A language learners’ forum

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.

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.

Regarding your second paragrapgh: when you aren't listening, you're neither understanding nor not understanding anything, because you're not actually listening to something to be understood. Understanding cannot be applied to the absence of sound, any more then you can describe the hair color of a bald man.

kulaputra wrote:. 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.

Nope. I'm with Cainntear. Attempts at listening to nearly incomprehensible material have gotten me no where and never did become comprehensible.

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.

Ani wrote:

kulaputra wrote:. 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.

Nope. I'm with Cainntear. Attempts at listening to nearly incomprehensible material have gotten me no where and never did become comprehensible.

You're free to disagree. All I know is that I started listening to the first Lord of the Rings audio book in French with near zero comprehension and by the 14th hour of the book (the whole book is about 20 hours) I had around 60+% comprehension. I looked nothing up. It didn't cost me much effort either, as I did it while showering, brushing, cooking, or driving. In the meanwhile, the only other thing I did was run through the first 20 lessons of Pimsleur, listen to a few hours of Around the World in 80 Days and Harry Potter in the same way (starting at near zero comprehension), and watch one season of a French TV show, again, starting with zero comprehension.

Basing on my experience I can tell that learning by listening to low comprehensible material is doable but I do look up unknown words.

Ultimately it's about opportunity cost. Sure, intensive study and/or L+1 material might be more efficient, but listening with much lower comprehension can be done where intensive listening can't, e.g. while showering or driving, and thus the former bears a comparative advantage over the latter.

kulaputra wrote:

Ani wrote:

kulaputra wrote:. 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.

Nope. I'm with Cainntear. Attempts at listening to nearly incomprehensible material have gotten me no where and never did become comprehensible.

You're free to disagree. All I know is that I started listening to the first Lord of the Rings audio book in French with near zero comprehension and by the 14th hour of the book (the whole book is about 20 hours) I had around 60+% comprehension. I looked nothing up. It didn't cost me much effort either, as I did it while showering, brushing, cooking, or driving. In the meanwhile, the only other thing I did was run through the first 20 lessons of Pimsleur, listen to a few hours of Around the World in 80 Days and Harry Potter in the same way (starting at near zero comprehension), and watch one season of a French TV show, again, starting with zero comprehension.

Do you think you would have reached 60% comprehension quicker if you had started with an audiobook that you could comprehend at 40% from the beginning?

NoManches wrote:

kulaputra wrote:

Ani wrote:

kulaputra wrote:. 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.

Nope. I'm with Cainntear. Attempts at listening to nearly incomprehensible material have gotten me no where and never did become comprehensible.

You're free to disagree. All I know is that I started listening to the first Lord of the Rings audio book in French with near zero comprehension and by the 14th hour of the book (the whole book is about 20 hours) I had around 60+% comprehension. I looked nothing up. It didn't cost me much effort either, as I did it while showering, brushing, cooking, or driving. In the meanwhile, the only other thing I did was run through the first 20 lessons of Pimsleur, listen to a few hours of Around the World in 80 Days and Harry Potter in the same way (starting at near zero comprehension), and watch one season of a French TV show, again, starting with zero comprehension.

Do you think you would have reached 60% comprehension quicker if you had started with an audiobook that you could comprehend at 40% from the beginning?

Of course. But I didn't have that luxury. What I did have (actually, still have) was around 15 hours of "dead" time every week when I might as well listen to French. Also I didn't find any of it boring, on the contrary, I purposely picked listening material I have enjoyed in my native language (or in the case of the TV show, it was a police procedural/detective style show I watched on a transcontinental flight, and while I'd never seen the show, I enjoy the genre). All this to say that it's not worth feeling guilty over watching or listening to something you enjoy even with low comprehension.

kulaputra wrote:

NoManches wrote:

kulaputra wrote:

Ani wrote:

kulaputra wrote:. 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.

Nope. I'm with Cainntear. Attempts at listening to nearly incomprehensible material have gotten me no where and never did become comprehensible.

You're free to disagree. All I know is that I started listening to the first Lord of the Rings audio book in French with near zero comprehension and by the 14th hour of the book (the whole book is about 20 hours) I had around 60+% comprehension. I looked nothing up. It didn't cost me much effort either, as I did it while showering, brushing, cooking, or driving. In the meanwhile, the only other thing I did was run through the first 20 lessons of Pimsleur, listen to a few hours of Around the World in 80 Days and Harry Potter in the same way (starting at near zero comprehension), and watch one season of a French TV show, again, starting with zero comprehension.

Do you think you would have reached 60% comprehension quicker if you had started with an audiobook that you could comprehend at 40% from the beginning?

Of course. But I didn't have that luxury. What I did have (actually, still have) was around 15 hours of "dead" time every week when I might as well listen to French. Also I didn't find any of it boring, on the contrary, I purposely picked listening material I have enjoyed in my native language (or in the case of the TV show, it was a police procedural/detective style show I watched on a transcontinental flight, and while I'd never seen the show, I enjoy the genre). All this to say that it's not worth feeling guilty over watching or listening to something you enjoy even with low comprehension.

So if you had the luxury, you would pick material that is more comprehensible to work with over material that was not very comprehensible?