Comprehending Speech

[FrannyCakes]

Hola,

How do you develop the skills needed to comprehend speech?

Gracias.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by FrannyCakes

Hola,

How do you develop the skills needed to comprehend speech?

Gracias.

1) If you are less than 6 months old, don't worry about it.
2) If older, it involves a lot of hard work learning vocabulary and as much grammar as you can.

[irmamar]

Listening, listening and listening.

[tacuba]

Originally Posted by Perikles

1) If you are less than 6 months old, don't worry about it.
2) If older, it involves a lot of hard work learning vocabulary and as much grammar as you can.

I respectfully disagree. Where I live in Mexico I know a handful of English speakers that I would consider fluent in Spanish. None of them could tell you what the "imperfect subjunctive" of the verb "hablar" is, but they all use it daily without any thought. The thread these people have in common is they all have had massive amounts of exposure to the Spanish language, and I mean "un chingo de" exposure. I recently met a woman here who had just completed her masters degree in Spanish at a university in Michigan, and she knew the grammar of the language inside-out, but she had one problem....she couldn't communicate in Spanish. Her pronunciation was awful, she had to search for words in the most basic of phrases, and you could see the struggle going on in her head as she tried to understand and respond to simple questions. She could however, easily translate long, complicated tracts of text, but only because with text she had the time to comfortably translate and use the grammar she had mastered. She told me all of her courses were textbook based, and almost all of her time was devoted to reading and writing.

I'm not saying studying grammar is useless, and I think it has its place, but I think it is way over-used by teachers and students alike. I also think learning single words with no context is mostly a waste of time. It's kind of funny, but when I talk to people who are just beginning to take classes here, the most universal complaint is about "all the damn verb tenses." They get their first look at some conjugation tables, and they want to give up then and there. Some do. I was the same way, but then after awhile I realized that the most difficult thing is to be able to express yourself in much the same way as a native speaker does, and the way to master this (I still haven't) is to listen to lots and lots of native speakers, and read lots and lots of native materials.

One way I can always tell that an English speaker is studying Spanish but hasn't been exposed to much native materials is the question they invariably ask me: "¿Puedes hablar español?" when they want to say: "¿Sabes hablar español?" This is almost a universal mistake English speakers make when they are trying to shoehorn one language into the other.

[bobjenkins]

Es posible aprender un idioma sin saber nada de las reglas como los tiempos verbales, ect, pero yo creo que se puede aprender con mucho más rapidez si entiende todas las reglas

Fue tal un misterio los tiempos verbales simples cuando empecé, pero después de estudiarlos un poco es fácil

Tengo ese problema con ruso, los casos son muy difíciles y sin un nativo y muchos meses yo creo que nunca podría aprenderlos. Por lo menos así es lo que me siento

[chileno]

Originally Posted by tacuba

She told me all of her courses were textbook based, and almost all of her time was devoted to reading and writing.

Exactly and always under the text book concept, which is grammar.

Originally Posted by tacuba

I'm not saying studying grammar is useless, and I think it has its place, but I think it is way over-used by teachers and students alike. I also think learning single words with no context is mostly a waste of time. It's kind of funny, but when I talk to people who are just beginning to take classes here, the most universal complaint is about "all the damn verb tenses." They get their first look at some conjugation tables, and they want to give up then and there. Some do. I was the same way, but then after awhile I realized that the most difficult thing is to be able to express yourself in much the same way as a native speaker does, and the way to master this (I still haven't) is to listen to lots and lots of native speakers, and read lots and lots of native materials.

I couldn't agree with you more.

After you feel more comfortable and more or less understanding what you are reading and hearing, then you can take on grammar if that is your goal.

Many will take on grammar without even knowing grammar in their own language. That is almost an impossible task. Then, like you say, they quit.

It is important to read and write because in that way your mind get accustomed to the language and its "style".

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by tacuba

I respectfully disagree. Where I live in Mexico I know a handful of English speakers that I would consider fluent in Spanish.... .

Yes, I quite take your point, and my comment was a clear over-generalization. I still claim that even if an adult has the opportunity to be immersed in a foreign language, the chances of his/her being fluent and grammatically correct are greatly enhanced with formal grammar. It works for some and not others. And this is assuming the immersion, and most language learners do not get this opportunity. If you have to resort to just night-school and books, you (probably) need the grammar as well.

Originally Posted by chileno

I couldn't agree with you more.

That doesn't surprise me.

[chileno]

Originally Posted by Perikles

Yes, I quite take your point, and my comment was a clear over-generalization. I still claim that even if an adult has the opportunity to be immersed in a foreign language, the chances of his/her being fluent and grammatically correct are greatly enhanced with formal grammar. It works for some and not others. And this is assuming the immersion, and most language learners do not get this opportunity. If you have to resort to just night-school and books, you (probably) need the grammar as well.

Nobody is saying to the contrary, not even I. All I appeal is to a faster way to acquire the language and then start with grammar.

Else, the person who does not know grammar in their own language, could not or should not according to your recommendation, start another language.

Originally Posted by Perikles

That doesn't surprise me.

Me neither. :-)

[CarmenCarmona]

Originally Posted by Perikles

1) If you are less than 6 months old, don't worry about it.
2) If older, it involves a lot of hard work learning vocabulary and as much grammar as you can.

Originally Posted by tacuba

I respectfully disagree.

On the one hand, according to research findings in the area of age-related differences and following the headings under which they were grouped by Manchón, the level of final attainment in L2 learning in naturalistic settings seems to be affected by the age of starting (which determines the levels of accuracy achieved, particularly in pronunciation).

A biological/neurological explanation was provided for this finding by Penfield and Roberts, which corresponds to ‘The Critical Period Hypothesis’. It posits that some abilities needed for the acquisition of pronunciation are available only from early childhood up to the onset of puberty, given that those brain functions change as a result of the ageing process.

However, this biological hypothesis is not a ‘satisfactory explanation’ providing that language acquisition is not all about pronunciation and also that there can be found cases where very early L2 starters do not perform as native speakers or even late starters who have a native-like accent.

On the other hand, the level of final attainment in L2 learning in naturalistic settings also seems to be affected by the number of years’ exposure (which contributes to the overall proficiency of learners).

This has been attributed to motivational and affective explanations for adults and infants, respectively. Furthermore, this finding also seems to go hand in hand with the environmental context to account for children’s superiority in SLA. The previous mentioned exceptional late starters have also been reported to have a great efficiency at obtaining appropriately tuned input (especially in educational settings), apart from their motivation.

Finally, the rate of development is affected by the starting age, ‘undisputedly’ as the quotation posits, in both naturalistic and classroom settings. As regards grammatical development and vocabulary acquisition, older learners progress more rapidly in the beginning while younger ones’ rate of development is better in the long term.

Both findings might be explained by a ‘Cognitively-based Critical Period Hypothesis’, which claims that language acquisition is both a linguistic and a cognitive task. Therefore, Krashen and Rosanski state that puberty is the cognitive stage of formal operations, which entails a metalinguistic awareness in input processing that blocks the natural process of SLA.

Nevertheless, there are other opinions against these claims, given that adults’ greater cognitive maturity and memory explain why some aspects of L2 learning are easier for them. That is the reason why they appear to be superior in both rate of development and final attainment in foreign language contexts. Also, older learners’ and younger learners’ rate of development may be explained by an environmental and by an affective/motivational perspective, respectively.

In conclusion, it is impossible to account for the research findings from the perspective of only one theoretical explanation, which stems from the difficulty in comparing different studies concerning the large number of differences in the subject population, method and statistical treatment.

You guys understand? haha

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by CarmenCarmona

Therefore, Krashen and Rosanski state that puberty is the cognitive stage of formal operations, which entails a metalinguistic awareness in input processing that blocks the natural process of SLA.

Any idiot could have told them that.