Talk (to) Yourself into Improved English Fluency! (an almost DO-IT-YOURSELF course!)

Clker.com

And how do you do that? In part, using embodied oral reading to develop English fluency and confidence. The efficacy and methodology for the various applications for oral reading is well established. (For an excellent review of oral reading research and methodology, see Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp and Jenkins, 2001) )

What haptic pronunciation teaching has brought to the party beginning in about 2007 has been the systematic use of the body and body movement in pronunciation teaching. What that means, in effect, is that every word in the selected oral reading is "choreographed" with some degree of conscious engagement of the upper body, generally focusing on rhythm of English but also, in principle, any phonological feature of any language. 

The concept of improving your speaking fluency in private, at least certain features of it, without talking with or working with another person or instructor, is today an almost radical position, as opposed to the prevailing social-constructivist, communicative view of ideal (probably group-based) context and input. Although it is difficult to establish empirically, of course, in reality the preponderance of ALL language learning happens as learners do "homework", either internal "self talk" or explicitly out loud speaking . . .  in private. 

That successful L2 learners can improve their fluency away from public engagement is pretty much a given. (By fluency here I am limiting the discussion to the learner's ability to speaking  rhythmically and confidently--and more rapidly, using language elements that they are capable of articulating, often very haltingly or not at all.)

The model of that methodology adopted by haptic pronunciation on this blog and elsewhere has been based on that of Lessac, presented in his book, The use and training of the human voice. Although the approach was developed essentially for native speakers and many actors or public speakers in process, the principles and system are beautifully compatible with confidence and fluency development for nonnative speakers as well. In that system, learners are first reoriented to the basic movement and somatic energy in their bodies, very much like contemporary "mindfulness" therapies, for example. 

What was extraordinary back then--and even now--was the design where the entire 12-step process could be done by one person, alone, just using the book, following the plan. (One can, of course, today take courses in the Lessac method internationally, but the central premise holds: for speech fluency, as defined earlier, there is a great deal one can do on their own, such that it carries over very well into spontaneous speaking engagement.)

That, in essence, is how the KINETIK, haptic-based course works. Unfortunately, the October-December, Acton Haptic English Fluency Training (HFT) course offered through Trinity Western University is closed!!! However, there is still plenty of time, however, to set up a customized course with your organization for next spring, or plan to enroll for the upcomng January~March course. (for further information on either option, email me: wracton@gmail.com

A few excerpts from the HFT course description: 

HFT Embodied Oral Reading is done out loud, in private, using stories that are accompanied by special gestures which use language and vocabulary that students are already familiar with, what they can understand, but perhaps may not be able to talk about fluently.

The 9-week course is designed especially for non-native English-speaking adults who do not have the opportunity for much, if any English, face-to-face conversation in their daily lives but who want to keep improving, nonetheless. (and who have an IELTS reading ability of about 4.0 or above.) HFT provides the student with a set of skills so that they can continue improving after the course, working with other readings of interest to them. It is recommended, for example, for students who are not studying spoken/conversational English currently.

It is based on extensive research (and decades of teaching experience) in oral reading methodology and the well-known "Lectio Divina" tradition in meditation practice, using extensive oral reading as homework—not in a class. The key neuroscience-based innovation of HFT is the precise use of gestures and touch in the visual field, synchronized with speech, creating optimal conditions for attention, learning, retention and recall.

Course work is done individually, with four or five, 30-minute homework assignments and a live 75-minute zoom feedback meeting weekly, usually on Friday evening. (which is also recorded for later access, if necessary.)

Next course: January ~ March, 2024

·Cost for individuals: $350 USD, materials included, but for a school, for example, (maximum of 100 students) the cost per student can be as low as $25 USD.

A teacher training course in Haptic Pronunciation Teaching is also available (See www.actonhaptic/KINETIK

To enroll or for more info, go to www.actonhaptic/hft or contact Bill Acton at wracton@gmail.com

Full citation: 

Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. & Jenkins, J. 2021. Oral Reading Fluency as an Indicator of Reading Competence: A Theoretical, Empirical, and Historical Analysis DOI: 10.4324/9781410608246-3, in (Eds) Kamee'enui, E. & Simmons, D. 2002. The Role of Fluency in Reading Competence, Assessment, and instruction: Fluency at the intersection of Accuracy and Speed: A Special Issue of scientific Studies of Reading, New York: Rutledge, pp. 239-256

PTSD: Pronunciation Teaching Somatically (Experienced and) Delivered

Learning and teaching pronunciation does not have to be traumatic, although for some it just may be! There is, however, a great deal to be learned from body-based treatments of PTSD and related traumas that apply to our field--especially in terms of directionality, what comes first, methodologically, in therapy or teaching. 

Not sure how I missed this extraordinary (and extensive) review last year, (2021) "Somatic experiencing – effectiveness and key factors of a body-oriented trauma therapy: a scoping literature review, " by Kuhfuss, Maldei, Hetmanek and Baumann of University of Tier. 

Excerpts from the abstract and conclusion: 

• "The body-oriented therapeutic approach Somatic Experiencing® (SE) treats post-traumatic symptoms by changing the interoceptive and proprioceptive sensations associated with the traumatic experience. Findings provide preliminary evidence for positive effects of SE on PTSD-related symptoms."
• "Moreover, initial evidence suggests that SE has a positive impact on affective and somatic symptoms and measures of well-being in both traumatized and non-traumatized samples. Practitioners and clients identified resource-orientation and use of touch as method-specific key factors of SE."
• "It provides promising findings indicating that SE might be effective in reducing traumatic stress, affective disorders, and somatic symptoms and in improving life quality . . . SE seems to be characterized in particular by its cross-cultural applicability and its combinability with other therapeutic procedures."

SE therapy, in essence, targets the specific body sensations associated with trauma, "from the body up," so to speak. For example, past trauma may be triggered, experienced throughout the (See the matrix at somatictherapy.com) body, e.g., eyes, hands, feet arms, skin tone, blood pressure, breathing muscles, all of which can be managed and moderated consciously with training. The effect, in part, is to change the emotional loading of the past experience and ultimately its ongoing impact on spontaneous, real time functioning. 

So how does that translate into pronunciation teaching? One obvious connection is that if the learner is provided with a rich, physically engaging experience in the body synchronized with a sound or a sound pattern, the chance of the sound being remembered should be enhanced greatly. (Wow . . . all that earlier "physicality" in teaching sounds may have been on to something, when it came to anchoring a sound in memory!) 

The KINETIK method, like many other highly somatic or kinesthetic approaches is based on 

• Lessac's notion of "training the body first," early attention to and emphasis on body engagement
• Observed Experiential Integration therapy (especially effective in treating PTSD)
• and extensive use of haptic techniques (gesture + touch) from Haptic Pronunciation Teaching

What is the relatively radical key here is that the method, itself, places great importance on the directionality overcoming barriers to learning by using body awareness, in some sense like Mindfulness training, while directly connecting the "feeling" to the concept or event--rather than the converse. 

Are you headed in the right direction as well? 

Source;

Kuhfuß M, Maldei T, Hetmanek A, Baumann N. Somatic experiencing - effectiveness and key factors of a body-oriented trauma therapy: a scoping literature review. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2021 Jul 12;12(1):1929023. doi: 10.1080/20008198.2021.1929023. PMID: 34290845; PMCID: PMC8276649.

"A word in the hand is worth two in the ear!" (On the relationship between touch and audition in pronunciation teaching)

Clker.com

Just got back from a couple of weeks in China. Always good to reconnect with some of the roots of things haptic, especially Chinese traditional medicine and acupressure and acupuncture systems. About 30 years ago I was introduced to the concept of "qi" and the notion of the "energy healing" arts. Not surprisingly, the hands play a prominent part in that a number of key acupressure points are located there, especially the center of the hands, the palms. In fact, one of the most important acupressure points, Lao Gong Pericardium-8, one associated with "the place of labor" is there at the center of the palm. (To find it, make a gentle pointing fist and note where your ring finger touches the palm.)

In haptic pronunciation teaching,  most of the sounds are anchored using touch and movement, where movement, sound and touch intersect on stressed elements of words, phrases or sentences, where the fingers of one hand touch the center of the palm of the other, using any of several types of touch, e.g., tapping, scraping, slight pressure pushing up to intense, extended pressure.

In pronunciation teaching, and especially when focusing on vowel and consonant articulation, awareness and direction of touch, as with various articulators in the mouth or throat area, may or may not figure in prominently in pedagogy. Generally, the latter, unfortunately . . .

A fascinating new study by Yau of Baylor College of Medicine , reported by ResearchFeatures.com, has, in some sense "uncovered" more of the basic interdependence of  hearing and touch. In part that is because both senses are managed or mediated in something of the same area of the brain. The most striking finding, however, is that the same degree of "supramodality" probably applies across all the senses as we think of them today.

In other words, evidence of a touch-hearing supramodality confirms again that the same interrelationship probably does exist among all senses, including (as in haptic work) kinesthetic-visual-audio-tactile. One of the early discoveries about the function of touch in perception (and any number of studies since) has been that it serves to "unite" the senses, functioning in a more exploratory capacity, and often temporarily at that. (Fredembach, et al, 2009;  Legarde, J. and Kelso, J., 2006). Turns out, touch does more than that!

When instructors, especially those with adult students, refer to "multi-sensory" teaching they are typically referring to visual-auditory (and maybe) some kinesthetic engagement only, not use of systematic touch. With the Yau research we understand more as to how the senses naturally connect, even without our interference or design. Also, however, we see (and feel) here the capability of touch, for example, to affect learning of sound--and vice versa.

Those with any degree of synesthesia, where senses are actually experienced thorough some other modality, have been into this from birth. We are beginning to catch up and see the potential application of that perspective. The possibilities for any number of disciplines, from rehabilitation--to pronunciation instruction are fascinating.

To not go "supramodal" now would, of course, be . . . senseless.  More on the specific application of Yau's research to enhancing pronunciation instruction in general, and haptic work specifically, will follow in subsequent posts.

Keep in touch!

The feeling of how it happens: haptic cognition in (pronunciation) teaching

Am often asked the question as to how "haptic" (movement+touch) can enhance teaching, especially pronunciation teaching. A neat new study by Shaikh, Magana, Neri, Escobar-Castillejos, Noguez and Benes, Undergraduate students’ conceptual interpretation and perceptions of haptic-enabled learning experiences, is "instructive". Specifically, the study,

 " . . . explores the potential of haptic technologies in supporting conceptual understanding of difficult concepts in science, specifically concepts related to electricity and magnetism."

Now aside from the fact that work with (haptic) pronunciation teaching should certainly feel at times both "electric and magnetic", the research illustrates how haptic technology, in this case a joy-stick-like device, can help students more effectively figure out some basic, fundamental concepts. In essence, the students were able to "feel" the effect of current changes and magnetic attraction as various forces and variables were explored. The response from students to the experience was very positive, especially in terms of affirmation of understanding the key ideas involved.

The real importance of the study, however, is that haptic engagement is not seen as simply "reinforcing" something taught visually or auditorily. It is basic to the pedagogical process. In other words, experiencing the effect of electricity and magnetic attraction as the concepts are presented results in (what appears to be) a more effective and efficient lesson. It is experiential learning at its best, where what is acquired is more fully integrated cognition, where the physical "input" is critical to understanding, or may, in fact, precede more "frontal" conscious analysis and access to memory. (Reminiscent, of course, of Damasio's 2000 book: The feeling of how it happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. Required reading!)

An analogous process is evident in haptic pronunciation instruction or any approach that systematically uses gesture or rich body awareness. The key is for that awareness, of movement and vibration or resonance, to at critical junctures PRECEDE explanation, modeling, reflection and analysis, not simply to accompany speech or visual display. (Train the body first! - Lessac)

We are doing a workshop in May that will deal with discourse intonation and orientation (the phonological processes that span sentence and conversational turn boundaries). We'll be training participants in a number of pedagogical gestures that later will accompany the speech in that bridging. To see what some of those used for expressiveness look (and feel) like, go here!

KIT






http://educationaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41239-017-0053-2

Mind-body Connections in Pronunciation Teaching

Clip art: Clker

For most, the systematic use of movement and gesture--or even haptic is now at least of interest (See, for example the work of Thornbury, Gilbert or Chan.) You really can't be very successful in this business without some somatic (body-based) technique to support or reinforce classroom instruction, even if that just means clapping hands occasionally to emphasize stress placement.

Show me an instructor who loves doing pronunciation work, however, and I'll almost always show you one who is at least an enthusiastic "gesticulator" but probably also a musician of some kind or avid exerciser! Every time I do that informal poll at a conference, the agreement is near 100% in the audience.

Still the best place to get a general understanding of the integration of mind and body in education and therapy is in psychotherapies such as Somatic Therapy: Somatic Therapy: Using the Mind–Body Connection to Get Results. (To access that 7-page primer, however, you'll have to sign on to Psychotherapynetworker.org; go to the "Free reports" tab and download a copy. No need; I've done that for you. I'll be reporting in later blogposts on some innovative and applicable techniques from that source.)

 It is instructive to read comments by clinicians who work in such holistic paradigms, especially to better understand why what we do works. In the piece, Wylie (p. 7) makes the following "prophetic"point--which applies to this field as well: " . . . somatic approaches may become sufficiently ordinary and acceptable that the line between “body psychotherapy” and “talk psychotherapy” may one day disappear entirely."

With emerging video and hapic methodology and technology, I'd only substitute "will" for "may"--and "very soon" for "one day!"

Virtual boundaries in pronunciation instruction

Clip art: Clker

 If a picture is worth a thousand words, it appears that a virtual boundary may be even more valuable in pronunciation instruction. As reported by Science Daily, a series of research studies by Lee at Columbia, and Zhao and Soman at the University of Toronto have demonstrated that those who see themselves " . . . in-system individuals [those who perceive themselves as being inside a virtual boundary of specific types] demonstrate increased action initiation, persistence in completing tasks, and overall optimism." Those types of situational boundaries include, for example, visual markers of waiting queues, recurrent verbal messages indicating one's precise place in a system, or imagined pathways. What the research suggests is that once one moves inside the boundary, what they refer to as the "in-system boundary," either figuratively or literally, the effect can be striking.

Clip art: Clker

The parallels in pronunciation work include (a) visual schema, such as vowel charts; (b) auditory schema such as model sentences used in instruction and practice; (c) kinaesthetic schema such as range of motion of the lips, tongue and jaw in articulation; (d) tactile schema such as points where teeth touch the lips; (e) somatic schema such as vowel resonance; (f) situationally, the boundaries present in signalling a time interval identified for attention to pronunciation or focus on form, and, of course, (g) haptic-integrated schema such as EHIEP pedagogical movement patterns which terminate in touch. The key, of course, is how those boundaries are established, maintained and managed. Step outside yours for a bit and consider how they function for your students. If they are problematic, it may well be time that you get more in touch. 

De-fossilizing pronunciation instructors

Clip art: CLker

Clip art: Clker

Very nice 2010  study by Boettinger, Park and Timmis of Leeds Metropolitan University, entitiled, "Self-directed noticing for de-fossilization: Three case studies." It is good from a couple of perspectives, first in how well it describes the  highly meta-cognitive, strategies used by three researchers (themselves) in attempting to de-fossilize aspects of their own L2 speech production and second, by the absence of virtually any reference to somatic or kinaesthetic strategies, other than to engage in more "facial effort" in producing a vowel more accurately. The study focuses on "autonomous de-fossilization," in that the three researcher-participants did not attend classes or consult with each other during the period of the study. The strategies they came up with and their reflections on the process are revealing, especially in the fact that in their own attempts to solve their problems  they occasionally even had to fall back on traditional, less theoretically-correct techniques such as . . . repetition! Overall, the range of strategies arrived at--and the overwhelming faith in meta-cognitive, self-reflective techniques--is wonderfully illustrative of the general aversion to analysis of embodied practice, even when it there. In reality, from indirect references in the three narratives, I think we can safely assume that the ability of any of the three to use awareness of movement and vocal resonance in their de-fossilizing may have been substantial. In the report on the study, however, it is  for the most part absent, perhaps assumed to be a predictable consequence of disciplined, meta-cognitive direction and prodding. For some learners, especially those at the head of the class, that is unquestionably true--for most, nonetheless, in de-fossilizing pronunciation, explicit, systematic body engagement is a necessity. Required reading. 

Better pronunciation? Shocking!

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

Always looking for new approaches to improving effectiveness of pronunciation work, especially kinaesthetic/haptic systems, like EHIEP. There are going to be some significant breakthroughs in efficiency of our work. I have looked at a number of such innovative possibilites in past posts. Here is another that could well be among those tools in the future. Based in part on the general accessibility of fMRI technology, a wide range of "electronic" interventions are in use by neurotherapists, such as this one described in a Science Daily of research by a team from NIH, Johns Hopkins and Columbia Universities. In the study subjects who got the right level of stimulation of the motor cortex (for about 20 minutes per day during a 5-day training regimen to learn a new, complex joy-stick based complex motor skill set) performed significantly better:  "tDCS (transcranial direct current stimulation) involves mild electrical stimulation applied through surface electrodes on the head, and works by modulating the excitability, or activity, of cells in the brain's outermost layers." The main effect was still strong three months later. Granted there might be some technical problems with implementing that approach right now in the classroom, but the principle, of accelerating what the researchers term "consolidation," through focused brain stimulation and biofeedback mechanisms is well established and understood. If that is not enough to get a student's motor (cortex) going, what is?

Getting a Beckham-like "kick" out of pronunciation

Clipart: Clker

Clipart: Clker

A group of physics students at Leicester University have figured out how Beckham was able to execute those incredible bending shots on goal. What the group found, the formula they derived (with a little analogical, creative liberty) extends to anchoring (making a change stick) in haptic-integrated pronunciation instruction: My HICP interpretations are in italics.

• The distance a ball bends (D) - the success of the anchoring experience
• as a result of this force (the contact, the kick) - the intensity or "stickiness" of the haptic anchor
• is related to the ball's radius (R) - the size/scope of the anchoring experience, both in time and size
• the density of air (ρ) - the resistance to learning in the individual or in the class
• the ball's angular velocity (ω) - the evidence of cognitive and somatic engagement in anchoring
• it's velocity through the air (v) - the residual, felt sense of the anchoring as it is enacted
• it's mass (m) - the size and emotional relevance of the target being anchored
• and the distance travelled by the ball in the direction it was kicked (x) - the amount of context and connectedness that is accessed during the anchoring

That is, of course, actually a very good framework or set of parameters for assessing the nature and potential efficacy of an anchor in any type of training, not just pronunciation. In HICP, for example, that might mean, a pedagogical movement pattern which accompanies the overt pronunciation of a word with changed vowels, consonants or stress pattern. What a kick!

See what it feels like? (How haptic anchors work.)

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

In a fascinating study by USC researchers, it was demonstrated that, " . . .‘feeling with the mind’s touch’ activates the same parts of the brain that would respond to actual touch . . . this suggests that human brains capture and store physical sensations, and then replay them when prompted by viewing the corresponding visual image." Haptic anchors, as used in HICP work, generally consist of one hand touching the other at specific location in the visual field as a word is articulated. (The learner may or may not be simultaneously looking at or visualizing the orthographical representation of the word or phrase as well.) When that anchor is recalled later, for example by a student in the class observing the instructor perform the anchor in response to an error in pronouncing the target sound, the research would suggest that that visual image should serve to activate in the brain of the student the physical sensations of both the touch event and the body-based resonance in the upper body and vocal track associated with the word--and possibly the alphabetic representation (letters) as well, depending on the cognitive preference of the learner. I can see you are getting a feel for it already . . . 

Process-experiential Pronunciation instruction

Logo: Process-Experiential Therapy

Once every couple of months I check in with my local counseling psychologist/researcher in the building next door on my current thinking as to the development of this work, one of those who introduced me to Observed Experiential Integration over five years ago. Yesterday's question was: How can I better conceptualize the role of haptic integration within the appropriate balance between cognitive-conceptual and body-based somatic pronunciation instruction? He referred me to Process-experiential therapy. To the right is the logo from the PE website which outlines the general model. If you just substitute "haptic-integrated" for "experienced emotion" you have a very interesting framework for the theoretical foundation of our work, especially in light of recent developments relating to the importance of learning about this approach--experientially! (The logo, itself, not surprisingly, maps on very nicely to the general character of the visual field as detailed in several earlier posts, with "up~down" being "internal~external, and "left~right" being "stability~change.") What is even more striking (to me at least, not my colleague!) is that the 12 boxes also map on beautifully to the "vowel clock" framework described in earlier posts as well. In the next few posts, I will unpack and slightly alter the labels of several of those "boxes" in examining the empirical and theoretical bases of HICP. If you are one of my grad students, you have your homework!

PTSD?-2: Embodied learning vs learning, embodied

To quote Jean-Luc Godard, ‘It’s not where you take things from — It’s where you take them to.’  There is an excellent piece in this month's TESOL Quarterly by Randal Holme, "Cognitive Linguistics in the Second Language Classroom," which, among other things, focuses the issue of the role of the body in L2 pedagogy. In fact, the first section of the article is entitled, "The Embodied Learning Principle." In essence (to somewhat overgeneralize--Do read this yourself!), what Holme argues--persuasively, I think--is that in order to be "learned," new language has to end up "in the body," that is (from our perspective) strongly anchored, (but from the Cognitive Linguist's perspective, for the most part, that means--in the brain.) It is most importantly a question of directionality of the process: language being essentially "embedded" in the body through any number of portals, including metaphor and affective engagement. He does, in fact, mention a few "kinaesthetic" techniques that appear to facilitate the process, such as clapping hands, etc., but he is in some sense, using Jean-Luc's principle: it is not as critical how the language is taught, just that it gets "embodied." I like that, as far as it goes. Our perspective, however, is that pronunciation teaching must begin as a much more embodied process (Train the body first!)--not just  result in an embodied felt sense and L2 identity. In other words, he has it at least half right. But instead of just "embodied learning" (the L2 embodied as outcome), we would maintain that it must also be "learning, embodied," a strongly somatically-based process that, among other things, enables language acquisition. Progress! 

"Building, the map" and haptic-integrated pronunciation

Have recently had some fascinating interaction with a grad student who was having a great deal of difficulty following the pedagogical movement patterns on the haptic videos. The task of the learner is to mirror the video, speaking and moving along with the model. The problem for her was one that we have come to expect occasionally (perhaps of one in twenty or so), especially in instructors in training. The linked research by Carson et al. (2010) investigates parameters of buildings where people are less likely to get lost: " . . . an integrative framework that encompasses these factors and their intersections:

Clipart: Clker

• the correspondence between the building and the cognitive map, 
• the completeness of the cognitive map as a function of the strategies and individual abilities of the users, 
• the compatibility between the building and the strategies and individual abilities of the users, and 
• the complexity that emerges from the intersection of all three factors."

Seen from that perspective, where the map must be a function of/emerge from the strategies and abilities of users, the answer has begun to emerge as well: extensive, sufficient haptic and visual anchoring for all learners. Getting some to mirror pedagogical movement consistently can be virtually impossible without an analogous, relatively complete visual and somatic map of the sound system, accessible to even the most a-haptic among them, much more so than I had anticipated early on in the work. Fortunately, we can do that now. As so often happens, the "problem" has become the solution.

Grasping new pronunciation

In the remarkable study by Symes of Plymouth University and colleagues reported in Science Daily, it was demonstrated that " . . . using a grabbing action with our hands can help our processing of visual information." In essence, by performing that hand movement, in preparation for touching a fruit of various sizes, features of a picture were more quickly recognized--assuming that the hand position reflected the shape of the object to be viewed.

The EHIEP vowel protocol uses a set of analogous gestures that simulate the felt sense, including duration of the vowel to be anchored (spoken as the hands touch). As one hand approaches the other it assumes a different configuration, depending on the type of vowel to be articulated. The visual image that is associated with the anchor may be written, appearing in the visual field, or visualized--as a dictionary entry or phonetic transcription of a word.

Whether or not the same "grabbing" principle applies to auditory or somatic images is not mentioned in the research report, but from what we know of the relation between haptic, auditory and visual, one would assume that the effect would be even more "pronounced" with auditory input. Regardless, it points to but another possible explanation for the "gripping" nature of EHIEP!

The "Cognitive Phonological" map and Lessac's pedagogical territory

In the linked article by Fraser is something of the Cognitive Phonologists' manifesto: “Pronunciation is primarily a cognitive phenomenon rather than a physiological problem." The CP's approach to teaching and learning pronunciation is, not surprisingly, highly metacognitive, requiring insight, explanation, conscious frameworks, planning and, of course . . . understanding. The driver of change is seen as basically cognitive, not the felt sense of speaking and pedagogical drill and practice. Simply put: ontologically, once the mind is online, the body must follow.

Clip art: Clker

From a HICP perspective, that is to fall for the classic, map/territory illusion, in Korzybski's words, "the map is not the territory." Even if the map or characterization or origin of the problem is "primarily cognitive," that does not mean that the approach to the solution or treatment "on the ground," in the classroom must be. On the contrary, in many systems of Western (as opposed to Eastern) human behavior change, the effective therapy or training must be considerably more and more noncognitive today, at least at the outset, in effect side-stepping or creating an offsetting balance with the problematic "phenomenon." (See earlier post on "Changing the channel fallacy.")

Lessac's "territorial" manifesto, Train the body first, is admittedly no less directional in design, but it has one enormous advantage . . . it works.

Your vowels are within you . . .

Clip art: 

Clker

In many religious and meditative traditions, vowels have distinct character, quality and (often incredible) impact. In spoken English vowels do retain some subtle phonaesthetic qualities, as noted in earlier posts, but nothing comparable to those that form the basis of the great chakras and chants. (Not even backward build up drill or Jazz Chants) This video provides a nice introduction to the central role of vowels in that context. (Here is a bit more "analytic" and almost entertaining presentation of some of the same concepts.)

 When we work with the concept of the "felt sense" of a sound, we are working somewhere near the other end of the intensity continuum from the settings of those vowels, but a rich experience of resonance and the momentary, conscious situating of the "feeling" of a vowel someplace in the body is essentially the same goal. Here is one case where today's (over)emphasis (in my humble opinion) on metacognition in pronunciation teaching may just be on the right track. Got a vowel problem? Try meditating on it.

Mirroring, Tracking and Listening

M, T and L are basic tools of pronunciation teaching. It has been assumed for some time that tracking, that is having a learner speak along with a simple audio recording, is something of an overt form of what naturally goes on in the body in listening. There was earlier research that seemed to suggest that the vocal apparatus (mouth, vocal cords, etc.) moved along with the incoming speech at a subliminal level.

Clip art: Clker

Turn outs, according to this research, by Menenti of the University of Glasgow, Hagoort of Radboud University, and Gierhan and Segaert of the Max Planck Institute, summarized by Science Daily, that general listening (without seeing the speaker, "live," visually) does not necessarily involve such sympathetic "vibrations." In other words, the felt sense of listening in some contexts can be decidedly non-somatic or divorced from embodied attention.

That does not mean that tracking is still not a useful technique for assisting learners with the intonation of the language, but clearly, the neuro-physiological rationale may be suspect. This raises several interesting questions related to the complex inter-relationships underlying listening, speaking and pronunciation skills--and how to teach them, especially in adults. The evidence that mirroring, on the other hand, engages the body is unequivocal. That certainly speaks to the HICP/EHIEP--and any pronunciation teaching practitioner who is listening . . .

The felt sense of a new or "replacement" vowel: Y-buzz and beyond

Clip art: 

Clker

The first phase of EHIEP training is involved with haptically anchoring the vowels of English. Even if the learner "has" a vowel already in his or her repertoire, it is essential that a new and more focused, conscious awareness of the somatic qualities of the vowel be established to facilitate later change and monitoring of spontaneous speaking.

That concept is based on Lessac's notion of the "Y-buzz" sensation. Here is a 2007 study by Barrichelo and Behlau that looked at the perceptual salience of that highly resonant sound/sensation, as opposed to "normal" production by subjects of the acoustically similar [i] sound (as in the word, "me,' for example.) The unique, therapeutically created Y-buzz vowel felt sense is the model for our work. The learner's ability to produce the Y-buzz is almost entirely body-based, not auditory. In that way, the learner can produce it without having to "go through" the possibly "defective" [i] vowel in his or her current interlanguage phonology. (See earlier post on "changing the channel.")

Need to put a little more "buzz" in your teaching?

Quod erat demonstrandum: Why pronunciation teaching fails

Clip art: Clker

University of Wisconsin researcher Alibali is quoted in the linked summary by Science Daily as saying, ""Body movements are one of the resources we bring to cognitive processes." From our perspective, it might be better framed: ""Cognitive processes are one of the resources we bring to learning pronunciation, "multiple modalitily." What a nice example of the obvious "cognitive" bias prevalent in this field today as well-- such that the body is still thought of principally as an "add-on" or afterthought in understanding human functioning and designing instruction. Some estimates are that the body figures in to most popular models of cognitive functioning at well below the 20% level. 

The researchers speculate that it might even be a good idea to consider suppressing body engagement to stimulate other forms of disembodied learning. They need not bother . . . We have ample evidence in contemporary pronunciation teaching as to what happens when that is the common practice.

(Hat tip to Charles Adamson, founder and guiding spirit of the Japan NLP association for this link to the study summarized at Sciencedaily.com. He has been the source of several Science Daily summaries that I have also linked here in connection with a relevant post.)

The "touch" of sound quality

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

In this summary by Hsu of Live Science  of research relating to touch and decision making, the authors make an interesting observation: " . . . these studies support an idea proposed by Ackerman and his colleagues known as scaffolding, where humans learn to grasp abstract mental concepts by relying upon physical sensations . . ." 

The haptically-anchored pedagogical gestures of EHIEP possess a range of skin-touch sensations, from strong taps or punches to gentle brushing strokes. In addition, those movements may be tightly constrained or broad, sweeping arcs across the visual field. Each pedagogical movement pattern (PMP) is created to be experienced as a unique physical correlate to the sound or sound pattern it represents. Our experience has been that the more learners "rely on the physical sensations," the more rapidly and persistently change in pronunciation takes place. Good decision . . . to rely on haptic grounding in pronunciation work.