![]() |
| Clip art: Clker |
![]() |
| Clip art: Clker |
![]() |
| Clip art: Clker |
![]() |
| Clip art: Clker |
![]() |
| Clip art: Clker |
![]() |
| Clip art: Clker |
![]() |
| Clip art: Clker |
![]() |
| Clip art: Clker |
![]() |
| Clip art: Clker |

In this 2009 study in the Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour, Bull and Connelly make a striking observation about the relationship between emphasis and tonic (word or phrasal) stress in English as expressed paralinguistically by native speakers. In essence, some kind of synchronized body movement was (visually) evident on most tonic syllables in the study. Emphasis, on the other hand, tended to be evident in more exaggerated head and arm movement, mapped onto tonic syllables. What it points to is the felt sense of English rhythm: moving along with and on tonic syllables, most of that grounded in subtle (or not so subtle) upper torso nods or movement generated in part by the diaphragm contracting and pushing more air "up" on stressed vowels. So, does it make sense in EHIEP work to practice haptically-integrated rhythm groups (with some kind of touch located on the tonic syllable)? It does from a couple of perspectives, in fact. First, it anchors the stressed element of the word or phrase. Second, most of the pedagogical movement patterns are designed to be synced with a slight head nod and upper torso nod--although the explicit focus is only on the arm movement and hands touching. (In some cases, the PMP is preceded by explicit "breathe in" and executed with controlled exhaling of air as well.) I cannot emphasize enough how effective that anchoring can be. Tonic syllables are definitely worth stressing (and moving) over!
Probably, according to this recent research--unless, of course, you do not have quite the right genetic profile (without the correct BDNF balance), are a little too old, are a sedentary male, or some combination of those factors.![]() |
| Clip art: Clker |
![]() |
| Photo credit: Martha Stewart Living |
![]() |
| Clip art: Clker |
![]() |
| Clip art: Clker |
![]() |
| Clip art: Clker |
![]() |
| Clip art: Clker |
![]() |
| Clip art: Clker |
![]() |
| Clip art: Clker |
![]() |
| Clip art: Clker |
![]() |
| Credit: Science/AAAS |
Talk about short attention span. Turns out that most everything we do as humans (and the same applies to animals) is processed at some level in 3 second chunks--even hugs. Research in language development and use confirms the same principle: relatively short chunks of speech or text are fundamental to understanding. What is fascinating about that study and others like it is what it may tell us about how to best present and work with language, especially pronunciation. In other words, if we want something to be "absorbed" or anchored well, there is an optimal packaging, rhythm or even visual configuration. There is in fact, as shown by studies of learning and training in various disciplines. As elaborated in several earlier blogposts, HICP is based on the idea of using "pedagogical movement patterns (PMPs)," hands moving through the visual field with one touching the other on prominent syllables. None of the PMPs are 3 seconds in duration but the time interval occupied by one such action, including the "silence" preceding and following certainly fits within that model. A sentence or phrase may be longer than 3-seconds, of course, although for conversational interaction, at moderate speaking pace, that can be pretty demanding for beginning and intermediate learners, but it will typically still consist of two or more PMPs when practiced--reflecting basic conversational rhythm. Just imagine--in some other less interpersonal touch-averse culture and time--a typical "hug-as-haptic-anchor" used in the classroom with the "peak" squeeze occurring on the prominent syllable of a utterance being articulated such as "How wonderful to have interACTed with you in class today, Joe!"![]() |
| (Credit: Nicolle Rager Fuller, NSF) |
![]() |
| Clip art: Clker |
Had a great dinner last night with a friend who is a kinesthesiologist and was reminded once again of the close affinity between what we do and what he does. The word "rehabilitation" in the blogpost title should be understood in two senses: (a) HICP as an approach to assisting learners in "getting" pronunciation more efficiently and (b) an attempt to rehabilitate (and integrate) the way certain aspects of pronunciation teaching are done, specifically taking the focus of instruction and ensuring that optimal attention is paid to it and the new material is best integrated into spontaneous speech. In other words, the focus is as much on how pronunciation is taught as what phonological processes are chosen. A typical 6 hour "lesson" with the kinesthesiologist goes something like this: (a) 20-minute group walk around the park, (b) warm up, (c) specific exercises tailored to each individual's injury recovery, (d) assigned "education" modules such as planning of exercise regimen, time management or diet, (e) specific work-context physical task simulations, and (f) closing "mindfulness" module focusing on relaxation, integration and attention management. Does that set of six functions look familiar? The balance between mind/body, cognitive/affective, conscious/unconscious, context-dependent/context-independent, and, of course, "hands on/hands off" is striking. And before any of that "course" begins, there is extensive consultation with a team of experts from four for five related disciplines to carefully plan the path of each individual's rehabilitation. What a great model! I am going to try something analogous this summer with a few "fossilized" guinea pigs. Any volunteers?
Several posts have considered how to get instructors and learners new to HICP initially oriented to this kind of instruction. I have approached the problem from many perspectives, including citing research studies in related fields, demonstrating some of the techniques on video or in person, having those who have used the system give their "testimonies," presenting theoretical workshops and papers, etc., The only sure clincher, however, is having the person experience it, especially as described in this post following the 2012 TESOL Convention. This 2009 research study on the effect of touch or holding an object on customers considering buying the item at an auction may suggest one factor involved: touch enhances psychological attachment. (The same principle applies of course to haptic anchoring of sounds and words as well!) The underlying neurophysiological basis of that effect has also been studied from many perspectives. I was asked recently why it can be difficult for some instructors to accept the idea of waving their hands around like a "choral conductor" in class. (I have several theories about that, including considerations of personal cognitive preference, which have been addressed in earlier posts as well.) For years I attempted to develop a strictly kinaesthetic system (movement only; no principled touch involved) with relatively limited success. The introduction of systematic touch in about 2006 has since greatly enhanced both effectiveness and "buy in." (Along with occasional echoing of the great Nike mantra: Just DO it!--and an interactive demonstration using a relatively low energy version of one protocol, the Rhythmic Feet Fight Club sans gloves.) The difference is simple: "hands on" experience. ![]() |
| Clip art: Clker |
![]() |
| Clip art: Clker |
![]() |
| Clip art: Clker |
![]() |
| Clip art: Clker |
![]() |
| Clip art: Clker |
![]() |
| Clip art: Clker |