Touching sound to teach it

image credit: yvonbonenfant.com

When contemporary vocal artists, in this case Yvon Bonenfant, create in multi-senses, the interplay between sound and touch often becomes the focal "zonenubergang," the crossover. As has been evident in posts related to haptic interfaces and, more recently, deafblind communication, our touch metaphors, e.g.,"How touching!" connect much more than simple mental concepts. Bonnefant describes the sense of the engagement of touch and sound in his work as best experienced as a silk-like "membrane" between us where the sound passes through into tactile meaning and understanding almost unimpeded. That is a remarkable characterization of what we are after in linking pronunciation with the felt sense of producing it.

Haptices and Haptemes

clip art: Clker

Here is an announcement of a 2010 workshop that I am sorry I missed on "Social Haptic Communication." Although the brief description only defines "haptices" as "touch messages" and "haptemes" as elements of touch, especially as applying art experiences to the body . . . I like the "felt sense" of the terms and may adopt both terms for use in some aspects of HICP/EHIEP work. The use of those concepts seems to have been originated or at least promoted by Dr Riita Lahtinen of the Ear Foundation. (Lahtinen's book, Haptices and Haptemes, sounds fascinating.) The relationship between the skin-on-skin haptic communication "language" used by those who work with the "deafblind," and our haptically anchored pronunciation methods is intriguing. It is clear from recent research that the brain does not recognize much of a difference between the two kinds of communication. Welcome to the "Hapt-Team!"

Engaging haptic hormone?

The hormone oxytocin has been associated with a range of social functions such as trust, facial recognition, massage technique and lactating. In this 2008 study by Gordon,  Zagoory-Sharon, Leckman, and Feldman, summarized by Science Daily, it was also found to be associated with parenting styles that involved richer communication and engaging touch with infants in both fathers and mothers.

Clip art: Clker

The concept of "haptic visuality" was proposed by media/art critic Marks, that the eyes, in some multi-literacy, multimedia environments, such as haptic cinema, become very much "tactile-like," interpreting experience more as through the skin, potentially bypassing higher cognitive critical functioning and filters. What that means for development of haptic interfaces is that in a vivid multisensory "nexus" or event, the brain becomes much more holistic in interpreting what is in front of it, in effect interpreting the experience as a "felt" whole, not allowing critical analysis or deconstructing to enter into the process much. This is, of course, also the "Holy Grail" of advertising, movie makers and marketing.

A shot of oxytocin before your next haptic pronunciation lesson? Touching . . .

Haptic Cow!

clip art: Clker

I am asked repeatedly, how to apply haptic thinking and technology to more detailed articulatory work with vowels and consonants, much like what a professional speech therapist does. We may have the answer here in an extraordinary invention by Baillie. The "haptic cow," of course, has been designed for training in veterinary medicine. Trainees can (virtually and haptically) put their hand "inside" the cow to develop a required skill set that feels just like the real thing, such as delivering a calf.

Imagine our L2 learner doing the same sort of thing--except from a different perspective and virtual point of entry, of course! Being able to explore the inside of a "living," drooling, pronouncing  mouth with both hands as it does diphthong after glorious diphthong . . . "How now, brown cow?"

The inner game of pronunciation learning

Clip art: Clker

The "ancient" Taoists and Lessac had it right, when it came to rehabilitation--among other things. The central concept was to focus on managing what was going on in the body and begin the healing/learning process there, being far less concerned with external appearance and incoming sounds.

In the last two years or so, as you can see from the  near 700 blog posts, I have been reporting on research that looks at learning that is less aural (listening-based) and visual (relying on sight as the lead system in learning new sounds). In a very real sense some of the key insights have come from research and practice in rehabilitation methodologies developed for the blind (haptic computer interfaces), deaf (sign and haptic systems) and physically disabled (especially tactile-enabled prosthetics and robotics). Much of the genius of Lessac was his ability to interpret to the Western mind (and body) how to also learn from the inside out. We may yet be able to rehabilitate pronunciation teaching!

Pronunciation modalities: out of sight--but IN mind!.

clip art: Clker

In this 2009 study of modality dominance, by Hecht and Reiner, when visual is paired one-on-one with either haptic or auditory competing stimuli, visual consistently overpowers either of the two. When the three are presented simultaneously, however, the dominance of visual disappears. That may explain why having some learners focus on a visual schema (such as the orthography) while articulating or practicing a new sound may not turn out to be very efficient--or doing a kinesthetic "dance" of some kind to practice a rhythm pattern (without speaking at the same time) while looking at something in the visual field, may not work all that well either for some learners.

The presence of eye engagement may override or nullify information in the competing modality. In HICP, where all three modalities are usually engaged, the "distracting" influence of sight is at least lessened. In fact, the tri-modality "hexus" should only better  facilitate the integration of the graphic word, the felt (haptic) sense of producing it and the internal (auditory) bone- resonance and vibrations. Although a substantial amount of pronunciation learning may be better accomplished with eyes closed, tri-modal (haptic, visual and auditory) techniques probably come in a close second. We will "see" in forthcoming research!

A touch for pronunciation learning? Hyper- and Hypo-hatics

Clip art: Clker

Autotelic need-for-touch subjects in this 2007 study by Krishna and Morrin were better at distinguishing "diagnostic" from "non-diagnostic" touch in relation to food attractiveness. In other words, if the "feel" of a product related to its essence or identity, for example, the softness of a banana, the "autotels" were better at recognizing it. Likewise, they were better at ignoring non-taste relevant features, such as the feel of the label. Non-autotels, were less able to get diagnostic features--but were likely to be more taken in by non-diagnostic features. (You can "see" the implications for marketing in grocery stores!)

The research includes a very informal questionnaire to self-identify degree of haptic need-to-touch which I could easily amplify and use in research. We see constantly the range of "autotelicity" in our students. If we can identify that by degree, perhaps we can, as the research suggests, develop ways to better orient students at either end of the continuum to their use of hapticity in learning the system. That will certainly help in selling the "product!"

V-Braille meets Kinect in Hapticland

Image credit: www. pmos.org.uk

To get an idea of what a haptic-based, computer-mediated, near virtual reality system for pronunciation teaching might work and look like, imagine a Kinect interface with a V-Braille set up, where you wear gloves that have sensors covering the end of your middle fingers (like a thimble) and quarter-size sensors on both the palm and back of each hand. As has been explored in earlier posts, using the HICP/EHIEP framework, learning new pronunciation should be so easy and efficient that you could learn it "with your eyes closed"--and probably should!

Why the Mikado image? Listening to it right now. What better model of integration (of fun and politics?) 

Insight from the blind

Clip art: Clker

In this 2000 paper, Design of Haptic and Tactile Interfaces for Blind Users, Christian makes an important observation: " . . . At a high level, an interface is a collection of objects and operations one can perform on those objects. The visual representation of an interface on the monitor is only one interpretation. The idea is that when affording the blind access to an interface, one should not convey the visual representation, but rather the interface itself. . . .  by translating the semantic level of the interface, one can convey the same constructs that are available to sighted users."

In other words, our use of the visual field is, more accurately, use of the "proprioceptive" field, which involves much more than just sight. We have all observed learners who, in attempting to focus on a sound, will close their eyes to enhance their concentration. Turns out, in a haptically-anchored system (such as EHIEP) for most, doing a full protocol (a set of sounds or sound patterns) or a single sound with eyes closed significantly intensifies concentration--and almost certainly, retention. Compared to "simply" saying a word "blind," the addition of the haptic anchor (movement terminating in touch of both hands in the visual field) creates an extraordinarily "vivid" experience.

Although I have not explored the application of this concept to all protocols systematically, the idea of blocking visual modality extensively is an intriguing possibility. It seems to work surprisingly well in most contexts. Try it. You are in for a "blinding" revelation . . . 

Meaning through doing

Clip art: Clker

In this fascinating paper by Kilbourn and Isaksson (2007) the case is made for the place of some types or phases of noncognitive learning through haptic exploration. As we consider the wide range of phenomena related to learning of the sound system of a language, it becomes very evident that some aspects are "more" modality specific than others. For example, learning the orthography is obviously a more visual task--although it assumes some degree of felt sense of the vowels and consonants. But for the "rest" of the language, in Kilbourn and Isaksson's framework, even for the preponderance of early vocabulary learning, the experiential, haptic anchors are not just ancillary or "add ons" to the process but are fundamental to acquiring meaning.

Virtually all of pronunciation is closely tied to kinaesthetic and tactile sensory networks. It should come as no surprise then that it can also be learned efficiently,  haptically. This framework suggests that at least for some set of learners a primarily haptic and less cognitive/visual presentation approach will be best. Based on our experience, that seems to apply to most learners, particulary in terms of learning basic vowels, stress, rhythm and intonation. Success may just depend upon how long one stays in touch . . .

How sound touches us

There have been many relatively recent studies of synaesthetic metaphor (combing senses, e.g., a moving speech, a sharp flavor) in various disciplines. In a 1996 study by Day, it was shown, for example, that in English literature, the dominate synaesthetic metaphor tends to be "sound-touch," such as a "piercing scream." In music metalanguage, the audio-tactile metaphors related to pitch, loudness and other qualities are so pervasive that it would be nearly inconceivable to speak of musical sound otherwise (e.g., G-sharp or G-flat).

The cognitive-affective-visual-auditory-kinesthetic-tactile "hexus" (see earlier "hexus" post) that is a word or sound in language can be  committed to memory or accessed in any number of ways, but that close affinity between touch and sound, both metaphorically and neuro-physiologically, is especially relevant in teaching pronunciation.

The EHIEP system, with about a dozen distinct touch types tied to pedagogical movement patterns that anchor L2 sounds and sound structures, is certainly a sound, touching step in the right direction . . .

Just do it! . . . haptically

Adding touch to movement, tactile to kinesthetic, has proven to be very powerful, especially in getting learners to anchor sounds or sound processes consistently in the same location in the visual field. According to this 2011 research by Smith and colleagues at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, summarized by Science Daily, achieving that kind of precision, which is very important to efficient haptic work, is best accomplished by ". . .continually adjusting the goals of practice movements so that systematic differences (errors) between these movements and the intended motion can be reduced . ."

clip art: Clker

Furthermore, one of the implications is  " . . . a new approach to neurological rehabilitation: one that continually adjusts the goals of practice movements so that systematic differences (errors) between these movements and the intended motion can be reduced." In other words, the learner's attention must be constantly redirected to better positioning or touch or resonance or general form of a haptically embodied sound, providing a very rich type of "motion-referenced learning."

In terms of EHIEP work, that means, for example, focusing on a different parameter of a pedagogical movement pattern, rather than a "simple" repetition beyond a few iterations, such as the positioning, speed, intensity of contact between hands, etc., in anchoring a new or "corrected" sound. The articulation involved may not change perceptively but the practice will continue to be experienced as progressive motor learning, in the sense of the Harvard study.

 It is actually quite easy--once you stop thinking about it . . . and just do it. 

Getting Rhythm--haptically!

Clip art: Clker

Any pronunciation teaching method text will recommend kinaesthetic techniques for practicing rhythm, such as clapping hands or rhythmic dance-like movements. How productive use of rhythm is acquired, however, remains a mystery. In L1 learning, inability to perceive rhythm, for example, may be a contributing factor in some types of autism and dyslexia. As reported in this study, at least drum rhythm can be learned haptically, in the absence of either visual or auditory input. 

In almost all HICP work, rhythm and rhythm groups are haptically anchored, accompanying, for example,  primary focus on vowels, stressed syllables and intonation contours (or tone groups.) In fact, EHIEP should be seen as very much "rhythm-centered," experienced by the learner in conversation-like rhythm groups of syllables, often accompanied by music during practice.

Field independence in haptic pronunciation instruction

As reported in this article by Hecht and Reiner, field dependence/independence cognitive style may have an impact on how readily one is able to "get" the felt sense of a haptically anchored object in virtual reality or through haptic video as well. In HICP terms, that would suggest that the field independent learner should be better able to focus on and recall targeted objects (sounds, words or processes)--without getting too engaged or distracted by any one modality involved or feature of the visual field--bringing as much information and cognitive integration to the event as possible.

Clip art:
Clker

There is a fascinating interplay involved here. The "danger" of haptic-based or other "physical" techniques is that the learner may be so engaged with the somatic experience that the learning objective or structure in focus is lost or at least not well connected. Field independence suggests the possibility of better cognitive/noncognitive balance in the experience. On the face of it, that does seem to explain why some learners (although not many) find haptic work less effective or efficient. For example, they may be able to remember the pedagogical movement pattern (PMP) associated with a vowel but not the pronunciation. Likewise, a learner's over-enthusiastic, dramatic or emotional response in anchoring a targeted expression, not uncommon in field-dependent individuals, may actually be counter-productive, resulting in relatively poor, limited access and recall later.

Effective multiple modality learning requires that information from all senses being brought to the problem "at hand" are represented appropriately and optimally. EHIEP protocols work only to the extent that instructors and students maintain control and maximal attention in the process. Working with body movement there is always the possibility of things getting a bit "out of hand," but that should be avoided to the extent possible--especially for the more field dependent and hyperactive among us.

Emotion, Handedness and HICP

Clip art:
Clker

Clip art:
Clker

As noted in earlier posts, EHIEP "touch-i-namis" (wave-like gestures associated with sounds or sound processes which terminate in both hands touching) go from left to right when working with intonation. Research on emotion and handedness suggests that the left hand is more associated with relaxed states and is probably better suited for depicting the flowing shape of the intonation contour and the right hand is by nature more information or aggression-based--especially if the motion is contained within the general visual field. 

In other words, use of the hands in our work, for whatever reason, including hemispheric cross-connectedness (left to right, and vice versa) can be enhanced by matching emotion with handedness. For example, another pedagogical movement pattern (one used only for fun demonstrations only, by the way), one with some potentially very "aggressive" emotions involved (the Rhythmic Feet Fight Club) terminates with a strong punch with the right hand to the opponent's abs--on the prominent word/syllable in a rhythm or output group.  A useful technique to keep "handy." 

Art, Music, Physical Education--and Pronunciation

Clip art:
Clker

Here is a document showing essential K-5 outcomes in Art, Music, and Physical Education. Careful examination (with your "analogy-detector" activated) reveals any number of ways in which pronunciation instruction shares features and fundamental pedagogical strategies with those three disciplines, including being seen by many as peripheral to core instruction.

In fact, many of the current shortcomings of contemporary pronunciation teaching relate quite directly to its not being sufficiently artistic (tied to expressiveness), musical (attending to prosodic features such as intonation and rhythm) and "physical" (cf. HICP, of course!)  Likewise, when the education culture sees art, music and physical education as first in line during budget cutting, it should come as little surprise that pronunciation instruction falls in the same category. Although there are any number of reasons within the recent development of the field from communicative language teaching forward for the declining interest in pronunciation teaching, the trend represents a more general evolving, post-modern societal attitude toward form, body and person.

Pronunciation teaching as we know it, as a more or less discrete, "skill-based" specialization that is of sufficient value to the field such that it should be reestablished in teacher training programs in these times of fiscal and form-based restraint may well be beyond resuscitation.

Drawing emotional gesture and intonation

Clip art: CLker

Here is an interesting description of what is termed, "gesture drawing" which seems quite analogous to what are termed "touch-i-namis" in EHIEP (wave-like gestures through the visual field terminating in hands touching): " . . . creating a gesture drawing . . . , you should draw, not what the thing looks like, but what it is doing. You need to 'sense' the thing that you are drawing. Is it fluid and soft, or spiky and hard? Is it coiled like a spring, or off-center and asymmetric, or is it solid and balanced?"

Notice the phrases "sense . . . what it is doing." In our work, that is generally experienced or interpreted as expressiveness, the dynamic nature of the targeted sound. The learner is guided to produce with as much resonance as possible--and later recall--what the sound(s) is doing, its felt sense, not what it looks like or sounds like.

To resonate or not to resonate . . .

clip art:
Clker

All  effective voice training systems are based on the concept of using body resonance for anchoring, that is the "feeling" of sounds, not simply what come back through the ears from what we speak (which is of relatively little use for the most part.) Here is the engaging website of "The Voice Guy." It does an especially good job of explaining body resonance and how to develop it in three areas: (a) general  resonance in the head and throat, (b)  chest-focus resonance and, (c) the highly concentrated "Y-buzz" (see earlier posts on Lessac's model.)

The richer and more sensual the learner's experience of the sounds being learner or "adjusted," the better. And when that felt sense is linked with haptic anchoring, as in HICP/EHIEP work, it is almost too much like fun . . .

Aesthetic (haptic) touch

Clip art: Clker

For many, the idea of attending to touch is considerably outside of their conceptual box and comfort zone. Linked above is a nice piece from a sculptor, Rosalyn Driscoll, that helps to inform our understanding of the way in which the creative use of touch can be experienced. One dimension of her art is that the audience actually touches the pieces or projects and in that manner comes to interpret and appreciate it. The felt sense of that process--and HICP work, I might add-- ought to to be an attitude or mindset of curiosity, sensitivity and appreciation. When it is, being able to later recall and integrate what was in focus is much more than just a nice "aesthetic touch"--it is the essence of sound learning. Our students as well ought to be "touched" by our EHIEP instruction and theirs. 

Keeping listening in the picture . . . or out of it!

Clip art: Clker

Several posts have addressed the question of the relationship between learning modalities in general learning and pronunciation teaching. What this important 2010 study by Lavie and Macdonald of the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at UCL, reported by Science Daily, demonstrates is that in some contexts visual input appears to trump auditory input. In other words, being engaged visually in a task may limit ability to hear critical information.

We know from experience that some highly visual learners may find learning pronunciation especially difficult. This helps to explain why. From whatever source, even stunning visual aids or computer displays, "visual interference" with learning new sounds may be significant. The implication for EHIEP instruction is that haptic and auditory input, key components of  multiple modality instruction--along with a modest amount of video on the side, perhaps, is the best overall learning format. Get the picture . . .or the sound . . . take your pick!

Getting in touch with your inner fuzzy for pronunciation work--with touch!

clip art: Clker

In working with haptic techniques, one frequent observation will often be that even students in the foulest of moods seem more amenable to engaging with the procedures than were they being asked to respond to visual or simple auditory prompts. This 2011 study by King, NUS Business School, Singapore, and Chris Janiszewski, University of Florida, Gainesville. may explain why that could be the case: those in less positive mood tend to prefer tactile sources of comfort (such as in the photo accompanying the article of a small girl hugging a teddy bear.), whereas the more positive tend to select visual stimulation for comfort or stimulation.

What is of interest there for us is that successful haptic work should be less dependent on getting students in optimal affective states before the lesson begins. In other words (to paraphrase Arthur Lessac): hug (the body) first, dazzle ( it) later. Going back to an earlier post on learning potency, comparing "drill" to the "thrill," it may be that the experience of a "thrilling" pronunciation learning event feels closer to a great massage than it does to awe at the sight of a great picture.

Whole person and whole body learning

For decades, the concept of "whole person" involvement in language learning has been a given. The HICP perspective in pronunciation instruction, and that of many body-friendly methodologies in this and related fields, is that the full body, as represented in multiple-modality-based procedures, must be engaged as well.

Image: Egoscue.com

The well-known Egoscue method for body alignment and functionality has for some time provided not only a great way to keep your body loose and aligned, but also an excellent heuristic and metaphor for our work. (The Egoscue website is also linked in the right column of blog.)

Especially for the instructor, conscious control of the body as both a model for students and an a basis for optimal delivery of speech and general interpersonal nonverbal communication as presented in body movement, is an essential skill set. The Egoscue method, through a highly integrated set of exercises, creates a fascinating, integrated body balance and alignment and sense of well being. In that framework, especially awareness of  the rhythm of English seems to be greatly enhanced.

Pronunciation work can be a pain in the neck . . . but not if you have done your Egoscue that morning before class!

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?

May I have your "undivided" attention? (For pronunciation instruction)

Clip art: Clker

In this interesting 2003 MA thesis by Hamblin, the effect of divided attention on simultaneous speaking and movement fluency were studied from a number of perspectives. One relevant finding was that (for right handers) left hand movement tasks were significantly more disruptive to speaking fluency and language generation than were right-hand tasks. One explanation was that such multitasking (simply) demands more attention on the part of the non-dominant hand's related neural hardware--which normally does not exert as much control over ongoing speech and language production.

In HICP work, that effect is exploited to advantage by systematically using the movement of both hands, but especially the left hand, in part to demand and maintain as near total concentration of the learner on the target sound, word or phrase. (See earlier post on the potential effects of left-handedness on HICP teaching and learning: minimal, at best.) Because the EHIEP protocols (techniques) do not at least initially demand generation of new language, but only require repetition of provided targets, it is relatively easy to progressively keep learners (near) fully engaged and on task.

Adding conscious attention to the felt sense of both the movement and the essential touch of each pedagogical movement pattern (PMP) does much to keep the contemporary, multi-tasking-prone, visual- media-addicted learner's brain and attention as "undivided" as haptically possible.

ACCENT principles of the HIPoeces Matix

HIPoeces uses the visual field for a number of functions. Vowels, stress, consonants, pitch and intonation all involve fixed points where the sound or sound process is haptically anchored (movement with associated touch at some point). The ACCENT principles from graph design provide a good template for deciding how effectively a "move" in the visual field by the hands and arms fulfills the purpose for which it has been created. A (apprehension) Does the PMP (pedagogical movement pattern) "maximize apprehension of the relations between" the other PMPs in the field? (For example, are the individual vowels appropriately positioned in relative space from eachother?) C (clarity) Are the most important "elements visually the most prominent?" (For example, is the pitch change location the most obvious visual component of an intonation-based PMP? C (consistency) Are the symbols used sufficiently close to those used in general pronunciation teaching? E (efficiency)  Are the elements of the graph (matrix) "economically" used? (In this case, do the PMPs involve as little distraction or redundancy in presentation as possible?) N (necessity) Are the elements (of the graph or matrix) the best conceptual schema for presenting and anchoring this concept or sound set? (The system is constantly evolving. At present the requirement is that all work be haptic, not just kinesthetic or auditory/visual. That may change later as well.) T (truthfulness) Are the graph elements accurately positioned and scaled? The PMP are, by definition pedagogically-based, as such many of them are not absolutely true-to-form with the linguistic systems and analyses on which they are based, but from the perspective of the best possible "felt sense" of an English sound for learning, the PMPs generally anchor well and strongly support learner integration of targeted material into spontaneous speech.

Flexibility, Change and Creativity

In the last post I commented on the notion of a test of creativity that might be useful in figuring out which students will be more amenable to experimenting with their non-dominant modalities. Here is an interesting one looking at general creativity, and here is one on openness to or attitude toward change. In this kind of work, a modicum of both are essential. Try them and see how you rate. And here is  a test of flexibility. If you score high on all three, you're hired!

How to engage the haptic-o-phobes and the kinesthetically challenged

From this 2011 research by Yang (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee), Ringberg (Copenhagen Business School), Mao (University of Central Florida), and Peracchio (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee), it appears that the secret is to check first as to whether the learner is creative enough to love haptic in the first place. If not, forget it. If so, however, it appears that the sufficiently creative are much more open to working in their non-dominant cognitive styles or modalities. HICP that training in non-dominant modalities is critical for the learner, in many cases explicitly avoiding the learner's primary "cluttered" channel(s) or cognitive style.

Clip art: Clker

So perhaps, we need to do some more creativity training earlier on to engage the dull, unimaginative stragglers, before we ask them to hyper-gesticulate in public . . . or possibly forward them on to a program that better fits their personalities? That should not be too difficult, eh.  

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.  

Is it "the drill" or "the thrill" in pronunciation learning?

Clip art: Clker

Apparently it is the latter--when it comes to efficient learning in young children. In a remarkable study by Medina, Trueswell, and Gleitman, of the University of Pennsylvania and Snedeker,of Harvard University, reviewed by Science Digest (a frequent source of good links for us), it appears that new words and concepts are best learned in insightful "hot" events (i.e., teachable moments), rather than through repeated, gradual associations building up over time. Asher, in the 1960s, came to a similar conclusion in studying the effect of learning a command on the first attempt, as opposed "getting it" gradually. He found that the faster learned; the more accurately recalled.

That is also the essential assumption of HICP work: haptic-anchoring of sounds, words and related processes (done correctly) should be consistently so vivid, engaging and attention grabbing--that what is learned is learned quicker and deeper. Turns out that the rap on  mechanical, mind-numbing drill in pronunciation teaching as not being the cost efficient way to learn is closer to the truth than we had realized. "Keep in touch" with this line of research; it is very likely just the beginning of a revolution in how we think about integrated, experiential learning.

Experiential pronunciation learning

Probably the best model for understanding how haptic-integrated pronunciation work should work is Kolb's (1984) "experiential learning cycle." His four stages are (A) concrete experience, (B) reflective observation, (C) abstract conceptualization, and (D) active experimentation. 

Clip art: Clker

Haptic-integrated instruction makes Stage A a much more multiple modality experience The HICP framework from the outset contains strong elements of the visual/cognitive engagement as well, in addition to movement and touch sensations. (Many typical pronunciation teaching techniques begin with Stage B.) While maintaining the "felt sense" of the sound or word, in Stage C, the learner "attaches" its formal properties (its grammatical functions and collocation--where it occurs in conversation, etc.) as it is practiced. In Stage D, as the new or repaired sound is initially used in speaking or attended to in listening, the haptic anchor (the somatic/body feeling of the targeted sound) should be re-experienced or felt, signalling to the learner at a marginally conscious level such that it is noticed and further integrated. 

One frequent, sometimes humorous side effect of EHIEP work is that a new word is so strongly anchored in instruction that learners may get temporary "flash backs" to the training protocols or the classroom or the specific lesson. That, of course, also serves as delightful confirmation that learning is in process! (See earlier post on the "Hexis" of haptic-integrated instruction as well.) 

Touching memories

The nature of our memory for touch is apparently quite different from that of movement. The summary of the study linked above notes that, "A new touch does not erase the memory of a previous touch from working memory. Rather, new and old tactile memories can persist independently of each other, once a person's attention has registered the touches. (emphasis, mine) " The same is not the case with many forms of  movement, however,  which can be "replaced" by new movement patterns. What that means is that haptic anchoring, being a nexus of both movement and touch should be much more accessible to memory than movement (kinesthetic anchoring) by itself--and conscious attention to touch "events" (or TAGs) as we refer to them, should substantially enhance  learning the sound system.

Learning with students

One of the key principles of HIPoeces methodology is that, in a very real sense, instructors must learn the system  along with their students--literally. In an innovative proposal, Murphey et al (2004) argue that primary school teachers in Japan do something similar. As noted in earlier posts, there are in fact a number of reasons why it is generally preferable in haptic-integrated pronunciation work for the class to learn and practice key elements of the system following a video model, not from their instructors, at least initially, but with them. (Haptically-Integrating) O/ECE Pronunciation teachers of the world: Outsource!

Murphey, T., Asaoka, C., & Sekiguchi, M. (2004). Primary teachers co-learning english with their students. The Language Teacher, 28(2), 15-18.

Optic visuality versus haptic dance

An interesting distinction coming from the art world that captures something of what we attempt to achieve with haptic integration. In "optic" mode, as we stand in front of a sculpture, for example, we remain capable of considering the form, as well as potentially experiencing the piece as a whole. In "haptic dance" mode, however, we are "grabbed" by the artistic creation in a way that seems to bar reflection and other pre-frontal "cortexing"-- something analogous to Krashen's relatively useless, binary,  "acquisition vs learning" distinction. Continuous haptic integration (Chi) does aim for (and achieve) at least moments of total attention and concentration. Shall we dance?

Learning of haptic Icons

This study by Swerdfeger (2009) investigates the impact of rhythm and "melody" on learning of haptic icons. Haptic icons are touch and movement-based symbols, very much like those used in HIPoeces protocols, where a sound is anchored to the  visual field by movement and touch.  One of the findings is that rhythm tends to facilitate the process, whereas melodic elements (intonation) appear to be a wash at best, in some conditions interfering with anchoring. The implications of this work for understanding what haptic contributes to pronunciation instruction are fascinating. One perhaps coincidental parallel is the concept that learning a set of seven icons may be approaching the maximum number in this type of teaching system. The EHIEP vowel protocol (see earlier post) works with visual schemas of 7 "short" and 7 "double" vowels--presented and practiced with strong rhythmic grounding.

Potential Hapticnical terms

HapticTalk 

Hapticophile

Haptictyte

Hapticmite

Hapticons                                        

Hapticophant

Hapticians                                        

Hapticocyde

Hapticones                                       

Hapticophilia

Hapticological                                  

Hapticologue

Hapticemic
Hapticetic                      

Hapticolite

Hapticonic                                       

Haptickle

Hapticophonic                                 

Hapticophony

Mishaptic                                        

Hapticitude

Hapticonation  

Hapticnacious  

Hapticonalia

Haptichazzard          

Hapticonographically

Hapticilly                                         

Hapticalalia
HaptDictPro
Hapticaphobia
Haptication
Hapticary
Hapticoy
Hapticote
Hapticoat
Hapticode
Hapticotomy
Hapticlone
Hapticlown

Integrated Pronunciation Teaching

An interesting piece by Bainbridge and O'Shea (2010) on integrating pronunciation instruction in communicative work. Although it is not clear how one with less experience in voice work or  training in theater could pull off what they describe, they are still very much on target in their general approach--especially in the use of mood, controlled attention and movement. There are many examples such as this one of instructors who have developed relatively idiosyncratic systems which are obviously effective. Now if somebody could just figure out how to systematize such a framework so that it was more easily accessible to the rest of us . . .

The body "hexis"

Not entirely sure what Bourdieu meant by "body hexis" yet, but I like it! And will unpack more of it in subsequent posts: " . . . Language is a body technique and specifically linguistic, especially phonetic, competence is a dimension of the body hexis in which one’s whole relation to the social world is expressed..”
Pierre Bourdieu (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges.  Social Sciences Information, 16(6), p. 660. (and thanks to Carolyn Kristjansson for passing that quote on to me!)

Boleslavsky on the actor

This from Boleslavsky's 1933 book, "The actor is usually word shy and inarticulate.Often he does not know what he does or how he does it, that makes him an actor. Even when he knows it, it is difficult for him to say it or write it. He can only express it in action. His language is a language of movement, of gesture, of voice, of the creation and projection of character by things done or left undone." Ever read a better description of the mindset of an accomplished (multiple modality) language learner?

Synesthesia and cross-modal interaction

Several posts have focused on the importance of engaging all senses and modalities for optimal efficiency in pronunciation work. Research in synesthesia points to the importance of the multiple paths of interconnectedness between brain centers. For our work, that cuts both ways. If all modalities are actively "online" in attending to the sound process targeted, the potential impact on memory and recall multiplies accordingly. Conversely, if some available modalities (such as body awareness, touch, or visual) are otherwise engaged or distracted, the effect goes the other direction. Pronunciation is, in that sense, a uniquely multi-modal problem for the learner. The expression, "Give me your undivided attention." takes on new meaning from that perspective!

Gesture in pronunciation teaching

The paper linked above, by Adam Brown, does a nice job of identifying the typical gestures used in (even moderately kinesthetic) pronunciation teaching. In principle, all the haptically-anchored movements used in HIPoeces fit within Brown's framework. Although the gestures listed are not presented as part of a coherent system, it still an interesting resource, a good place to begin.

Multi-tasking puts multiple-modality learning on ice!

Research in training athletes revealed long ago just how critical it is that learners are able focus on only "one task at a time," so to speak. For the figure skater, for example, that means that all of the components and skills of the performance routine must be developed to a level where there will be no conscious attention required to them during the "show." The same goes for learning and training periods: no "fractured" or partitioned attention allowed.

The parallel to pronunciation teaching is apt: learning a new sound or sound process is also by its very nature a multiple-modality problem which should be a thoroughly "whole body" experience, involving all modalities simultaneously. If it isn't, there is a very good chance that, just as in figure skating, it risks not engaging enough of the mind and brain for the target to be learned efficiently--if at all. Krashen (1972) and others were right that "monitoring" can be quite destructive to fluency and learning, but it goes considerably further.

So much of contemporary pronunciation instruction is at best "dis-integrated," and even more likely to be relatively dis-embodied, as well. That is especially the case with methods that over-rely on listening, explanation, uni-sensory repetition and non-systematic "learning-in-real communication" -- accompanied by the inevitable, random, multi-tasking and compromised, temporary, partial attention.

That "figures," doesn't it? They are just out of touch . . .

Why we shouldn't forget: How multi-modal or multi-sensory techniques work . . . really!

Common sense tells us that if we engage our visual, auditory, kinesthetic and tactile neural hardware simultaneously, we should be able to learn more effectively. The study linked above by Kelly & Avraamides demonstrates something of how that works. In effect, the information from all modalities tends to be "stored" in a common location in the brain. (It is also stored in other neural sites as well.) The implication for our work is that fixed locations in the visual field that are strongly associated with a sound or sound process, having been learned by (a) simultaneously locking the eyes and/or prioprioceptic nervous system on that point (b) where the hands have just arrived and are (d) momentarily touching, as the sound is (e) articulated, and the sound (f) is (to some degree) "heard" through the ears--should be readily recalled from any of those five directions. Pedagogically, that simply means efficiency. In other words, learners of any cognitive style, functioning in any skill area, should be better able to recall and begin using what they have anchored, what they have haptically integrated, later.

Initial hand position in goal-directed movement

In a very relevant study, Khoshnoodi, M., Motiei-langroudi, R.,Omrani, M., Ghaderi-pakdell, F., and Abbassian, A. (2006) demonstrate the importance for kinesthetic memory of a consistent "point of departure" of a movement through the visual field. The initial hand position seems to be more critical than the precise landing on the destination. What that means for HIPOECES work is that effective encoding and anchoring of sound structures such as vowels, consonants, stress, intonation and related phenomena by various types of "strokes" through the visual field, which generally terminate in or accompanied by some type of touch, may be as dependent on where the strokes begin as where they end. At the very least, careful attention to the entire course of movement of these directed, pedagogical gestures can potentially add substantial "punch" to the process. (One obvious way to do that is through the use of eye tracking analogous to that developed by OEI practitioners.) This insight should "move" us to further study!
Khoshnoodi, M., Motiei-langroudi, R.,Omrani, M., Ghaderi-pakdell, F., and Abbassian, A. (2006). Kinesthetic memory in distance reproduction task: importance of initial hand position information. Experimental Brain Research, Vol. 170 Issue 3, p312-319. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-005-0217-5

Arthur Lessac - Requiescat in pace

Just received the following from Planaria Rice, "Arthur Lessac has just passed away. He was 101 and had just returned from Rijeka, Croatia.  The University of Rijeka is setting up a new dramatic arts, music department, etc, and wanted Arthur to train their professors in his methods. He developed heart failure shortly after returning--but what a triumphant way to go!!!!!  Here is a tribute to him from Rijeka." Lessac was both visionary and master teacher, a rare combination. He will be greatly missed, but the "body" of his work goes on! As he put it so succinctly,"Train the Body first!"

Essential, Haptically-Integrated English Pronunciation (EHIEP) 'ape' Teaching Workshop

Here is a short description of the new training workshop that we are about to roll out this summer. 
(Cost per participant will depend on how many participants.)

• This one-day workshop presents a basic method and set of techniques for teaching English pronunciation to ESL students. Features of the workshop include: It is designed for instructors with little or no previous training in pronunciation teaching, (and is especially appropriate for nonnative English speaking instructors.)
• The techniques introduced are designed for use with beginning and intermediate-level students, but can be easily adapted for use with learners of all levels.
• Participants are trained in using the Oxford American English dictionary (and are provided with a free copy as well!) for teaching pronunciation and vocabulary development.
• Participants are given extensive practice in conducting the techniques and procedures to take back and use in their classrooms.
• At the conclusion of the workshop, participants are provided with a DVD containing all the techniques from the workshop which they can use in their classrooms. (Students and Instructor together are taught by “aping” the video, following along and practicing basic procedures.) All initial instruction can be done by using the video. After that, instructors use the techniques in teaching throughout the curriculum.
• The “integrated” techniques are designed to be used in all ESL classes, speaking, listening, reading or writing.
•  In preparation, participants are sent preparatory workshop materials and instructions, along with required reading to be completed before arriving at the workshop.
• The most innovative feature of the method presented is the extensive use of haptic-based (movement and touch) teaching techniques. The method has been shown to be highly effective in assisting students in integrating new pronunciation into their spontaneous speaking.
• Participants may sign up (for a small fee) for follow up webcam consultations or webcam-based lessons for their class, led by a qualified EHIEP instructor. 

Pronunciation word lists ride again!

Although a bit "retro" at face value, the previous post on the impact of patterning on sign language memory access (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110322105438.htm), suggests that having learners practice (haptic-anchored) word lists such as those linked above, even of semantically unrelated words, may have some real value, especially in dealing with fossilized pronunciation where the "felt sense" of a word must be replaced. Imagine! Decontextualized, dis-integrated pronunciation work! We will figure out a way to test that hypothesis--soon!

Why a little stress in pronunciation work is maybe a good thing!

Turns out that perhaps being in a good mood is bad for working memory! None would  accuse your average pronunciation lesson of being overly "warm fuzzy" or laid back. What this research seems to suggest is that being juiced affectively may be good for spiking creativity but you'll be less likely to remember what was to be learned later. This relates to an earlier post on what is potentially "wrong" with some drama-based pronunciation teaching: uncontrolled fun and excitement. HIIP (Haptic-integrated, Integrated Pronunciation), our new acronym, aims at management of all modalities, simultaneously--done in a spirit of  productive good fun and whole-body engagement.

Associating movement with sounds and words

The research reported above examines the link between recall of words and signs in American Sign Language subjects. What was discovered was that recall for words that have signs made with similar strokes across the visual field was better than for words that had significantly different sign/stroke patterns. (In other words, the sign serves as a strong associative hub-like function.) What that implies for HIPoeces work is that learners should, for example, be able to better recall the stressed vowel in a word, since the sign-like stroke used in HIPoeces for that vowel is used in all other words the learner has practiced with the same vowel sound. The principle should apply also for rhythm patterns and intonation contours/processes. Numerous studies of the impact of haptic or kinesthetic-related memory validate that general concept:

HIIP (Haptic-integrated Integrated Pronunciation)

One of the clearest themes emerging from the SPLIS (Speech-pronunciation-listening Interest Section) presentations at the 2011 TESOL conference has been the need for integration of pronunciation into skills (speaking, listening, reading and writing) classes, and content classes. Next year's academic session may, in fact, focus on just that. The "problem" is that simply doing pronunciation exercises in a skills class, regardless of how communicative or clever, often does not work--unless there is a strong connection to the language content being learned--not just practice of the process or sounds themselves.In other words, sticking in pieces of a pronunciation text in "regular" classes is not the answer. Research has been telling us for some time that we need much more anchoring and integrated practice if the instructional "stuff" is going to stick.(Why that is the case will be the subject of a later post.)  Haptic-integrated protocols are, in essence, teaching techniques that are used throughout the curriculum, exploiting any text or conversation where oral or listening comprehension is involved. The impact of haptic work, referenced in many of the earlier posts, is to powerfully anchor new learning and provide learners with techniques to use outside of the classroom as well.

Felt Sense of a HIPoeces Workshop

Saturday, March 12th, I did a 6 hour workshop with Region 4 in Houston. Participants were a mix of relatively inexperienced instructors and administrators. Focus was on training that would be relevant for instructors w/zero background in pronunciation teaching. What I learned: (a) In working HIP with (larger) groups, distance from the instructor to the students at the back of the room is critical. Maximum distance is probably 40 feet. (b) Instructor modeling must be absolutely unambiguous, that is upper body movement has to be very easy to follow, especially at 40 feet, (c) participants can be brought to a point where they get the "felt sense" of all (8) protocols/techniques--but most will need a video-model to work with in class to take all of the system to their students effectively (What a concept!), and (d) six hours straight of aerobic-like presentation and practice is a workout . . . even for the physically and conceptually "fit!"

Touch-activated Ganglion (TAGs)

In every HIPoeces protocol, four modalities should be engaged simultaneously: sound, touch, sight and movement--focusing attention on a sound, word, phrase or prominent discourse element. The action, the nexus of those modalities, we have termed a TAG (touch-activated ganglion), emphasizing the role of touch in the process. Research on the coordination of modalities reported above suggests that the effect of such concentration of attention can be very substantial, as long as the timing and modality parings are optimal. What that means in practical terms is that it is very important that learners are trained to experience all modalities as vividly or intensely as possible (the felt sense of a sound, sound process or bit of text.) That principle has been exploited systematically in all great voice/mind/body systems. My favorite, of course, is that of Arthur Lessac.

Visual-Haptic Interfaces, Modification of Motor and Cognitive Performance

The virtual-reality technology to potentially "embody" HIPoeces models and protocols has been developed in several areas, including surgical training and rehabilitation therapies. In the review linked above, the mechanism for directing the hands and arms around the visual field, through what are termed "corridors," through haptic-based guiding feedback is described. What is of particular interest are the reports of experimental studies demonstrating the potential for enhancement of both motor and cognitive abilities using visual-haptic interfaces. As I have noted elsewhere, this is the future of pronunciation teaching.

HIP Intonation Protocol Focusing Framework (based on Gendlin (1996)

The HIPoeces/EEPOS protocol for teaching intonation contours conforms to Gendlin’s focusing 6-stage  framework (see previous blog post):

(a) Clearing the space, i.e., beginning by moving hands through the entire visual field,

(b) Identifying the felt sense, i.e., targeting the somatic sensation of the intonation contour, along with its linguistic or grammatical form

(c) Attending to the "handle" or word that best fits the felt sense, i.e., visualizing the graphic form (spelling) and meaning of the word or phrase,

(d) Experiencing the body resonance (vibration, etc.), i.e., attending primarily to the overall body experience,

 (e) Asking, reflectively how the felt sense and language selected "fit", i.e., making sure that all modalities are engaged, and

(f) What Gendlin refers to as "receiving," i.e., integrated learning—being uncritically/unconsciously open to the convergence of the body sensation with the cognitive, reflective understanding of the holistic experience (so that the target phrase or form will be more consistently "up-taken!")

Haptic Focus

How can we describe effective focusing on a sound or text with haptic anchoring? Gendlin's (1996) "Six steps of focusing" provides a good model. Whether we are talking about "focus on form" in contemporary language teaching, dealing with the felt sense of a psychological problem--or in our case, attempting to efficiently "get" a new or corrected sound complex in pronunciation instruction, the same process applies: (a) Clearing the space, (b) identifying the felt sense, (c) attending to the "handle" or word that best fits the felt sense, (d) experiencing the body resonance (vibration, etc.) attendant to the word and feeling, (e) asking, reflectively how the felt sense and language selected "fit", and (f) what Gendlin refers to as "receiving," that is being open to the convergence of the body sensation with the cognitive, reflective understanding of the whole experience. In the next post, we will come back to those six steps and (sort of) phenomenologically unpack that set of procedures with an example from a basic HIPoeces protocol.