kulaputra wrote: Cainntear wrote:
kulaputra wrote:Not understanding is a necessary prerequisite for understanding. You'll never understand something without first not understanding it.
I'm sorry, but I find that a totally incomprehensible statement.
Naturally I don't understand anything in a language I've never studied, but I don't need to listen to something to not understand it. I find not listening far more efficient than listening, because when I'm listening, I'm only not understanding one thing, but when I'm not listening, I'm not understanding everything.
My point is that you do not understand by not listening, you understand by listening. If you already understood, then we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. It is because you don't understand that you should listen. I suppose if you've never actually tried this, it might sound weird, but I and I'm sure others can attest that they have gone from not understanding to understanding by listening. I also believe extensive listening is essential for accent formation, again, even if you don't understand the semantic content.
In principle, I agree with this. The problem is that you started by talking about "low comprehension". I'm not a fan of Krashen, but even he points out that you're not going to learn anything new if you don't understand most of what you're hearing.
For example, I learned the construction "volver a hacer" in Spanish (meaning to do something again) while watching Águila Roja. I understood all the underlying vocabulary items and the grammar, but not the idiom. I worked out what it meant because of the context -- he was in confession in a church and said "hé vuelto a matar". This couldn't have meant "I have returned in order to kill" because you don't confess your future intentions, only your past acts, and of course he'd killed someone shortly before the scene in question.
Listen with incomplete
comprehension is one thing, but low
comprehension won't get you anywhere.