AMPS Theory
AMPS is a
multiple-modality system (generally requiring simultaneous speaking, listening,
visualization, gesture-like movement and touch ) for effective pronunciation
and phonetics instruction in any L2.
When working initially on the pronunciation of a word, phrase or longer
piece of text, the learner will consciously and intentionally
-Feel and
direct the sensation of
producing the word throughout their upper bodies, especially in the diaphragm,
facial and skeletal structure;
-Visualize, in precise ways,
a representation of the orthography of the word or “text-bit”;
-Hear their oral
production of the word, critically, to the extent possible;
-Move both hands to a
target or position in the visual field in front of them where they (their
hands) and touch as a stressed syllable is pronounced;
(For some
learners, especially those involved in accent enhancement, that movement may
also be accompanied by eye tracking, controlled breathing or foot tapping.)
The AMPS-EP model focuses on
features of spoken English that can be most efficiently addressed to enhance
comprehensibility and intelligibility.
The general phonological parameters of AMPS-EP are consistent with
the "English as an international language or lingua franca (EIL/ELF)"
model proposed by Jenkins (2000, 2005) and others.
AMPS-EP is a
synthesis of conceptual systems developed in several related fields, including:
-Articulatory
and acoustic phonetics
-Second
language acquisition studies in brain neurophysiology (Schumann, 2006)
-Gestural
studies (Bolinger, 1983; Macafferty, 2007)
-Language and
pronunciation teaching (e.g., Stevick, 1995; Morley, 1992; Acton, 2001)
-Voice and stage
movement (Lessac, 1967, 1984)
-Counseling
psychology (Cook and Bradshaw, 1999; Acton & Cope, 1999)
-American Sign
Language (ASL)
-Haptics research (MIT, 2007)
-Various professional
disciplines that employ body movement-based procedures and mind-body
integration learning systems (e.g., Alexander Technique, 2008; Brain Gym, 2008)
-Contemporary
neuro-physiological research and related therapies (Wilson, Becker &
Tinker, 1995; Cook & Bradshaw, 1999, 2008)
One important
source of the
theoretical/neuro-physiological underpinnings for this multiple-modality
perspective comes from research and practice in "integrative” psychotherapies
created during the last two decades to treat various conditions. In particular, such approaches often
involve extensive “body” engagement (such as movement therapy, massage therapy, aroma therapy, body
alignment and eye tracking). The
desired effect is better
re-integration and reconciliation of sensory data from a past event or
relationship. Best case, with that
bodily and corresponding neurological integration also comes enhanced ability
to integrate oneself into healthy relationships and communication as well
(e.g., Cook & Bradshaw , 2000).
One key principle of AMPS-EP,
as well, the necessity of keeping relevant centers of the brain (in opposing
hemispheres or other opposing sides of the brain) actively engaged (e.g., Brain
Gym, 2008), also takes inspiration (and several procedures) from the recent work of Cook and
Bradshaw based in OEIT (one-eye integration theory) (Cook & Bradshaw, 1999,
2000, 2008), and its precursor,
EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing) (Wilson, Becker
& Tinker, 1995; EMDR, 2008). By employing various, well-established
eye-tracking techniques associated with visual-spatial images and body movement
routines, OEI therapists are able to assist clients in enhancing their memory
access and response to past stressful events or relationships.
Part of the
explanation for that is that the multiple-modality-based process “demands”
continuous attention and engagement of all brain centers responsible for
processing the experience or continuing emotional reactivity. Once the capacity
of the “whole” brain is brought to the task and the debilitating psychological
and corresponding neurophysiological brain partitions are moderated, healing
and enhanced new learning are greatly increased.
In some ways,
that is quite analogous to how we understand second language output fluency as
well (Swain, 1996; Riggenbach, 2000).
Second language theorists have been calling for integrated theory
and practice from many
perspectives (Murphy,1991; Larsen-Freeman, 2000) and whole brain pedagogy of
various kinds (Stevick 1984; Schuman et al 2006). Integration of language
skills and authentic L2 “material” and experiences, along with optimal brain
functioning, are seen as central to fluent L2 production and comprehension. Aside
from better integration of cognitive and affective domains and systematically
engaging the body in learning, the gesture-like basic moves of AMPS-EP, likewise demand
of the learner more undivided attention to the task, and of the learner's
brain--simultaneous engagement of centers (or modalities) germane to the
learning “at hand.”
Summary
In AMPS-EP, learners
acquire, process and produce integrated aspects of English through the sound
system. Using a set of positions in the visually constructed matrix in front of
them, they modify and control their speech production, comprehensibility,
fluency and intelligibility in practice. They do this by moving their hands and
arms through the matrix
as
they “anchor” and access the sounds, vocabulary and positions in memory,
simultaneously maintaining an optimal “mind set” or “brain attentiveness”. They
employ a set of “moves” not unlike
those that we observe being used unsystematically in enthusiastic pronunciation
lessons (Acton, 1996).
In the late
1970s, as a graduate student at the University of Michigan, I attended
memorable lectures and demonstrations given by Professor Ian Catford,
internationally recognized authority in Phonetics. In characterizing some
aspect of a vowel system, for example, he would often gracefully move his hand
around in front of his face (and ours), as if gliding through an invisible IPA
vowel chart. As his hand position shifted, the sound he was producing changed
correspondingly, reflecting its relative position in relation to the rest of the
field of potential vowels in language.
Since the earliest phonetic descriptions, such as that of Henry Sweet
(circa 1874), a visual, often kinesthetic depiction of the relative placement
of sounds has been basic to
phonetics and pronunciation teaching.
Not all that
dissimilar (at least in spirit and form) from Catford’s, AMPS-EP provides the
learner with a powerful, conceptual, visual-auditory-kinesthetic-tactile
interface.
***
A
common-sense description of why AMPS-EP works
A. It provides a principled way to decide on
how to integrate body movement into current pedagogical models. It
"embodies" systematically a number of techniques commonly used by
pronunciation instructors, some consciously, some less so.
B. It focuses on generalized intelligibility
and fluency, along with specific
skill-based activities, emphasizing from the beginning the critical importance
of kinesthetic sense of fluent body movement and speech.
C. It is multiple-modality-based, requiring constant engagement of
visual, auditory, kinesthetic, tactile and (occasionally) even olfactory
senses! It encourages greater
integration of brain centers which deal with speech, especially cognitive,
affective and kinesthetic dimensions of speech production, while adding a more
“haptic” emphasis (movement and touch).
It provides a richer understanding of brain center specialization, in
that all processes are seen as more generalized, but still often with greater
concentration of processing or assembly in one area.
D. It begins with a discourse
phonology/prosody (focus), using the information centering function of vowels
as the conceptual center of the presentation and practice system.
E. It establishes a strong conceptual and
sensory space matrix in which (1) sounds and processes can be learned and
adjusted, and (2) production can be regulated.
F. It is structured so that almost anyone,
regardless of cognitive style preference
or multiple intelligence disposition, can learn it relatively quickly.
G. It involves a set of basic exercises (warm
up, vowels, word stress, rhythm and intonation) which are practiced regularly
(typically three to four times per week).
H. It reconciles the inevitable integration/partitioning tension in most
speech output training by requiring both in all lessons.
I. It uses pedagogical anxiety for
constructive purposes!