 |
| Clipart: Clker |
 |
| Clipart:Clker |
Only if you learn it in an immersion-based program (rather than a more pre-frontal approach relying on more explanation, etc.,), according to these two studies by Morgan-Short et al. (2012.) From the summary description in Science Daily it is, as usual, nearly impossible to figure out what the actual protocols and procedures were--and the original article is unaccessible. What is being claimed is that an "immersion treatment" resulted in activation of brain areas more like that of a native speaker. Just how much so, of course, is not characterized either.
The question applies to pronunciation instruction as well. Is it necessary or even preferable to learn it "like a native?" That the experiments even emulated "native like" is quite arguable as well. To quote another of my heros (philosopher Bertrand Russell):
A difference that doesn't make a difference doesn't make a difference . . . The often unexamined assumption that how pronunciation is learned by native speakers should invariably serve as our primary model for instruction needs to be reexamined in light of today's developing multi-disciplinary collaboration in the field and CALL technology. We'll come back to that theme shortly in deconstructing some haptic-integration techniques, methodologists and methods. In the meantime, as a very useful exercise, consider what it might mean to your work
were that no longer the case.
In this 2009 study in the Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour, Bull and Connelly make a striking observation about the relationship between emphasis and tonic (word or phrasal) stress in English as expressed paralinguistically by native speakers. In essence, some kind of synchronized body movement was (visually) evident on most tonic syllables in the study. Emphasis, on the other hand, tended to be evident in more exaggerated head and arm movement, mapped onto tonic syllables. What it points to is the felt sense of English rhythm: moving along with and on tonic syllables, most of that grounded in subtle (or not so subtle) upper torso nods or movement generated in part by the diaphragm contracting and pushing more air "up" on stressed vowels. So, does it make sense in EHIEP work to practice haptically-integrated rhythm groups (with some kind of touch located on the tonic syllable)? It does from a couple of perspectives, in fact. First, it anchors the stressed element of the word or phrase. Second, most of the pedagogical movement patterns are designed to be synced with a slight head nod and upper torso nod--although the explicit focus is only on the arm movement and hands touching. (In some cases, the PMP is preceded by explicit "breathe in" and executed with controlled exhaling of air as well.) I cannot emphasize enough how effective that anchoring can be. Tonic syllables are definitely worth stressing (and moving) over!
