you might find this funny as I did

[Granrey]

Well, I'm currently trying hard to improve my oral French comprehension.Which is my top weakness at the moment with French.

For that, as recommended in another tread, I watch a Netflix show over and over again (sometimes several episodes) in different formats of audios and cc to improve my comprehension.

This time I'm listening the show in French (notice, I typically listen to the audio while exercising either treadmill or weightlifting. so, I dont see the tv images most of the time).

However, I intended to watch the show either in Spanish or English which are the languages I know but again as mentioned by mistake the show was in French.....but again in my head I'm supposedly listening either in Spanish or English.


After the episode is almost over I'm like: "OK I understood everything, let's change audio to French".

To my surprise, It was already in French, I just did not notice lol, lol.

Anyhow, I don't count this as a huge win as I know this episode very well already but still a leap step forward nevertheless.

[Le Baron]

Oral or aural?

I always make a distinction. Maybe I don't need to?

[gsbod]

I didn't used to think this was possible...but then one time I was on the TGV in France and me and my husband got a telling off from the ticket inspector for not bringing our tickets with us to the buffet car. I understood everything and was somewhat surprised to discover my husband hadn't understood a word. I thought she'd been talking to us in English, but no...

But yes, I'd call that a win!

[youarethephotograph]

it's a win! hahaha that's really funny in a simplest way life.

[Cainntear]

Only ever happened to me on the boundary between sleep and awake. I had my alarm clock set to switch the radio on when the Gaelic channel started. I'd know if I heard the Gaelic version of "Thought for the Day" ("Smaoin na Madainne", IIRC) that I should already be out the door. Before the Gaelic broadcast started, the last thing in English is... "Thought for the Day".
At least twice that led to me waking up in a panic, thinking I was late because "Smaoin na Madainne is on!!!!" Turns out I'd just accidentally advanced the clock a few minutes the night before when I went to turn the alarm on.

Speaking of which... 'member when we had clock-radios next to our beds and woke up to favourite radio stations? Hmmm, 'member...?

[Le Baron]

Speaking of which... 'member when we had clock-radios next to our beds and woke up to favourite radio stations? Hmmm, 'member...?

Yes, I did that for a while. Unfortunately so did my 'neighbour' when I was a student in halls and the walls were thin. It went on at full blast and I remember him on one occasion sleeping through the entire song of Duran Duran's Save A Prayer. Until someone else hammered on his door.

[jeffers]

Oral or aural?

I always make a distinction. Maybe I don't need to?

I think "oral comprehension" makes perfect sense in this context, since it is referring to someone who is speaking, rather than just the fact of listening. On the other hand, it would have to be "aural practice" over "oral practice" in reference to listening practice. However, I suspect most native English speakers aren't even aware of the word "aural" and just hear it as "oral".

[Cainntear]

Oral or aural?

I always make a distinction. Maybe I don't need to?

I think "oral comprehension" makes perfect sense in this context, since it is referring to someone who is speaking, rather than just the fact of listening. On the other hand, it would have to be "aural practice" over "oral practice" in reference to listening practice. However, I suspect most native English speakers aren't even aware of the word "aural" and just hear it as "oral".

Not strictly correct. It's aural comprehension, because you don't understand with your mouth. It may be aural comprehension of oral language, but oral comprehension is, on a purely pedantic level, not really possible.

Of course, I personally make a distinction (as do most teachers!) between spoken and written language, and spoken covers both oral production and aural reception, so the distinction is kind of redundant, and is kind of lost by how similar they are in most people's accent.

And that's probably why the language teaching profession has abandonned both "aural" and "oral". Well, that and the sniggers that high school kids make when you talk about oral skills and oral practice....

[jeffers]

Oral or aural?

I always make a distinction. Maybe I don't need to?

I think "oral comprehension" makes perfect sense in this context, since it is referring to someone who is speaking, rather than just the fact of listening. On the other hand, it would have to be "aural practice" over "oral practice" in reference to listening practice. However, I suspect most native English speakers aren't even aware of the word "aural" and just hear it as "oral".

Not strictly correct. It's aural comprehension, because you don't understand with your mouth. It may be aural comprehension of oral language, but oral comprehension is, on a purely pedantic level, not really possible.

Of course, I personally make a distinction (as do most teachers!) between spoken and written language, and spoken covers both oral production and aural reception, so the distinction is kind of redundant, and is kind of lost by how similar they are in most people's accent.

And that's probably why the language teaching profession has abandonned both "aural" and "oral". Well, that and the sniggers that high school kids make when you talk about oral skills and oral practice....

Although I'm sure the language teaching profession has preference for "aural comprehension" when being technical, I could argue that you're just reading the genetive the wrong way around. Just as "fire place" is where a fire is to be found, but "fire hose" is something to aim at a fire, and "fire sale" happens long after the fire is gone, you just have to make the connection that makes sense. Given that you can't listen with your mouth, "oral comprehension" could only be understanding of what someone else is speaking, just as "written comprehension" is understanding of what someone else has written.

[Cainntear]

Although I'm sure the language teaching profession has preference for "aural comprehension" when being technical, I could argue that you're just reading the genetive the wrong way around. Just as "fire place" is where a fire is to be found, but "fire hose" is something to aim at a fire, and "fire sale" happens long after the fire is gone, you just have to make the connection that makes sense. Given that you can't listen with your mouth, "oral comprehension" could only be understanding of what someone else is speaking, just as "written comprehension" is understanding of what someone else has written.

Well I think it's kind of to do with the fact that English doesn't really like to pronominalise adjectives -- like "a green one" vs "un verde".
Pronominalisation is more common in high register language, but my gut reaction is that "spoken" and "written" are more acceptable because of the fairly heavily implied word "language". So we here "written comprehension" and are inclined towards filling the gap to make "written (language) comprehension", but "oral comprehension" doesn't really have that association with language (it's more associated with tooth care). I mean it may just be me, but I really can't connect with "oral comprehension"... but then again, I can't say that I'm all that happy with "spoken comprehension", just less against it.