Sound discrimination training: perceived "phon-haptic" distance

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

Ask any Japanese EFL student how they managed to perceive and later produce the distinction between [i] and [I] or [u] and [U] in English and they'll probably tell you that it was difficult . . . or impossible. The same goes, of course, for L1/L2 phoneme mismatches for most learners, at least initially. The problem, of course, is the "competition" between phonetic or articulatory distance, that is how different, physically it is to produce two sounds, and phonemic categorical distance. If the brain "decides" that two sounds represent the same phoneme, regardless of how different it "feels" to produce them--case closed. At least that is what most research suggests. A 2004 study by Gerrits and Schouten of Utrecht University (linked here at the University of Rochester) suggests that the task used in the discrimination process can significantly impact perception of phonemic categories.

In plain English, what does that mean? Basically this: The method you use to assist learners in hearing or producing a phonemic distinction in their L2 can, itself, affect whether they get it or not. Really? Well, maybe . . .  So how do you usually do that? Do a class listening discrimination task of some kind? Give them an audio to listen to? Show them line drawings and have them repeat after you? Sit down with the learner and use a Starbucks coffee stir to get their articulators realigned?

 As described in earlier blogposts, the EHIEP approach is to establish points in the visual field where the hands touch as the sound is articulated, what we term "phon-haptically." Those points, or nodes, are strategically placed so that distinctions such as those above are experienced as being both physically distant from each other and somatically have very distinct texture or type of touch involved (tapping, pushing, scratching, brushing, twisting, etc.) The touch-type is chosen to "imitate" the felt sense of producing the vowel in the the vocal tract in some way, if only metaphorically. Does it work? Try it and let us know. Keep in touch. 

Confident, successful pronunciation?

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

Yet another potential piece for your "Well . . . duh!" file. The term "self confidence" and "pronunciation" are commonly associated, getting over 1,000,000 hits on Google . . . For example, in this introduction to a short piece by Shelly Vernon, the website ESLBase.com begins like this: "Do you avoid teaching pronunciation in your classroom? In this article, Shelley Vernon suggests going right back to the level of the phoneme to build learners' confidence." (Bold face, mine.) Now although implying it perhaps, Vernon never actually says that explicitly in the article. I do like that point of departure, nonetheless.

In a research report, entitled "Minority Report" about to be published (with apologies to the real Minority Report, one of my favorite movies), however, one of the findings may relate to the impact of confidence "on the job" --seemingly supporting Vernon's perspective. In a Science Daily summary, Hasmath and colleagues at the University of Melbourne report " . . . a strong correlation between confidence and occupational success." There are several other tidbits included such as one referring back to earlier studies suggesting height and attractiveness may also contribute to confidence or

 " . . . that workers who described themselves as 'extroverted', 'neurotic', 'open to experiences' or 'agreeable' (standard indicators of conscientiousness) were also found to be more motivated, and doing well professionally." And then the pies de resistance: "Interestingly, members of visible ethnic minorities reported lower rates of confidence, but similar levels of conscientiousness . . . This may partially explain why their wages and rates of advancement are consistently lower than members of a non-visible ethnic minority."

Where to begin . . . psychotherapy, obedience training, elevator shoes, cosmetics or phonemes?