imagine your pronunciation now and how it will sound at the end of this course. Fill your mind with new sounds . . . Channel your inner cameleon (See C!)"
F. Visual metaphor - "Watch this CT-scan of me pronouncing 'th' several times tonight, especially my darting tongue." 
G. Strike an emotional chord - "All those notes in the book and in research about how hard it is to change your pronunciation are just a crock! You can do this!"

Coming soon: A pre-frontal (brain) peon to Teacher Cognition research in pronunciation teaching.

Good looking, intelligible English pronunciation: Better seen (than just) heard

One of the less obvious shortcomings of virtually all empirical research in second language pronunciation intelligibility is that is generally done using only audio recordings of learner speech--where the judges cannot see the faces of the subjects. In addition, the more prominent studies were done either in laboratory settings or in specially designed pronunciation modules or courses.

In a fascinating, but common sense 2014 study by Kawase, Hannah and Wang it was found that being able to see the lip configuration of the subjects, as they produced the consonant 'r', for example, had a significant impact on how the perceived intelligibility of the word was rated. (Full citation below.) From a teaching perspective, providing visual support or schema for pronunciation work is a given. Many methods, especially those available on the web, strongly rely on learners mirroring visual models, many of them dynamic and very "colorful." Likewise, many, perhaps most f2f pronunciation teachers are very attentive to using lip configuration, their own or video models, in the classroom.

What is intriguing to me is the contribution of lip configuration and general appearance to f2f intelligibility. There are literally hundreds of studies that have established the impact of facial appearance on perceived speaker credibility and desirability. So why are there none that I can find on perceived intelligibility based on judges viewing of video recordings, as opposed to just audio? In general, the rationale is to isolate speech, not allowing the broader communicative abilities of the subjects to "contaminate" the study. That makes real sense on a theoretical level, bypassing racial and ethnic and "cosmetic" differences, but almost none on a practical, personal level.

There are an infinite number of ways to "fake" a consonant or vowel, coming off quite intelligibly, while at the same time doing something very much different than what a native speaker would do. So why shouldn't there be an established criterion for how mouth and face look as you speak, in addition to how the sounds come out? Turns out that there is, in some sense. In f2f interviews, being influenced by the way the mouth and eyes are "moving" is inescapable.

Should we be attending more to holistic pronunciation, that is what the learner both looks and sounds like as they speak? Indeed. There are a number of methods today that have learners working more from visual models and video self recordings. That is, I believe, the future of pronunciation teaching, with software systems that provide formative feedback on both motion and sound. Some of that is now available in speech pathology and rehabilitation.

There is more to this pronunciation work than what doesn't meet the eye! The key, however, is not just visual or video models, but principled "lip service", focused intervention by the instructor (or software system) to assist the learner in intelligibly "mouthing" the words as well.

This gives new meaning to the idea of "good looking" instruction!

Full citation:
Kawase S, Hannah B, Wang Y. (2014). The influence of visual speech information on the intelligibility of English consonants produced by non-native speakers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2014 Sep;136(3):1352. doi: 10.1121/1.4892770.

"Embodiment and Cognitive Science"

Here is a fascinating, extended review of Gibbs (2006) by philosopher, R. Rupert of Colorado University at Boulder. If you are philosophically and "embodimentally" inclined, you will appreciate it. For those who may not be quite there yet, here is a pull-quote from the conclusion of the piece [italics are mine]:

 "In the end, I think research done under the heading of the embodied approach has much to offer more traditional theorists; it pushes cognitive scientists toward considerations that will enhance the traditional program, encouraging its practitioners to build more realistic models (albeit using the standard tools of representation and computation). Time-scales will be smaller. Representations might be sparser in visual processing but more numerous in our conceptual representations (in order to account for the context-dependence of some behavior). Realizations of cognitive states might appear somewhere other than in the brain, or they might appear in different parts of the brain than some theorists would have expected. The pursuit of such a program might yield a clearer picture of how the physical states realizing mental representations come to have that status."

The same could of course be said for the field of pronunciation teaching today. So . . . take your local cognitive phonologist out to lunch! (Unless, of course, he or she is already "there" . . . )