Believing in pronunciation teaching -- at least at the beginning!

Have believed for . . . a long time . . . that early pronunciation instruction and learning is not only a higher calling, but  in some sense qualitatively different than later language acquisition. Once some "quorum level" of sounds and patterns are acquired, it is a different process or at least teaching problem. Hence, we see the often confused debates as to what degree pronunciation work is "physical" or more "conscious/cognitive." I believe two recently published studies help unpack the dichotomy or paradox. '

 A new study, Implicit pattern learning predicts individual differences in belief in God in the United States and Afghanistan, by Weinburger et al, has interesting, albeit somewhat indirect implications for pronunciation teaching.  Sciencedaily describes the focus of the study, quoting the researchers:  

"This is not a study about whether God exists, this is a study about why and how brains come to believe in gods. Our hypothesis is that people whose brains are good at subconsciously discerning patterns in their environment {emphasis, mine}may ascribe those patterns to the hand of a higher power," 

In a relatively straight-forward design, the research "correlated" relative ability to unconsciously identify language and symbolic patterns with stronger, fundamentalist religious belief in the two cultures/faith traditions, Christianity and Islam. Subjects more adept at pattern recognition tended toward stronger belief. (There are not just a few potential cross-cultural and methodological issues with the research, but I really like the conclusion!) 

And then this study on early versus later learning of Mandarin by Qi and colleagues at the University of Delaware, Learning language: New insights into how brain functions.  Their conclusion, focusing on brain function, summarized in Science Daily:

"The left hemisphere showed a substantial increase of activation later in the learning process -- the right hemisphere in the most successful learners was most active in the early, sound-recognition stage. . . "

Now granted, learning Mandarin may require a little more right hemisphere than English, as has been shown in previous studies, but the basic concept, pattern recognition, a more specialized function of the right hemisphere, is a key feature of early or initial learning of sounds. The researchers also note that more right hemisphere engagement was also key to eventual success in the language as well. Implicit pattern recognition . . .not explicit, left-hemisphere-like processing. 

There are no studies that I am aware of which correlate fundamentalist religious beliefs with acquisition of  L2 sound systems, but the connection between more right hemisphere based unconscious or inductive learning and early pronunciation teaching and learning is striking. That suggests that more experiential techniques and procedures, even drill, when carried out in ways that allow the brain time and input to "intuit" or acquire the somatic patterning involved, are essential to efficient instruction. So how do we do that well? 

Better pray about that . . . but will get right back to you!

Bill

Sources: 

University of Delaware. (2019, May 8). Learning language: New insights into how brain functions. ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 18, 2020 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190508093716.htm

Adam B. Weinberger, Natalie M. Gallagher, Zachary J. Warren, Gwendolyn A. English, Fathali M. Moghaddam, Adam E. Green. Implicit pattern learning predicts individual differences in belief in God in the United States and Afghanistan. Nature Communications, 2020; 11: 4503 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-18362-3

P(fff)FT! Bubble Up Theory! Improve your accent by not thinking about (it)?

ClipArt:
Clker.com

According to Passive Frame Theory, (or as I like to call it: Bubble Up Theory) the answer to the question "What was I thinking?" is probably: "I wasn't!"--literally. (Spoiler alert: Some slightly "fishy" metaphors follow.)

Occasionally you stumble onto an idea or model that seems just a great fit for some aspect of your work but, unfortunately, doesn't have quite enough empirical or popular support . . . yet. "Passive Frame Theory," proposed by Morsella of San Francisco State University, attempts a very different characterization of how everyday consciousness works.

For example, as you read this any reaction you have to this post such as "This is really goofy!" is just a brief, near random, unconsciously generated image bubbling up from someplace "in there" that is not much related to what we might have earlier referred to as conscious, logical thinking. About all your consciousness is really capable of, apparently, is something like navigating you into Starbucks safely and deciding on a tall or grande.

There are two recent reviews of that model, one by Science Daily and another more "colourful," readable and entertaining version by the Daily Mail. (Full citation of the original research report below.) Do a quick read of the latter! Citing the Science Daily version:

"According to Morsella's framework, the "free will" that people typically attribute to their conscious mind -- the idea that our consciousness, as a "decider," guides us to a course of action -- does not exist. Instead, consciousness only relays information to control "voluntary" action, or goal-oriented movement involving the skeletal muscle system."

That would certainly help explain a lot the conversation I hear around the office every day--but more importantly, it may also suggest why changing pronunciation can be so challenging--and how to do it more effectively. Without spending too much time thinking about "Passive Frame Theory" (which would be counter to the theory anyway), what "tools" would it provide us in pronunciation teaching Very simply put, it would argue that asking learners to "self-monitor" their speech to avoid pronunciation problems is not only futile; it is counterproductive. (That basic position has been around for decades, of course.) That is not what our fleeting consciousness is for after all. But how do you set up your brain's subconscious circuitry with models to be bubbled up from effectively?

As many "older" models had recommended, especially those in public speaking methodology, rapid improvement must be based on serious previous, focused practice on the specific problematic sounds or processes for the learner--prior to going "live" in conversation. Production "issues" (physical actions and the sounds they create) will then be recognized when one is uttered and the response "from below has bubbled up." In other words, we should allow--in fact encourage--recognition to be noted but only in passing, and then left to be integrated and "re-bubbled" as necessary, trusting the "team" in the bubble factory downstairs to handle it--or perhaps practiced later explicitly in isolation.

The term we in haptic pronunciation teaching use for that is "post hoc monitoring", just acknowledging or quickly noting bubbled up messaging--based on targeted earlier preparation. And we are also, understandably, on board with the idea that consciousness can at least manage " . . .  goal-oriented movement involving the skeletal muscle system . . ." which is the essence of Essential Haptic-integrated English Pronunciation approach (EHIEP) methodology.

And what is the roll of classroom explanation and explicit correction in that model? At least to persuade students with insight and rationales for practice (and drill) and provide them with some opportunities to do so in class or as homework.

Bottom line: physical, experienced practice counts.

An interesting, potentially useful model and metaphor. Certainly worth thinking about!

Full citation:
Morsella, E., Godwin, C., Jantz, T., Krieger, S., Gazzaley, A. (2015). Homing in on consciousness in the nervous system: An action-based synthesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2015; 1 DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X15000643

FLASH! Conscious suppression of pronunciation work!

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

Conscious Flash Suppression (CFS) technology could well be in the future of pronunciation teaching, based on research by Hassin, Sklar, Goldstein, Levy, Mandel and Maril at Hebrew University, as reported in Science Daily. CFS is described as " . . . one eye is exposed to a series of rapidly changing images, while the other is simultaneously exposed to a constant image. The rapid changes in the one eye dominate consciousness, so that the image presented to the other eye is not experienced consciously." What they discovered was that the material not experienced consciously was still processed and responded to non-consciously in various ways.

Their conclusion: " . . . humans can perform complex, rule-based operations unconsciously, contrary to existing models of consciousness and the unconscious." Avoiding conscious interference with pronunciation change is big. Now that may sound like a candidate for your "Well . . . duh!" file (A finding that is not only common sense but probably not worth the grant money blown on coming up with it.) Two important developments here, however:

• First, so much of what happens between instruction and spontaneous performance in pronunciation work is unconscious--or at least not the subject of research today. Even the focus in HICPR on the "clinical" is still a relative "outlier" in this field, although not in some related disciplines. We should be able to study that more systematically. 
• Second, all methodologists assign a great deal of the work to the "dark side," whether they make that explicit (consciously) or not, some more than others, such as Lozanov . . . or Acton! We need to stop suppressing the use of several great techniques that have been proven by experience to work the subconscious effectively.

Would love to get ahold of some of that CFS technology and try it out with haptic anchoring of academic word list vocabulary in time for TESOL in Dallas. Just imagine the impact of a pedagogical movement pattern accompanying the "constant" image of the acronym "CFS." Hard to suppress the excitement already . . .   

Thresholds in learning pronunciation

Clip art:
Clker

Previous posts have considered thresholds in several disciplines, including recent looks at learning to juggle and the use of hypnotic suggestion in facilitating pronunciation change. In Lessac's work there is a similar point in the 12-step process where the student has arrived at a level where a quantum leap has been achieved (the ability to perform "the call") and the voice has a new quality about it that does not follow directly from the work that has proceded. The same experience is frequent in development of skill with musical instruments and complex athletic skills.

Here is study of, of all things, "critical evaluation of information resources" by upper division undergraduates. Those who were seen as having crossed the threshold into their chosen professions, in some recognizable sense, were able to " . . . establish the authority, quality and credibility of [discipline-specific] information sources--a remarkable, if somewhat mystical experience.

Pronunciation change often happens as abruptly, with analogous parameters. The "authority" of a sound or word is best thought of as its place in the system or in those words where it occurs; the "quality" of the sound, its resonant and articulatory features; the "credibility," both the felt sense (haptic anchoring) and the confidence attributed to the changed sound or word. To the learner, a new pronunciation should, for the most part, just "show up," be a pleasant surprise, not be consciously integrated into spontaneous speech most of the time. For the instructor, the designer, the process and protocols must be transparent and managed. We haven't crossed that threshold yet, but we are closer.