|
 |
Can one speak better than understand? | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5374 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes  Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 97 of 186 23 September 2012 at 11:25pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
Then we learn 'I"speak" the language, although not always grammatically correctly. I can "understand" non-native speakers basically 100%, however with native speakers I have come across problems.' This is a common problem that most of us have experienced. Now, @showtime concludes that he/she speaks Spanish better than he/she understands. His/her spoken Spanish is better than his/her understanding of Spanish. We learn that @showtime17 does not have a problem understanding non-natives and teachers. This is very important. The key observation here is that @showtime cannot really communicate with native speakers. He/she could not have a conversation or do any basic activities that require interaction with native speakers. This is where the semantics become complicated. My question is; How can you claim to speak a language fluently or well if you can't interact with native speakers? If all you can do is talk to yourself, to teachers or to non-natives, is that all there is to speaking Spanish? Could @showtime17 apply for a job that requires the ability to speak Spanish? And the really interesting point here is that @showtime17 concludes that he/she speaks Spanish better that he/she understands it. Using that logic, I totally agree that people can speak better than understand. We all speak better than we understand all the languages we list in our HTLAL profile. As I've written in a previous post, the issue is really how we define speaking. If speaking a language is really making sounds regardless of whether you are communicating with people, then there isn't much to discuss. If, on the other hand, speaking is interacting with people then understanding and speaking go hand in hand. The test of my ability to speak Spanish is to be able to go into a store, a restaurant or an office and conduct my business in Spanish. If I'm having a problem discussing something with my language buddy, I say that my speaking skills require more work. If I meet someone from Argentina who uses grammatical forms that I'm not familiar with, I know what to do and I'll consult a guide to Argentinian Spanish. Similarly, if two students from Madrid are speaking in local student slang, i know that there are things that I won't understand. But it would hardly come to my mind to say that I speak better than I can understand. Indeed, I feel that my speaking is hindered by the lack of understanding. So, I can't speak (with Spanish speakers) more than I understand. Do most people here feel that learning to speak is easier than learning to listen? It seems to me that nearly everybody says that learning to speak a language well with real people is the harder than learning to understand the spoken form, but i may be wrong. I've used @showtime17's post extensively here but I don't want in any way to make this a personal issue. I just think it illustrates so well the fundamental problem of the debate here. Edited by s_allard on 23 September 2012 at 11:29pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Serpent Octoglot Senior Member Russian Federation serpent-849.livejour Joined 6541 days ago 9753 posts - 15779 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Russian*, English, FinnishC1, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese Studies: Danish, Romanian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Slovenian, Catalan, Czech, Galician, Dutch, Swedish | Message 98 of 186 24 September 2012 at 12:30am | IP Logged | |||||||||||
As for speaking being harder than listening, this depends on the language and on your learning style. I don't know how to state it more explicitly that yes, THERE ARE people who LOVE learning grammar. They just don't come to your meetups It's difficult to compare listening and speaking objectively because way too many people acquire the passive/receptive skills while they're trying to acquire speaking skills. As you said, in Canada everyone learns French at school and almost everyone can understand it, but plenty of people can barely speak it. But I seriously doubt they are only taught to understand.
Edited by Serpent on 24 September 2012 at 12:31am 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| showtime17 Trilingual Hexaglot Senior Member Slovakia gainweightjournal.co Joined 6028 days ago 154 posts - 210 votes Speaks: Russian, English*, Czech*, Slovak*, French, Spanish Studies: Ukrainian, Polish, Dutch | Message 99 of 186 24 September 2012 at 12:52am | IP Logged | |||||||||||
|
I am a guy...
OK here you are totally misunderstanding and misinterpreting what I am saying. I lived in Spain for 3 months and was perfectly able to function in that country. I haven't read the entire thread, however you seem to have a totally different interpretation of the word "understand" and "speak". For most people on here, the word "understand" means just understanding the spoken form, while for you it seems to be about not understanding the meaning or something. To illustrate what I mean, when I state that I can speak better than I can understand in certain languages. Let's use as an illustration a simple phrase like: Hola..como te llamas? In translation that means Hello..what is your name? A person who says that they speak better than they understand, can perfectly understand what this phrase means (I am using this phrase as an example to illustrate a point and it can be substituted by any other phrase). They know it means: Hello..what is your name? They can perfectly use it when conversing with people and say it. However when they hear the phrase said by a native speaker, sometimes they might have trouble understanding what the speaker actually is saying, because they have not been exposed to the way that a native speaker pronounces the phrase. Plus added to this you might have special regional pronunciations (for example in Andalusia they don't pronouce the "s" at the end of words) or slang and you can perfectly see why some people say they can speak the language better than they understand it. As for the matter of getting a job. Let's illustrate the point on me, a person with American English as a native language. Let's pretend I wanted to get a job as a waiter in Scotland. In that type of a job, I would perfectly be able to speak the languge, English (but with a different accent), but would have trouble understanding what the people are ordering. It has happened to me the time I was in Scotland or the multiple times I was speaking with Scottish people, that I simply could not understand what they were saying, even if they repeated it several times. Yet, if they wrote the thing down, then I could understand perfectly. That is the same with some language learners. Since they are not exposed much to native ways of speaking, then while they might be able to express even complicated points in their target language, they often can fail at understanding even simple things said by a native speaker. However it is all a matter of perception and feeling and in that way very subjective. If a person thinks they can speak better than they can understand, then it is their perception of reality based on interactions/experiences they have had and there is no use in arguing against it. 4 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5374 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 100 of 186 24 September 2012 at 1:21am | IP Logged | |||||||||||
That so-called exact formulation "Is it possible to speak a language WELL and understand POORLY?"is not in my OP at all. Let me quote my last line: "I know there are issues of accents, slang and unusual vocabulary, but can one really say that one speaks a language well yet is unable to understand something of a television program in the target language?" But let's move on to the answer to the first question that was not formulated by me but will serve to analyze the answer. @Eternica's answer is: " I still think the answer is yes: one can selectively learn how to phrase all his or her essential thoughts to be very articulate, but neglect the infinite number of possibilities that a native speaker has to express his or hers." I'm not sure how to understand this, but I'll have a go at it. As a speaker in the target language, I can speak my thoughts in an articulate manner, i.e. I can speak well, but the native speakers can speak their thoughts in different but equally if not more sophisticated ways that I may not understand, i.e. I understand less. Therefore I am able to speak better than I can understand. If my understanding is correct, we are up against the same fallacy that I discussed in me preceding post: if I don't understand the others then ipso facto my speaking is better than my understanding. But if I'm so articulate in my expression, why am I not able to understand native speakers? Is it because they are more articulate than me? Are they using words, grammar structures or historical references I don't know? Or is it some unusual pronunciation? The fact that I don't understand the others doesn't mean that my speaking is better than my understanding. If the vocabulary is more sophisticated than mine, then my lack of understanding is normal. If the other grammar is better, perhaps more precise, then again I should think that my understanding will be somewhat difficult. But if the other vocabulary and grammar are not as sophisticated as mine, why should I have a problem understanding? Now, if it's the pronunciation that's causing difficulty, that's a different problem; I'll have to get used to it and I'm entitled to think that my own pronunciation is better. So, the fact that I'm having problems understanding the infinite ways native speakers express their thoughts does not mean that I'm speaking better than I understand. It simply means that I can't understand. And then there's the whole question of interaction that I've discussed previously. Let's try to imagine a debate on a complex subject where I can present a sophisticated presentation on a subject but at the same time I have difficulty understanding equally sophisticated presentations by native speakers who seem to understand each other well. How will I participate in the debate? I can't. So, while I sit there frozen out of the debate and twiddling my thumbs, I can say to myself, "At least I'm sure that I speak better than I understand." 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5374 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 101 of 186 24 September 2012 at 1:40am | IP Logged | |||||||||||
These are good examples. Notice that the reason for not understanding is a phonetic problem. Why is the person not able to understand? Not because of grammar or vocabulary, but because of an accent or a manner of speaking. Now, I totally agree with the observations here because it happens all the time. But just as the Spanish learner is saying I speak (standard) Spanish well but I can't understand that accent therefore I speak better Spanish than I understand, the American English speaker is saying I speak (American) English better than I understand Scottish English. These are certainly true statements. But that's not really the issue here. Let's take out the regional accent business, much to the chagrin of some people here, and talk about being able to say you speak Spanish well but you can't go into a shop and have an interaction in Spanish. Still you say: "I speak Spanish better than I understand." 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Eternica Triglot Newbie United States Joined 5016 days ago 24 posts - 74 votes Speaks: Cantonese, English*, French Studies: Hungarian, Spanish | Message 102 of 186 24 September 2012 at 2:01am | IP Logged | |||||||||||
|
My apologies for interpreting "unable to understand something of a
television program in the target language" as "understanding poorly." This is because not understanding a television program does imply somewhat that a person is understanding poorly. So far, it looks like a definition of what it means to "speak a language well." I see it as "being able to express one's ideas verbally with ease of flow". Note that there is no mention of whether or not one is able to utilize a wide array of grammatical structures, idiomatic expressions, varied vocabulary, and numerous other qualifications. Indeed, there does seem to be a double standard with this definition, but I strongly feel that most people are interpreting it this way. However, if you do factor in these qualities in the definition of "speak a language well", then sure, it is questionable whether one can speak better than one understands. I just want to make sure that we're on the same boat with the arguments. If so, then there are the arguments along the realm of (as you mentioned) pronunciation , grammatical structures, historical references, etc. I'll develop my arguments if this thread continues, but for the time being, I'll wait to make sure that my points are not explicitly mentioned to avoid redundancy as there are already plenty of posts about this. Edited by Eternica on 24 September 2012 at 2:02am 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Serpent Octoglot Senior Member Russian Federation serpent-849.livejour Joined 6541 days ago 9753 posts - 15779 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Russian*, English, FinnishC1, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese Studies: Danish, Romanian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Slovenian, Catalan, Czech, Galician, Dutch, Swedish | Message 103 of 186 24 September 2012 at 2:47am | IP Logged | |||||||||||
The fallacy here is that in one case it's about speaking only, and in the other one speaking and understanding. It should be more like this: I can speak well and native speakers can understand me. Natives speak better than I do and I can't always understand them. Therefore I speak better than I understand native speakers, because they speak better than I do. As for speaking the standard language vs understanding a non-standard form, well, you can also learn the standard language and then model your speech according to a limited sample of the colloquial form or a dialect. I certainly speak puhekieli (colloquial Finnish) better than I understand it, as it's much easier, for example, to drop some consonants/syllables than to reconstruct them when others drop them. If I also spoke Swedish I could create natural-sounding slang words like I can do with Russian/English, which would make my speaking still better than my understanding (although I'd also understand more of the colloquial language if I spoke Swedish :D) Edited by Serpent on 24 September 2012 at 2:49am 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
 Iversen Super Polyglot Moderator Denmark berejst.dk Joined 6647 days ago 9078 posts - 16473 votes Speaks: Danish*, French, English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedish, Esperanto, Romanian, Catalan Studies: Afrikaans, Greek, Norwegian, Russian, Serbian, Icelandic, Latin, Irish, Lowland Scots, Indonesian, Polish, Croatian Personal Language Map | Message 104 of 186 24 September 2012 at 10:57am | IP Logged | |||||||||||
|
I haven't checked whether the following situation already has been used as an argument in ths thread, but I think it is relevant.
I have just for fun made a series of videos in different languages. In some cases I knew the language well enough to speak freely (although I normally had to cut out sections where I venture too far astray or simple said pure nonsense). In others I had to prepare, and I had to make cuts based on garbled up passages, but it was still basically free speech. But the series also comprised a number of languages which I only can read (and sometimes only with the help of a dictionary), and in this case I would probably not be able to understand a spoken source unless it was extraordinarily easy and clearly pronounced. So to make these videos I wrote down things I wanted to say and thought about them for several days, and I tried to listen to internet TV and radio to get the correct 'sound' of the languages - though not always with resounding success. Basically you can say I learned a number of formulas by heart and used them to concoct a seemingly free speech. And things that went wrong were mercilessly cut out until I had a reasonably wellstructured result. Actually this is the kind of learning which I could use before visiting a foreign country, and then I would be in the situation formulated by the OP: I would be able to read and I would be able to say some sentences - but I wouldn't be prepared for answers with unknown words and expressions, and I wouldn't have trained listening to native speakers to the level where I could understand a simple news broadcast in a standard language, not to speak of dialects and badly pronounced utterances. What's more: if I didn't continue the intensive study AND extensive listening AND thinking in the language then the things I had learnt would simply whittle away, leaving only a less steep learning curve and a host of dictionaries and grammars on my shelves the next time I decided to do something about that particular language. Edited by Iversen on 24 September 2012 at 11:01am 3 persons have voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
