How to create great, moving, memorable (movie) lines

In this study by Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil et al of Cornell University, summarized by ScienceDaily, the secret of coming up with great movie lines was discovered. They should have " . . . familiar sentence structure but incorporating distinctive words or phrases, and  . . . make general statements that could apply elsewhere." and contain " . . . more sounds made in the front of the mouth (italics, mine), words with more syllables and fewer coordinating conjunctions." If you were attempting to characterize the ideal type of conversational language or phrases in which to anchor pronunciation change, that would not be a bad framework to use either. Note the finding relating to the vowel quality evident in those "memorable" lines: in the front of the mouth. Several earlier posts have cited research in the phonaesthetics of vowel quality, confirming the more vivid and engaging nature of front vowels--the vowels positioned in the similarly more vivid and engaging area of the right visual field (as established in other studies) in the EHIEP system. (Conversely, those same vowels are traditionally located in the left visual field in the standard IPA vowel chart or ESL/EFL pronunciation teaching models or frameworks.) Add to those features of the optimally memorable conversational expression a haptic-integrated anchor (a pedagogical movement pattern terminating in touch--usually of both hands or one hand to the upper torso) and you, indeed, have a potentially memorable line. In fact, it is just the ticket!

An "object lesson" in the use of gesture in pronunciation teaching

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

Forgive the lame double entendre in the title of the blogpost--there is, nonetheless, a potentially useful finding (or insight) in this recent research on the interrelation between gesture and speech. (The equally lame title of the Science Dailey summary, "Gestures fulfill a big role in language," also does not do justice to the importance what is being investigated!) Although there have been numerous other studies that have explored the role of gesture in communication and the brain, this one highlights a slightly different perspective--which I like: the brain tends to expect speech to accompany gesture except when the hand is holding or manipulating an object. In pronunciation work the use of gadgets, machines and other "tools" is common place. For years I was an enthusiastic applier of many of them: rubber bands, balls, batons, pencils, boxing gloves, kazoos, sticks (some of which I still use occasionally), red gloves that look like tongues, plastic sink traps that go from mouth to ear, bananas, cuisenaire rods, marbles, plastic earthworms, juice harps, slide whistles, bongo drums, xylophones, desk tops, etc. As noted in earlier blogposts, even clapping hands in doing rhythm work may not be all that effective or efficient. (In EHIEP instruction, the use of objects is extremely limited, except in the case of initial focus on some problematic consonants.) If it is the case, that linking speech with objects may work against our natural neurological wiring, that touching an object in effect may serve to partially "ground out" auditory processing and memory, what might that imply for pronunciation teaching? Using such paraphernalia may be, at best,  little more than a gesture . . . 

Pronunciation mnemonics that stick!

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

Mnemonics have great potential in enabling memory and learning--and even pronunciation. Such strategies often involve very complex (and engaging) created visual and auditory mini-narratives to anchor vocabulary, etc. For example, in learning Japanese (Chinese) characters, I found one such method very useful. Linked here is a clever, highly visual-auditory (and Western pop culture centered!) system posted on the blog, CountryoftheBlind, for learning Chinese pronunciation and characters. Here is the concluding sentence to that very long and detailed post: "The lobby (2nd tone) of the Keio Plaza hotel (-ao) has inexplicably been converted into a rice field (田). Strange seedlings sprout and rapidly grow to a great height, developing large flowers (艹). Each flower blooms to reveal a figure of Marilyn Monroe (mi-). It's important to visualize this, like a movie, rather than just read the words. This image will stick with you, and it contains all the basic facts about 苗." What fun! Notice the penultimate metaphor. The visual-spatial-movement-textural set of predicates there (verbs), framed as a video-like narrative, might indeed help the pronunciation . . . stick!

See hear! (Moving sounds in haptic-integrated pronunciation instruction)

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

Scientists at Cal Tech have recently uncovered " . . . a type of synesthesia in which individuals hear sounds, such as tapping, beeping, or whirring, when they see things move or flash." Turns out that areas of the brain in the visual cortext responsible for movement in such cases are connected up to auditory processing a little more intimately than normal. What I liked was the "inventory of sounds" there: tapping, beeping and whirring--the very kinds of sounds that accompany haptic anchoring: beeping (vowels), tapping (the sound of hands touching in 4 different styles) and whirring (general percussive, consonant articulation or brushing motions across the upper body.) And the "flash" analogy also works to emphasize the intensity of concentration or attention involved in real, multiple-modality engagement. The basic idea of haptic-integration, of course, is to create that very kind of felt-sense "hexus" of orthography, sounds, movement, visual field anchoring, meaning and body resonance, as reported earlier. I feel compelled to even offer an appropriate, haptic neologism, something like "Haptic-seize'ya?" 

Who needs word stress patterns anyway? And which?

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

A good question! Any number of studies suggest that learners can guess at some patterns with more or less success. For example, this one or this one, both of which focus on vowel quality in English as a primary "beacon" for learners. How much explicit instruction in word stress patterning is optimal will, of course, depend on the learner population and where they are developmentally. For most instructors, a basic, working understanding of word stress patterns is essential. At the recent British Columbia Teacher of English as an Additional Language (BCTEAL) conference in Vancouver, I attended two very nice presentations that presented the basic word and phrase stress patterns "tool kit" nicely: "Unlocking the Mysteries of Syllable Stress" and "Integrating Prosodic Practice with Grammar Instruction" by Egle. (I'm sure she'll be happy to share those handouts or powerpoint with you, if interested.) Her work is generally with white collar clients in business and industry, often with serious fossilization issues. What I found most interesting was that the set of patterns that she has identified over time that are necessary for her students-- are almost identical to those that I use in basic teacher training, especially for nonnative English speaking instructors. The apparent difference in application, however, is worth noting. Egle needs to do a great deal of deductive work up front, presenting patterns and then proceeding to examples. In my work, especially in the EHIEP system, the instructor must have the patterns "in hand" to refer to them constantly, for the most part after the fact, as more and more examplars of the pattern accrue or emerge in the course of "normal" classroom instruction, especially in speaking and listening work. Other classroom contexts require different mixes of those two approaches, of course, but somebody in the room has to have a good handle on the tools, regardless. (If you are not sure what those are, you are part of the problem!) 

Bad pronunciation teaching? What do you expect?

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

Can pronunciation instruction be too much fun? Can the expectations we set up early on work against us? Can drama and poetry work to improve accuracy be counterproductive? Maybe. (Note that I said accuracy there, not fluency.) The effect shows up in this study and others in various fields which have been linked here earlier: using "extreme"emotion to anchor change is a mixed bag; what is retained and the accuracy of it can go either way. If you have been around toddlers, golden retrievers or graduate students for long, you know the problem. The point of the correction may or may not be really understood or carried away--the anchor can be attached to almost anything in the experiential and visual field at the moment. It is, if nothing else, a matter of efficiency. In the linked Science Digest study by Murray at the Alberta School of Business, consumers with high expectations were, not surprisingly, more elated and more disappointed, depending on the result. The "other"group, the "conservatives," demonstrated a much narrower range of response. What is the potential "take away" from that? Of course, Know thy students!, and . . .  if you really do have your act together and have a very systematic approach to accuracy, be a cheer leader; if not, don't. 

Pronunciation in ESL/EFL integrated skills instruction

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

As developed in many previous posts, haptic-integrated pronunciation should alway be understood in two senses. First, pronunciation teaching as a skill set should be thoroughly integrated into general instruction--almost to the point that it disappears as a distinct subject of attention. (See this very nice, 2001 summary by Oxford, for instance.) Second, pronunciation, itself, or attention to sound processes, should be multi-modality-based, most senses integrated in haptic-based procedures. Grading a set of term papers recently where the focus was on integrating pronunciation techniques into speaking-listening lessons, I was struck by the effect that previous classroom teaching experience teaching speaking (probably not listening, writing and reading as such) appeared to have on students' success in designing such integrated lesson plans. Those who had some such training and experience were successful in figuring out optimal contexts for attention to pronunciation. Those who didn't . . . weren't. One student even noted in a footnote that pronunciation should be the last skill that teachers are trained in, for that very reason. Not sure I agree with that entirely, but she has a very good point: you must have something to integrate something into! Integrate that idea into your teacher training program curriculum. I'm going to!

GIving students a hand to get the point?

That's right! Embodied AND disembodied. Here is the evidence!

Bilingual teenage brain stems listening comprehension!

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

Here is a Science Digest summary of a fascinating study on the advantages of being bilingual just published. (This is one of those pieces that I could go off a dozen directions on and really have fun with--but I'll try to "stick to the facts," regardless!)  In essence, it was discovered that the brain stems of bilingual subjects were significantly better at sound/pitch discrimination than monolinguals in one context: when the sound was strongly masked with static or white noise. The researcher notes some pretty amazing implications of that: "The bilingual's enhanced experience with sound results in an auditory system that is highly efficient, flexible and focused in its automatic sound processing, especially in challenging or novel listening conditions," and " .  . . evidence for system-wide neural plasticity in auditory experts that facilitates a tight coupling of sensory and cognitive functions." [italics, mine] Wow. The study does not explicitly establish that "tight coupling," although in terms of general understanding of the function of the "reptilian" brain stem (in addition to managing emotional response), that case can be made rather easily. But teenagers "paying attention?" Really? This may suggest one way around some of the  "critical period" problem in pronunciation or accent development: enhanced (full mind-body) attention training. Now let me think . . . how could that be done? Keep in touch.

Shall we "Pronance?" (Leading your class to better pronunciation)

Clip art: Clker

Now there (with a little cross-lingual liberty) is a term perhaps we could use: "Pronance" (French for second-person singular imperative of prononcer meaning: Strongly marked; decided, as in manners, etc.), something of a portmanteau of "dance" and "pronounce!" 

What an apt description of the leading and following involved in working with pedagogical movement patterns in HICP instruction. (Forgive the possibly excessive use of Wikipedia there . . . ) I especially like the sense of being clearly marked . . . as in (nonverbal) manners as it relates to anchoring. From pair dance theory, the three terms "compression, leverage and tension" can also be used to characterize the process of "conducting" the warm up and haptic-integrated anchoring procedures. In essence, the three refer to "moving toward, moving laterally and moving away from." Earlier posts have looked at pair dancing as a haptic practice. 

Given all the evidence from recent research that the brain makes relatively little distinction at some level between tactile and visual (and haptic cinema!), techniques where the instructor is leading from across the room--generally with synchronized body movement with students--anchoring various aspects of pronunciation, discourse structure and vocabulary becomes an engaging pronunciation dance of sorts, a pronance! A haptic anchor involves conscious control of compression, tension and leverage--upper torso movement back as one breathes in prior to speaking, a slight forward torso nod on the stressed syllable, and various lateral motions involving the hands and arms across the visual field. In that "pronance," the marked, decisive movements of the instructor are key. Do you follow?

Correct pronunciation! (Don't "baby" them!)

Photo credit: REX / The Telegraph

Sometimes it is simply fascinating when a research study on speech development "goes viral" on the internet--and comes out on various "news" sites. Here is a wonderful example. A 2011 study by MacDonald et al (Technical University of Sweden) found that " . . . toddlers' speech didn't change in response to altered feedback, suggesting that long-held assumptions regarding the role of self-perception in articulatory development need to be reconsidered." Really? Collins, in the Telegraph online, takes from that the lead line that "Parents 'should correct toddlers' pronunciation.'" Conley, on ABC online, on the other hand, cites the researcher as saying that parents should, instead, not correct toddlers' pronunciation, but be patient, provide a rich language environment, and wait until their child gets to age four or so. My first guess is that there is a parallel process or benchmark with adult learners as well, when a window on correcting of pronunciation opens--and then closes not too long after for most. The research on correction of adult L2 learner pronunciation is all over the map, from seemingly effective in the lab (at least in the short term) or under extreme repetition, to of little or no value if (simply) modelled by the instructor. My second guess, as addressed in several earlier posts as well, is that some of the problem is how we--and the researchers in the study cited--define "self-perception" of pronunciation--as primarily auditory. How you feel about that makes a great difference. Haptic-integration. If you don't understand self-perception of pronunciation (at least in speech production and change) as fundamentally body- or somatically-based, you need to correct that . . . 

Metalogues and "Hapticalogues" in pronunciation teaching

Clip art: Clker

One of my favorite meta-communicative terms, "metalogue," defined as " . . . a conversation about some problematic subject. This conversation should be such that not only do the participants discuss the problem but the structure of the conversation as a whole is also relevant to the same subject. . . "--from one of the formative books early in my career, Bateson's "Steps to an ecology of mind," may be worth incorporating in the general PEPI framework. For example, that would suggest that the vocal and conceptual models that we use in the classroom should be as consistent as possible with the models that your students are working toward. In teacher training that idea is easier to apply, i.e., that you teach like you want them to teach. (For an example of a metalogue that goes someplace else, see this one by Peter Rose.)

In focusing on pronunciation, consciously conducting classroom discourse or conversation about what needs to be done and how--in such a way that targeted sounds and processes are not only present but even foregrounded at times--is an intriguing problem in itself. For the native speaker, the speech model, itself, should make a natural, valuable contribution to the process, but what about the nonnative instructor? Haptic anchoring of sounds, vocabulary and sound processes by the instructor should provide a clear visual representation of the "correct" or approximate structure involved, even if the actual pronunciation of the instructor is not quite on target.

The EHIEP instructor, of course, has "at hand" at least six different pedagogical movement patterns that can be used to visually reinforce a targeted sound or emphasize a word or phrase. The effect is something like simultaneous signing and speaking, using symbolic, haptic-based gestures which the students should be able to read comfortably without appreciably interfering with the flow of the discourse or topic being discussed. Later, I'll link to a video of my using "hapticalogue" bits with students in talking about strategies they can use outside of class. In the meantime, try haptically anchoring some of your current targets . . . just as a gesture of good Wii.  

Mixed "modal" arts in HICP (Haptic-integrated, clinical pronunciation)

Photo credit: mma-training.com

Even if you are not a big fan of Mixed Martial Arts, you almost have to admire the focus on bringing to the ring superb, full-body conditioning and an amazing set of tools (techniques) derived from several traditions: boxing, wrestling, jiu jitsu, Muay Thai, weight lifting and others. From a "professional development" perspective, these people get it; enhanced conditioning and development of new techniques are simply part of the job. Having listened to a couple of recent interviews with top MMA fighters, I was struck by what avid learners they are--and what extraordinary body awareness and fine tuning is required. (The imaginary MMA fight scenario on the linked page could as well be describing one's deteriorating state of mind and body in a late afternoon ESL class!) The ways in which they characterize or explain the relationship between practice and conditioning outside of the ring and successful performance in it were extremely detailed and systematic. The parallel to effective HICP work or speaking and voice instruction in general is worth considering. I always recommend that instructors who use EHIEP protocols (techniques) in their classes should practice them regularly, themselves, both in class and out of class. (I, myself, do a basic set of about a dozen techniques most mornings.) Part of the reason for that is that the (Lessac-inspired) procedures are not only designed for in-class modelling and correction, but also for cultivation of what Lessac referred to as "Vocal Life," overall voice quality and body flexibility, along with an accompanying attitude of openness to learning and exploration. In the PEPI model, that means beginning your day with a cup of coffee at 6 o'clock (on the circumflex) and going counterclockwise. For example, starting with (a) EHIEP protocols, or yoga or exercise, then (b) prayer, meditation or reading the paper, then on to (c) planning your day's priorities, and then (d) setting out your concrete action plans. By the time you get back around to (d), 9 'clock, you'll be ready when the bell rings .  . . 

Loss of faith in pronunciation teaching?

Library of Congress

According to this new study by Gervais at University of British Columbia, summarized by Science Direct,  use of analytic thinking, problem solving and "subtle experimental priming" such as taking questionnaires in hard to read fonts, has been shown to "decrease" (religious) faith. The study was based on " . . . a longstanding human psychology model of two distinct, but related cognitive systems to process information: an “intuitive” system that relies on mental shortcuts to yield fast and efficient responses, and a more “analytic” system that yields more deliberate, reasoned responses." I have known, intuitively, for some time that the EHIEP method is truly a "no brainer," producing "fast and efficient responses." Experiencing it is believing. Likewise, I have felt that too much analysis, linguistics and reasoning undermines belief in the efficacy of pronunciation work. Q.E.D. Keep the faith, eh!

Modelling in pronunciation instruction

Photo credit:
 Bobpardue.com

In working with directed body movement, especially upper body gestures and haptic anchoring in pronunciation teaching as we do, the model presented to students is vitally important. The EHIEP approach is based on the principle that the initial model for learners should be provided on video, not by the instructor, him or herself, at the front of the class. (You can either use EHIEP Youtube videos, such as those linked off this blog--or those that will be available in the near future as a complete package--or you can simply make them yourself!)  Follow up, of course, can be done from the front or wherever, once the visual and haptic model is established. In other words, you don't have to be a model to model . . . but there is much we can learn from those who do. Here are the seven principles for becoming a fashion model from Marieclaire.com: (My comments are in italics following each!)
A. Do your research - To do process-experiential work takes a good understanding of how experiential learning happens and especially the typical benchmarks involved. 
B. Be prepared - Once students have some initial practice of the pedagogical movement patterns, to then exploit those in class requires that the instructor have done some serious practice outside of class in preparation. For some "kinaesthetically gifted" instructors, however, just learning the protocols along with their students is sufficient!
C. Make your portfolio "picture perfect" - As noted in earlier blogposts, having a very clear, consistent visual model to practice with for some learners is critical. For others (probably 75%), any close approximation is fine.
D. Be yourself - If using directed movement with the class does not fit your style of personal presentation in the classroom, just assign the videos has homework. (Again, either those available online or homemade ones are good enough.)
E. Smile for the camera - Once you get going with haptic-integrated work, video yourself several times doing the techniques outside of class to see what your visual model looks like to your students. It may require a little reflection and practice to present a comfortable, confident image that will convey the haptic anchoring efficiently and professionally. (Of course that is a good principle for developing your model in ALL classroom instruction!)
F. Speak up! - Coordination of voice and directed pedagogical movement patterns takes a little practice. Initially, your voice may sound a bit artificial, as you focus more on getting the movement right, rather than being reasonably authentic and expressive. But it comes quickly!
G. Read before signing on the dotted line! -  Like any teaching methodology, PEPI requires both informed understanding of the concepts involved and concrete, physical experience with it to be able to work with it successfully. "Just do-ing it!" is not enough . . . You (or at least your body) has gotta love it as well! 

How NOT to assign English sentence stress and intonation

Clip art: Clker

In more than a few respects, the non-native speaking instructor may have a distinct advantage over the native speaker. Keeping the PEPI framework in mind, here is an example from three years ago that changed my approach to teaching sentence stress, both how to determine it and how to teach it.

I had a native speaking grad student in the MA TESOL who had very little background in linguistics and grammar--more the rule now, rather than the exception. We were doing the standard type of exercise where you are handed a dialogue and asked to underline sentence stress and intonation, based on the typical set of simple rules found in student textbooks, such as this one. What was amazing, was that he would generally underline 2 or 3 times the number of words in a sentence and then indicate that ALL of them had a RISE-FALL intonation "move" as well.

The nonnative speaker sitting next to him, on the other hand, was able to consistently get it "right," at least in agreement with me. His frustration was understandable. Regardless of how much he practiced, his performance not only did not improve, it seemed to get worse. Finally, just before the next quiz, I asked him the right question: How do you go about figuring out where to put stress? His answer: I just say it to myself and underline the words that have more energy on them. Wow.

A few days later, he aced the quiz and became one of the very best at assigning stress and intonation. His solution: Suppress his "inner speech"--and stick with the simple rules and grammatical structure, along with aiming for the most direct, unmarked (lacking contrastive stress) interpretation in that conversational context. Once those focal or prominent locations are identified, THEN haptically-integrate and anchor them affectively or emotionally.

In other words, begin with structure, go to context, anchor stress and intonation--and then pile on attitude! In the PEPI model: UP to LEFT to DOWN to RIGHT. I realize that may sound a bit counter to current "top-down" discourse models for initial prosodic assignment--my own, included! The EHIEP model, however, is designed for the nonnative speaking instructor first--not the linguistically sophisticated (or informed) native speaker.

For those highly auditory native speakers without linguistic training or the emotionally "off-the-charts," it also works like a charm. For nonnative speakers, most of whom do grammar in the extreme already, it clicks immediately, often giving them at least an initial advantage and forcing them to move on to context and mood. Counter-intuitive (and counter clock-wise)? Perhaps. But "PEPI-gogically," on target!

PEPI: Process-Experiential Pronunciation Instruction - I

This is the next of several posts unpacking the PEPI model introduced in a recent post. We'll generally focus on the 8 outside boxes and the related quadrants of the clock/circumplex:

Clipart: Clker

          Symbolic meaning (External-oriented)
11  (o'clock) Verbal expression
1    (o'clock) Concepts and Identities
         Motivational/Behavioral (Change-oriented)
2    (o'clock)Wishes and needs
4    (o'clock) Action tendencies
         Bodily/Expressive (Internal-oriented)
5    (o'clock) Nonverbal expression
7    (o'clock) Bodily sensations
         Perceptual/Situational (Stability-oriented)
8    (o'clock) Episodic memories   
10  (o'clock) Primary appraisal

The function of a haptic anchor or haptic-integration is to experientially link those four dimensions in various combinations in instruction, depending on immediate focus of the learning task. For example, attention to change of a particular segmental problem is at least initially an "up and down" process. Vocabulary anchoring might emphasize the upper left quadrant. Anchoring meaning may be more of an upper right quadrant activity, etc. The linkage between the quadrants and categories is the "sticky" haptic center. 

A natural at learning pronunciation? Don't mention it.

Clip art: Clker

Interesting new study summarized by Science Daily on the downside of positive stereotypes. Quick. Make a list of all the "pronunciation stereotypes" you can think of. I sat in on an opening session of a intensive  English pronunciation course of a friend a couple of years ago. As I remember there were about a dozen "findings of research" tossed out in an apparent effort to give the students an informed "understanding" of L2 pronunciation acquisition and the range of variability in the process--including an entire litany of possible excuses to be used later in case one is not all that good at it. I remember a comment from a student seated nearby to the effect that "he didn't have a chance!" The research (admittedly done of middle schooler) seems to illustrate well the potential counter-productive washback of any stereotype, positive or negative when setting up expectations in an experiential learning process. (See 3 o'clock on the Process-experiential Pronunciation model in the previous blog post.) So, take that list and file it--just don't dwell on it when "metacognating" with or attempting to motivate students. And don't bother either with telling them success stories and tales of research studies which prove that instructors trained in the EHIEP system are by far the best--and consequently, they should simply trust you and do exactly what you say either. . . It's always better when they figure that out for themselves. 

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!

Expressiveness in pronunciation instruction: an anchor by any other name would feel so sweet?

clipart: Clker

With apologies to Shakespeare, will quickly consider the topic of a recent discussion as to the efficacy (or necessity) of haptic anchors and haptic-integrated methodology in pronunciation instruction. The question was: Doesn't expressiveness, like in dramatic reading, not accomplish much the same thing? The linked 2003 dissertation explored the impact of expressiveness on literacy development and seems to confirm that--at least for middle school native speakers of English--that seems to be the case. Expressive reading and the attendant interpretative process leading up to the "performance" did appear to carry with it a number of positive linkages to identity and reading competence, including vocabulary and confidence, etc. If that is the  case, then why not use drama as the focus of pronunciation instruction. That is certainly a possibility, one that has been explored extensively by many, such as Gary Carkin. The problem, of course, is that the nonnative probably does not come to the process with the culturally situated emotional and expressive experiences to access and link to the text at hand. In addition, the language limitations, themselves, constrain what can be talked and emoted about within the learner's current stage of interlanguage development. In other words, linking a known word to dramatic expressiveness is one thing; learning (that is anchoring) a new term in the context of a drama and delivering it with appropriate expressiveness, is another. Some learners are amazingly adept at that: most probably aren't, given the relatively short amount of time that the average instructor can devote to an expressive project such as a mini-drama or dramatic readings. Haptic integration attempts to link some level of somatic awareness of body resonance in appropriate articulation with the word. In the process some degree of expressiveness, given the usage context may come along as well--but that should be moderated somewhat to focus on the core meaning and pronunciation of the word, not too much of the specific expressive value in that conversation or narrative. (That that context for the word and its meaning is then linked is, of course, a very good thing in itself.) So, should pronunciation work be expressive? Yes! Especially since in EHIEP methodology you should have plenty of "time on your hands!"