# Trouble Understanding Spoken Words



## NickJunior

I am a struggling listener in the English language. Despite giving my very best attention to the speakers, most of the time, I don't understand what is being said. Everything flies by so fast to my ears. I cope on a daily basis by asking my friendly neighbors to tell me what to do all the time. My brain is always working in the frustration nervous sweaty mode or something when it comes to listening. Something is definitely wrong with my listening ability. Would someone help me figure out how to understand what is being said to me? Thanks you in advance so much for your great and wonderful help.​


----------



## LaReinita

You are not alone in this boat, by any means.  This is a natural obstacle for all learners.  I am still trying to figure out how to listen to spoken spanish.  Some people seem to speak so clearly and I have no trouble understanding them, but others . . wow . .  I have no idea . . it's like all the words blend in together.  I don't know what to say except to watch Tv with the subtitles on . . that way you can hear what they're saying and see it also.  Maybe that can help you get a feel for how things are pronounced.

Good Luck!!


----------



## alexacohen

There are some heavy English accents that I don't understand either.
Try listening to the voices with your eyes closed. It works for me.


----------



## NickJunior

LaReinita said:


> You are not alone in this boat, by any means. ...watch Tv with the subtitles on . . that way you can hear what they're saying and see it also. Maybe that can help you get a feel for how things are pronounced. Good Luck!!


 
Hi LaReinita, Thank you so much for your reply.  I feel so much better that I am not a weirdo or a really odd person.  In my English classroom environment, my other English-language learners interact with the teacher so readily.  As for me I am always silent and try to process to make sense of the information being said.  Thank you for your recommendation and best wishes.  
​


----------



## Hakro

I have had the same problem as you, Nick Junior. Sometimes I've asked the speakers to say it more clearly, but instead of slowing down they usually speak with a louder voice, as if I were deaf. 

That's why I always try to pronounce every word separately when I speak for example English to a person who is not an English speaker.

I wish that all the native speakers of any language could understand this global problem and try to speak a little slower, a little clearer, separating the words, and trying to understand the foreigner.

I've been travelling around the world for about forty years but I've seldom seen this kind of attitude.


----------



## Alxmrphi

We Brits generally seem to have some blanket ignorance of how hard it is to understand a foreign language and many people come to our country and most people expect them to speak perfect English, they've never tried to learn another language and they don't understand, quote: "this global problem".

Part of it is also because they don't understand the problem, people speak louder thinking it will be more clear, it's ignorant yes, but a lot of us just don't understand "speaking clearly" because when someone doesn't understand us, it's nearly always a volume thing, and people are conditioned to speak louder when someone has trouble listening, it's not like the majority of it are doing it deliberately. They just don't know.


----------



## tvdxer

LaReinita said:


> You are not alone in this boat, by any means.  This is a natural obstacle for all learners.  I am still trying to figure out how to listen to spoken spanish.  Some people seem to speak so clearly and I have no trouble understanding them, but others . . wow . .  I have no idea . . it's like all the words blend in together.  I don't know what to say except to watch Tv with the subtitles on . . that way you can hear what they're saying and see it also.  Maybe that can help you get a feel for how things are pronounced.
> 
> Good Luck!!



That's exactly how I feel.

Reading Spanish and writing Spanish is quite easy for me, though I tend to make mistakes if I'm not careful.  Speaking it isn't that bad.  But listening...

It's true about the different speakers as well.  Regardless of accent (which does make a difference - I have less trouble understanding Mexican or Standard Castillian Spanish then I do Andalucian or Rioplatense), some speakers talk in a way I can easily understand, even at relatively high rates of speed (like newscasters), others just seem to intone everything or join their sentences together in a way where everything becomes a rumbling mush.  It's a challenge, that's for sure.


----------



## palomnik

Some languages are in fact more difficult to learn to understand audially than others, and I believe that out of the major languages of the world English and French are in the front line in this regard - unfortunately, seeing as how they are both so important internationally.

An excellent way to work with this to get a text recited in _normal conversational style _along with the written text, and review it several times until you can understand it without the written copy.  I believe that the BBC website has material available of that sort.

Aside from that, I've found that listening and repeating sentences in the target language until you sound _exactly _like the recording can help tremendously in your ability to grasp what you hear.  Unfortunately, old-styl language labs that let you hear yourself are starting to get scarce, I believe.


----------



## danielfranco

Now, this will sound a bit crazy, but bear with me:

Have you had an audiology test in recent years?

Sometimes there is damage to the auditory nerve which is not readily apparent. One can be slightly or partially deaf without much difficulty in carrying on with quotidian life. However, it seems that many words in English which have fricative and plosive sounds fall right in the auditory drop-off typical of nerve damage. The result is that the listener will often miss those sounds and words will lose their distinctiveness, and the listener will end up trying to guess which words were missed. That's usually when one gets left behind in the conversation: while the brain tries to catch up after making up or guessing the unheard sounds.


It's just another opinion...


----------



## Outsider

Some previous discussions that may be of interest:

Different styles of learning for languages
Original language, subtitles or own native language


----------



## NickJunior

I appreciate all of your inputs and interesting views.  I especially like the links provided by Outsider. Daniel Franco I am so happy that you are so brave and truthful in offering your suggestion.


----------



## ernest_

NickJunior said:


> I don't understand what is being said.



I'm not very surprised. One does not learn to decode the sound waves of a language overnight. It takes time. Just do not despair and keep listening to everything you can. This is my advice


----------



## sortu

tvdxer said:


> That's exactly how I feel.
> Reading Spanish and writing Spanish is quite easy for me, though I tend to make mistakes if I'm not careful.  Speaking it isn't that bad.  But listening...


Spanish is definitely spoken faster than English... I am convinced of that because that's what  I thought before I learnt to speak it fluently and that's what I still think. German didn't sound fast to me before I learnt it and now that I have a fairly decent level it still doesn't sound that way. I think that Germans usually enunciate much better than English-speakers though, maybe that's part of NickJunior's problem.


----------



## zlyice

I have exactly the same problem when I listen to Spanish, although I think I'm sloooowly getting better at it.  Practice makes perfect, I suppose.

I don't have a lot of advice for you other than something a friend once advised me.  Maybe about a year or two ago, I started trying to watch television in Spanish every now and then, and I found that I could barely understand anything without the use of closed captioning.  Anyhow, the advice given to me was to try not to concentrate as hard.  As ridiculous as it might sound at first, it did seem to help me.  Concentrating too hard might be just as detrimental to understanding a language as not paying any attention at all.


----------



## NickJunior

zlyice said:


> ...watch television in [English]...try not to concentrate as hard [because] [c]oncentrating too hard might be just as detrimental to understanding a language as not paying any attention at all.


 
Thank you so much Zlyice for your kind advice.  Welcome to the forum.  My problem in listening is that I try very hard to concentrate on every word spoken in sentences.  Then when I don't know the meaning of a word, I get panicky and then stressed out over that word, trying to figure out its meaning.  Then I keep getting behind and further behind in understand what is being said.  

​


----------



## HIEROPHANT

I've noted that I just can't understand in a conversation (in English) a word that I've never heard of before. Problem is that I cannot figure out how it's spelled, so if I hear a new word from a film/cartoon/song usually I have to give up, even listening again I can't learn it.

On the other hand, if I read a new word, it's hard to guess its pronunciation...Luckily there are online dictionaries where you can listen as well


----------



## paquijote

NickJunior said:


> Thank you so much Zlyice for your kind advice.  Welcome to the forum.  My problem in listening is that I try very hard to concentrate on every word spoken in sentences.  Then when I don't know the meaning of a word, I get panicky and then stressed out over that word, trying to figure out its meaning.  Then I keep getting behind and further behind in understand what is being said.
> 
> ​



This may be part of your problem, the other part being that English is a foreign language for you and for EVERYONE listening and understanding is difficult I´d say.  Think of it this way:  In your native language do you focus on every.single.word.of.the.conversation?  No, because you would lose track of the conversation as well; there is no way that you know every single word there is.  The same goes for English, play off context, relax ( I know this is hard), and if you don't understand, it's OK, they will repeat themselves, and those who do not and try to make you feel ashamed or as though you are stupid for not understanding are probably rather insecure and don't know a single word in your native language.  Good luck, I'm in the same boat as you right now, but I can tell you that you will get better with patience and practice.


----------



## HIEROPHANT

paquijote said:


> Think of it this way: In your native language do you focus on every.single.word.of.the.conversation? No, because you would lose track of the conversation as well; there is no way that you know every single word there is.


 
I think English is a language in which native speakers tend to skip the less important words (like articles). -Think at the contract forms as well-
This do not happen in other languages...


----------



## sound shift

English speakers do NOT skip articles. English is a stress-timed language, which means that "grammatical" words such as articles are spoken with less force than "lexical" words such as nouns. Speakers of syllable-timed languages such as the Romance languages have trouble adjusting to stress-timing.


----------



## franzisca

sortu said:


> Spanish is definitely spoken faster than English... I am convinced of that because that's what  I thought before I learnt to speak it fluently and that's what I still think. German didn't sound fast to me before I learnt it and now that I have a fairly decent level it still doesn't sound that way. I think that Germans usually enunciate much better than English-speakers though, maybe that's part of NickJunior's problem.


oooh Sortu how can you say that?

It's not true; it's just that another language will always sound faster than ours, as we're not used listening to it.

Actually you're right about German, which is quite clear to understand, maybe because you have to pronounce almost all the wprds' letters.

By the way Nick, I feel exactly the same about English, and I think you must keep on listening to your friend and practise with the language.

Good luck!


----------



## sortu

franzisca said:


> oooh Sortu how can you say that?
> 
> It's not true; it's just that another language will always sound faster than ours, as we're not used listening to it.


Franzisca, it is true (in my opinion ). On the basis of what you're saying, that would mean all languages are spoken at the same speed (let's say by the average speaker), which can't be right. English sounds faster than German to me and Spanish sounds faster than both. These are all languages I can speak. When I listen to other languages that I don't know, some sound faster than others.
Sorry, but I just don't go for the argument that another  language sounds fastly spoken just because you're not a native speaker of it.


----------



## HIEROPHANT

sortu said:


> Franzisca, it is true (in my opinion ). On the basis of what you're saying, that would mean all languages are spoken at the same speed (let's say by the average speaker), which can't be right. English sounds faster than German to me and Spanish sounds faster than both. These are all languages I can speak. When I listen to other languages that I don't know, some sound faster than others.
> Sorry, but I just don't go for the argument that another language sounds fastly spoken just because you're not a native speaker of it.


 
We'll have to fill up a chart of the faster languages!
From what I know:

1) Polish
2) Spanish
4) French
5) English
6) German
7) Italian

Ok maybe the list it's silly. But I have worked in several multi-language enviroment and hearing different languages, I can tell that the speed of a mother tongue speaker is not the same for all.
It's true that Spanish is usually spoken faster than English.
A good example is Italian, that is the language most slowly spoken I've heard. And, as it is my mother language, I can tell that a mother tongue understands not only every single word, but also every single letter. A misspelled word is always spotted when it is read.
Does the same happen in English, for the mother tongue?


----------



## franzisca

sortu, isn't it strange that your mother tongue is English, and you find it the slowest talked; Hierophant is italian, and Italian is the slowest too, according to him...

I just try to understand this thinking about words' forms; if a word ends with a vocal, it has to be bounded with the following word in a different way than if it ended with a consonant, don't you think?
that is my very very humble opinion; consonant-ending-languages are spoken faster than vocal-ending ones.


do you like my theory?


----------



## HIEROPHANT

Well...it's correct but I don't think it's the point. On the other hand in English there are sounds that must be pronounced long in order to avoid confusions: the word "sheet" cannot be said too fast 
I think it's just an attidute of the people...


----------



## Cnaeius

HIEROPHANT said:


> We'll have to fill up a chart of the faster languages!
> From what I know:
> 
> 1) Polish
> 2) Spanish
> 4) French
> 5) English
> 6) German
> 7) Italian
> 
> Ok maybe the list it's silly. But I have worked in several multi-language enviroment and hearing different languages, I can tell that the speed of a mother tongue speaker is not the same for all.
> It's true that Spanish is usually spoken faster than English.
> A good example is Italian, that is the language most slowly spoken I've heard. And, as it is my mother language, I can tell that a mother tongue understands not only every single word, but also every single letter. A misspelled word is always spotted when it is read.
> Does the same happen in English, for the mother tongue?



If you are native Italian I don't think you can argue anything from the speed of your language. You cannot be objective. To me Italian is slow, because I know it perfectly, but I've heard a lot of non-Italian saying that Italians speak as faster as spanish, for example. I wouldn't know where to put Italian in that list


----------



## sortu

franzisca said:


> sortu, isn't it strange that your mother tongue is English, and you find it the slowest talked; Hierophant is italian, and Italian is the slowest too, according to him...


Franzisca, if you read my post again you'll see I said that I think English is spoken faster than German. 


franzisca said:


> I just try to understand this thinking about words' forms; if a word ends with a vocal, it has to be bounded with the following word in a different way than if it ended with a consonant, don't you think?
> that is my very very humble opinion; consonant-ending-languages are spoken faster than vocal-ending ones.
> 
> 
> do you like my theory?


Your theory sounds plausible to me.


----------



## jinti

There is an interesting -- and fairly short -- piece here on the topic of whether there are differences in speaking rates among languages and how we can judge.


----------



## Arrius

I think that English is sometimes spoken extremely fast: I was listening to our ex-prime minister yesterday whose speech was at maximum speed to try to keep up with his thoughts. (Possibly it has accelerated since he no longer has to be so careful, for the moment, with what he is saying). I thought at the time, "I pity some poor foreigner trying to grasp all that!" Besides its vast vocabulary, one of the main problems of understanding spoken English is that vowels in unstressed syllables, particuarly in the British version, lose their full value and become murmur vowels or schwars, so that, added to the vagaries of English spelling, the learner cannot always be sure even what word he has to look up. One great aid to understanding is to listen over and over again to the recorded dialogues of a record course, such as Berlitz, and gradually learn to do without the written text. Another, and cheaper, technique that helps is to listen to the texts in the public domain on _Librivox_ whilst looking at the written texts from Gutenberg, accessible from the former site: 
http://librivox.org/librivox-catalogue/
You will be able to use earphones and adjust volume and tone to suit yourself. The readers of the mainly English texts are usually either English or American, both of which I would advise the questioner to get used to. DVDs of feature films are also a great boon because you can repeat small sections of dialogue ad infinitum with visual support till you have absorbed them.

On the point that *sortu *raised about the rapidity of Spanish speech, I would say that men generally speak more slowly and clearly than women in Spain. And when a group of youngish women get together, the resulting cascade of consonants one hears is reminiscent of machine-gun fire, and a truly incredible phenomenon of bucal dexterity. It sounds as if they don't really care if they are understood by the others or not (though I assume they are, for the most part at least).


----------



## Hotu Matua

I think English has all the potential to be one of the fastest Indo-European languages mainly because of these facts:

1. Most words have just one or two syllabes (regardless of how many letters need to be written)
2. The consonant to vowel ratio is high
3. Nouns can easily be converted into verbs, adjectives, etc. Creation of new single words that would otherwise need to be explained in 2-4 words is part of English magic.

Italian and Spanish abound in polysylabic words with a rather 1:1 consonant/vowel ratio. They tend to be spoken slower. 

As an example of what I am talking about, listen to any song in English and then its translation in Spanish or Italian. In a song, each syllable must correspond to one note. So, to say what the lyrics say in English, you need much more notes. Indeed, you could easily come to a situation in which you would absolutely distort the music to make room for all syllables you need to say the same thing. What translators do to go around the problem is avoid translating literally and offer a sort of "summarized" version, that frequently missess many details.


----------



## franzisca

sortu said:


> Franzisca, if you read my post again you'll see I said that I think English is spoken faster than German.
> 
> Your theory sounds plausible to me.


oh yes sorry, my mistake 
by the way you find that for example Spanish is spoken faster than English..
Trust me, I know a very little Spanish, and even though I understand it better than English, that I studied for a long time (ehm, maybe I should't confess it ).
Happy to hear that you like my theory  
Bye!


----------



## franzisca

Arrius said:


> And when a group of youngish women get together, the resulting cascade of consonants one hears is reminiscent of machine-gun fire, and a truly incredible phenomenon of bucal dexterity. It sounds as if they don't really care if they are understood by the others or not (though I assume they are, for the most part at least).


I love how you describe that, ahahaha that's what they say to Italian women too, sometimes!!


----------



## Arrius

I think English has all the potential to be one of the fastest Indo-European languages mainly beacuse of two facts: 
1. Most words have just one or two syllables (regardless of how many letters need to be written) 
2. The consonant to vowel ratio is high 
3. Nouns can easily be converted into verbs, adjectives, etc. Creation of new single words that would otherwise need to be explained in 2-4 words is part of English magic. 
Italian and Spanish abound in polysylabic words with a rather 1 to 1 consonant to vowel ratio. They tend to be spoken slower. Hotu Matua

We have not specified what we mean by speed. It we mean the delivery of syllables then I think the gossiping Spanish women I referred to must take the prize. Though a group of excited Italian females,as recommended by Franziska, would probably come in a close second. But if we are talking about the time it takes to convey a message, then I would bet on English. The qualities you describe that facilitate this in English are actually shared by both Norwegian and Afrikaans, also shorn of most of their Germanic inflections, which in some ways would have made better world languages than English because they are so much simpler and more consistent. But history did not go that way and that is another question.
If you have a paragraph written in English with parallel Spanish and German translations, the Spanish will be longer than the English and the German longer than the Spanish, so that if the passages were read aloud at the same rate of uttered syllables, they would finish in that same order.
English (or at least the standard British variety) has yet another advantage that aids speed: it is possible to speak it with very little muscular activity in the speech organs. One may speak intelligibly to those with a good knowledge of it with slightly open mouth _but without moving the lips at all! _This I have demonstrated a couple of times to the surprise of foreign friends, the varied intonation helping comprehension. This is not possible with any other language I am aware of. Thus English not only has the advantage of brevity but is a reliable language to use with little effort when under stress or in an emergency - and, of course, a boon to ventriloquists!


----------



## Loob

sound shift said:


> English speakers do NOT skip articles. English is a stress-timed language, which means that "grammatical" words such as articles are spoken with less force than "lexical" words such as nouns. Speakers of syllable-timed languages such as the Romance languages have trouble adjusting to stress-timing.


 
I think this is a key point: English is a stress-timed language, whereas many other European languages are syllable-timed. It makes a huge difference....

Loob


----------



## Earth Dragon

Have you tried reading along with book on tape?  That may help you're speech abilities even out with your literary skills.


----------



## franzisca

Arrius, your link was very interesting.
I could say that what I mean is more or less this 
"_Speaking slowly, I might pronounce the sentence “She looked particularly interesting” as /SilUktp«tIkj«l«liInt«r«stIN/, which contains 27 sounds, but speaking rapidly I might say /Si lUk p«tIkli IntrstIN/, which only contains 20 sounds_"
That's what happen when English is very fast spoken, you skip sounds! And that's why, I guess, we often have difficulties in understang a conversation.
On the opposite, I know that for example Spanish and Italian can talk really really fast, but it's just "producing more sounds pro second", and not cut some of them off.


Both situations are hard to handle, good work and have fun everyone


----------



## Arrius

Awkward sounds do tend to disappear in English, whether fast or slow: many people pronounce sixth form as six form, and I have even been present when a very avant-garde EFL teacher has told his class to pronounce good boy as goo' boy!  If you can find an old film with Sir John Gielgud you will hear a beautiful English with every syllable given its full value. It is better to start with such a model and give way to slovenliness later. He never rushed his delivery.


----------



## sound shift

franzisca said:


> Arrius, your link was very interesting.
> I could say that what I mean is more or less this
> "_Speaking slowly, I might pronounce the sentence “She looked particularly interesting” as /SilUktp«tIkj«l«liInt«r«stIN/, which contains 27 sounds, but speaking rapidly I might say /Si lUk p«tIkli IntrstIN/, which only contains 20 sounds_"
> That's what happen when English is very fast spoken, you skip sounds! And that's why, I guess, we often have difficulties in understang a conversation.
> On the opposite, I know that for example Spanish and Italian can talk really really fast, but it's just "producing more sounds pro second", and not cut some of them off.
> 
> 
> Both situations are hard to handle, good work and have fun everyone



My dictionary states that it is acceptable to pronounce "interesting" as a three-syllable word. English is not always spoken as it is written, and nor should it be: speech came before writing. Nor is it correct to give every syllable the same weight. Native speakers say "I am *go*ing to the *li*brary", pronouncing "go" and "li" with more force than the other syllables. A flat pronunciation - "I-am-go-ing-to-the-li-bra-ry" - is incorrect. English has a much heavier stress accent than Italian or Spanish. The unstressed syllables are pronounced much more softly than the stressed syllables, and this can cause problems for Spanish speakers. I knew a Spaniard who could not hear the second, unstressed, syllable in the word "British".


----------



## HistofEng

But still, I think Franzisca is right that English speakers tend to shorten and eliminate sounds when speaking fast (and, for many, even at a normal pace) and/or speaking informally. Consonant clusters are probably the first to go. The way the language is spoken on television is usually not what's heard when strolling around the city. Anytime I step foot outide my door I'm likely to hear "prolly" (probably), "whatcha doin?", "usally" (usually), "em" (them), "aready" (already)...the list is practically endless. Couple that with the stress-timed issue (grammatical words being barely spoken) and other issues and it can be quite difficult to understand what's being said.

The same happens to me with French. When I listen to the news or a documentary, I understand almost everything. But if I'm watching a movie or I'm on the streets, I barely get by (and it's not only because the latter have more idiomatic expressions.)


----------



## HistofEng

My question to non-natives: Is it more difficult to understand a conversation when it's full of the [standard] contractions "why's", "how'd", "What's", "he's"..etc? Do you have to think about it a little more? 

I ask so that I know if I should adjust how I speak so that I'm better understood by English learners.


----------



## Outsider

HistofEng said:


> My question to non-natives: Is it more difficult to understand a conversation when it's full of the [standard] contractions "why's", "how'd", "What's", "he's"..etc? Do you have to think about it a little more?


Not at all. I never even notice the contractions.

What _is_ difficult (and annoying) is when an ESLer overestimates the quality of his English, and insists on talking very fast while speaking with a very thick foreign accent.


----------



## HistofEng

Outsider said:


> Not at all. I never even notice the contractions.
> 
> What _is_ difficult (and annoying) is when an ESLer overestimates the quality of his English, and insists on talking very fast while speaking with a very thick foreign accent.


 
Well, I guess I didn't mean all non-natives, I really was thinking about English learners (I consider you pretty much close to native, Outsider).

Or maybe you can answer from the point of view of when you _were _an English learner, in the intermediate stages.

But I guess you're right either way. It shouldn't be difficult because it's usually auxiliaries that are contracted, and the more important verb is the main verb (to convey the meaning of the phrase) and its conjugation.


----------



## Outsider

> Well, I guess I didn't mean all non-natives, I really was thinking about English learners (I consider you pretty much close to native, Outsider ).


Thanks. 

One mistake I have noticed English learners make (regardless of how good an accent they have) is to overuse or misplace contractions when they speak or write. So my guess would be that they are not a great hindrance to comprehension. I think that people are often well exposed to English contractions abroad, due to pop music.


----------



## Arrius

Especially gonna, wanna and gotta (pronounced godda).


----------



## argentina84

franzisca said:


> It's not true; it's just that another language will always sound faster than ours, as we're not used listening to it.


 
Right! And interestingly, phonologysts classify Spanish as a syllable-timed language, which compared to a stress-timed language like English, should be regarded as a "slow" language. 

But the fact is that when we are learning a language, it always seems "faster" than ours. 

What is also interesting is the fact that when we learn a foreign language, we have more problems with the listening skills, which are the first skills we developed in our L1. Don't know why.


----------



## mally pense

I think there's a strong case to be argued for teaching people of all nationalities how to speak for maximum comprehension by foreign (to them) speakers. There is a set of skills here that possibly has not yet been studied and defined, and perhaps instead of relying on the non-native speaker to do all the work with incredible feats of comprehension, we should be sharing the burden by improving people's skills at making themselves more comprehensible.

So where's the first "Speaking English TO Foreigners" course going to be held then? (Or French, Swedish, or whatever).


----------



## Loob

Intriguing point, mally!

I wonder what a "Speaking to Foreigners" course would stress...  

Not speaking pidgin, of course (I've been on the receiving end of some Spanglish, which was horrendously difficult to decipher).

Speaking slowly and clearly, I guess.

And using as many words as possible which are kin to words in the target language...

What about
 speaking the relevant language? 

Loob


----------



## Georges Hassan

Your experience with Spanish is very close to mine. An example of a challenging situation for me is watching a Spanish-language movie. Often, I have to read the subtitles. 

I have observed, however, that my female friends are often more comfortable listening to someone speak in Spanish than actually speaking the language. Is it possible that listening to others speak foreign languages is more difficult for men than for women? If so, what would that say, if anything about gender-based differences in ones approach to language acquisition?


----------



## Macunaíma

Loob said:


> Speaking slowly and clearly, I guess.


 
You don't necessarily have to speak slowly in order to be make yourself understood by a learner as long as you stress the syllables and key words carefully. Native speakers tend to relax and speak in a monotonous way among themselves (by monotonous I mean without much rhythmic variation) making it harder for non-proficient foreign speakers to tell words apart. It's all too easy for me to get lost when I'm listening to an AmE speaker simply because I'm more used to BrE stress patterns. I think stress is everything when it comes to spoken language.


----------



## franzisca

HistofEng said:


> My question to non-natives: Is it more difficult to understand a conversation when it's full of the [standard] contractions "why's", "how'd", "What's", "he's"..etc? Do you have to think about it a little more?
> 
> I ask so that I know if I should adjust how I speak so that I'm better understood by English learners.


No, that's not the biggest problem, because you can understand what the contractions stand for by the context.

To me, the matter is actually understand where a word ends and when the next begins...


And by friday I'll be in Chicago, say a prayer for me


----------



## Arrius

When teaching a foreigner English, the teacher may slow down when concentrating on new words and phrases or particular difficulties, but always to talk at a speed much slower than normal would be a disservice to the learner, as firstly it distorts the sounds and second, this is not the kind of language they are bound to meet in real life and have to get used to. 
Far better for the teacher to pause briefly between short segments of speech delivered at a natural speed. This will give time for the message to sink in, and is only a slight exaggeration of what really happens. If the learner does not get used to listening at the normal speed and, when "in the field" asks natives to speak more slowly, it is my experience that they may do so for a short while and then forget about it, or just go into the I-can't-possibly-communicate-with-this-foreigner mode and give up. This is particularly the case on the 'phone. It is also a good idea for a learner to be exposed to various kinds of accent, as few native anglophones speak in exactly the same way, and if one is learning RP English one should recall that more people in the world speak the American variety.
Added to the link I originally gave to help the questioner, there is this useful news service that may be unfamiliar to him, with audio and video. The spoken text provided for English or any of the other languages used is exactly the same as the written text in that language and can be paused as well as repeated as required. The basic small screen, capable of enlargement, permits the simultaneous hearing and reading of the text whilst viewing the newsreel.
http://www.euronews.net/index.php?lng=1&page=accueil_info


----------



## shoobydoowap

NickJunior, 

I found a website that might be helpful with practicing your understanding of spoken words. The website is Voice of America, which provides news. They have a special section, _Special English_, which provides the news in English, but spoken very clearly and slowly. It might serve as a good way to practice. 

Here's the link. Enjoy!

http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/


----------



## mally pense

There is a similar site for learners of French. "The news in simple French" from RFI has audio plus transcript, two bulletins a day:

http://www.rfi.fr/lfen/statiques/accueil.asp

(I don't think this is as good as the Euronews link above which is available in several languages).


----------



## HistofEng

franzisca said:


> And by friday I'll be in Chicago, say a prayer for me


 
Tell us how it goes!


----------



## franzisca

HistofEng said:


> Tell us how it goes!


Of course!!
Any tips about it?
I'm quite scared as it is my first experience abroad... and my English sucks!!!


----------



## mally pense

> Any tips about it?


 
Find someone who speaks Italian?

Only joking. I'm sure you'll be alright, so just try to enjoy it.


----------



## HistofEng

franzisca said:


> Of course!!
> Any tips about it?
> I'm quite scared as it is my first experience abroad... and my English sucks!!!


 
Coming from stories people tell me, and my personal experience abroad:

Well it may be a bit difficult the first day or two, but I think you gradually gain confidence in your language abilities and things start to flow more easily. I know a lot of people think hard about what they want to say beforehand so that they can say it fast and perfectly. But after they say it outloud to a native speaker, natives often reply as if they are talking to someone who is totally fluent, and the language-learner becomes lost. I suggest you just take your time, I'm sure most people will have patience with you and by the time your trip is over you may be surprised how much your speaking skills will have improved.

Oh, and if you meet anyone with a heavy Chicago accent, run away! (just kidding)


----------



## franzisca

HistofEng said:


> Coming from stories people tell me, and my personal experience abroad:
> 
> Well it may be a bit difficult the first day or two, but I think you gradually gain confidence in your language abilities and things start to flow more easily. I know a lot of people think hard about what they want to say beforehand so that they can say it fast and perfectly. But after they say it outloud to a native speaker, natives often reply as if they are talking to someone who is totally fluent, and the language-learner becomes lost. I suggest you just take your time, I'm sure most people will have patience with you and by the time your trip is over you may be surprised how much your speaking skills will have improved.
> 
> Oh, and if you meet anyone with a heavy Chicago accent, run away! (just kidding)


Thank you very much!!!
I'll speak with my worst English so that everyone can understand I'm not native and will try to help my comprehension 
kidding 
how is chicago accent????
And:
when you talk to some native, can you guess if they have an accent or not? (I mean, when you're not talking your mother tongue)


----------



## mally pense

> how is chicago accent????
> And:
> when you talk to some native, can you guess if they have an accent or not?


 
More to the point: Can you guess if they are from Chicago or not? As with any great metropolis, you will hear all sorts of accents, I suspect. I don't think the Chicago accent itself will present too much difficulty, but you will soon be in a better position to judge that than me!

I don't know if it's too late now to suggest seeking out a Chicago radio station or two to listen to on the internet, but if you can find one with a phone-in program you'll get to hear real Chicago people speaking rather than broadcasters and newsreaders etc. But maybe at this stage that might be counter-productive and perhaps even unsettling because I'm sure you'll find real-life linguistic encounters more flexible and interactive than passively listening to the radio.

Mally


----------



## mally pense

NickJunior said:


> I am a struggling listener in the English language. Despite giving my very best attention to the speakers, most of the time, I don't understand what is being said. Everything flies by so fast to my ears. I cope on a daily basis by asking my friendly neighbors to tell me what to do all the time. My brain is always working in the frustration nervous sweaty mode or something when it comes to listening. Something is definitely wrong with my listening ability. Would someone help me figure out how to understand what is being said to me? Thanks you in advance so much for your great and wonderful help.​


Getting right back to the original question, I think the answer is that *you simply need to get used to hearing the language*. It's important for the brain to get used to the rhythms, patterns and sounds of the language, and I think a lot of this is subliminal, so to a large extent you don't even need to actually listen or understand; it's enough for the brain to simply HEAR the language _(a lot)_ and before long the brain should start tuning into the language in a way that is probably more innate than intellectual.

I've been giving myself a bit of an immersion course in listening to French as much as possible. That means having French radio on (via the internet - marvellous!) a lot of the time *even if I'm not actually listening* and *even if I'm not understanding*. Before long you start recognising words and phrases, and that helps put together the rest of what you're hearing, but I'm sure it's also helpful to also actively try recognising words and phrases from time to time so that you can start to consciously listen and understand. For this, it's almost certainly a good idea to ALSO listen to sources where the actual words are available to you, either as a separate text (e.g. with course material) or as subtitles etc.

For various reasons which I don't have time to go into here, I've found repetitive types of phone-in programs to be particularly good for developing my listening abilities or capabilities, but any sort of program which contains some repetitive elements may be more useful that a program in which the content is completely different each time.

Obviously as I'm not learning English, I can't advise on the best radio station or programs to listen to, but a good starting point for anyone wanting to acclimatise to English as it is spoken in the UK would be Radio 5 Live, which you can listen to online here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/

Click the Listen Live button to get started, then just leave it on as much of the time as possible. DON'T WORRY if you don't understand a single word, just leave it playing and allow your brain to soak up the speech patterns, and DON'T TRY too hard to understand, at least not all the time anyway. Perhaps occasionally listening intently and trying to work out what is being said is useful and necessary, but the main thing is to let you brain tune itself into the sounds, rhythms and patterns of the language.

Disclaimer: This seems to have worked for me, but the above is based purely on my own experience, and I don't know if it will work for everyone, or even if it's true. Maybe the improvements in my own listening skills are imagined or due to my other efforts with the language apart from this immersion listening aspect. I'd he interested in hearing of other people's experiences with this area.


----------



## franzisca

Thank you very much mally, actually I should have thought about it before, now I'm too busy packing my big bagage :shy:

I was only wondering if any of you, learning a new language, is already able to understand some little o big differences in the tongue, dependin the part of the country they're coming from..
but this is totally O.T.


----------



## mally pense

I don't see how it's off topic. It's certainly relevant if the differences make the spoken word in speakers from different parts of the country less or more trouble to understand.


----------



## franzisca

And have you ever had this kind of problem?


----------



## divisortheory

I am currently studying Vietnamese and Japanese. One thing I've learned is that no matter how many times I have studied or read or memorized a word, or repeated it in my head, the first time I hear the word spoken I will not recognize it at all. Usually I have to think very hard. "What was that word?" "Can I figure it out from the context of the sentence?" "Have I ever heard that word before?" Once I figure it out, something clicks in my brain and from that point on I will always recognize that word no matter what speed it is spoken at.  The important part here is the thought process.  _Do this every time._  If you can't figure out the word after about 10 seconds, ask the person to repeat it, and try again.  If you still don't understand it, ask them to say the word by itself, or write it.  Of course, it may work differently for you.  But for me, once I hear the word and go through the thought process of trying to figure it out, I will always recognize it.  It doesn't work for me if I simply ask someone to say the word, or if I know that the word is coming up.  It has to come up in a daily conversation when I'm not expecting it.

In some langauges (Japanese) this is hard because the words have many conjugations and while I might go through this process with "tabeta" (past tense of eat), when I hear "tabeteru" (eating) I will have to go through the process again, and then again with "tabenai" (won't eat), etc. In other languages (Vietnamese) it is very easy because there is no conjugation at all.


----------



## mally pense

One thing I find is that having learnt a word through some sort of deliberate process such as you've described (and I don't mean by casually reading it in the 'vocabulary' section of a text book), it's amazing how many times you hear it again... almost as if everyone has started using it just because you've learnt it! Obviously it was there all the time and passing one by, but it always amuses me when this happens. And of course it's great because it's another missing piece of the jigsaw that helps one understand all the other words around it.

Does that make sense?


----------



## LaReinita

mally pense said:


> One thing I find is that having learnt a word through some sort of deliberate process such as you've described (and I don't mean by casually reading it in the 'vocabulary' section of a text book), it's amazing how many times you hear it again... almost as if everyone has started using it just because you've learnt it! Obviously it was there all the time and passing one by, but it always amuses me when this happens. And of course it's great because it's another missing piece of the jigsaw that helps one understand all the other words around it.
> 
> Does that make sense?


 
YES MALLY!!  It makes perfect sense!  Once I realized that so many spanish speakers omit the "s" . . I could suddenly understand words that before . .  I had no idea.  Every small sound, every small phrase and, of course, every small word brings us closer to our objective . . . learning how to read, write, speak and HEAR our language of choice!!


----------



## Arrius

*so many Spanish speakers omit the "s"* (*La Reinita*)

You're dead right about that: an at first mysterious utterance  I once heard, around a swimming pool in Andalusia, was _La moca metan moletando!_ I at first thought that the _moca_ had something to do with coffee. But no, the young lady was simply complaining that she was being bothered by flies buzzing around her as she lay in her swimsuit. (_La*s* mo*s*ca*s* me e*s*tan mole*s*tando_!)
Even Felipe Gonzalez used to refer to_ Epaña_ in public speeches.


----------



## Sepia

I don't really believe in the thesis of "fast" or "less fast" languages. 

I would say, some just seem fast because they let words flow more into each other so that it is difficult to hear where one ends and one begins when you don't know each and every word well.

I used to have terrible problems with French because of this. The fact is, you only have to miss one word and sometimes this words renders not only that sentence but also the next 2 or 3 sentences pretty useless. 

I experimented a lot with this and came to the result, that it is not only important that you know a lot of words - they also have to trigger that information that you have in your memory within those mili-seconds it lasts till the speaker has proceeded to the next word. If you don't that is where you are loosing touch, and if it repeats itself too often that is where you have a blank and don't know what the man said. 

I found out that this activation speed, as I call it, can be improved immenesly with the right training. I spend a lot of time visualizing not only the meaning of single words, but especially different situations that have to do with the grammar I am learning. Maybe even "visualizing" is the wrong word, because sometimes it also has to do with things you hear or perceive with other senses. I might want to invent a new word for it some time. Maybe "imaginize". It is pretty easy and everybody can do it with simple scenes like "the dog bites the postman", gets a little more complicated with "I got angry because the dog bit the postman yesterday" because it forces you to imagine an emotion connected with a situation that has already ended. This is a matter of training - you can do the same thing with an EU-directive or something - actually, when you try that, that's when you know if you really understand that text.
So this is what I began actively doing when learning French and every time I do that when studying any language that is where my ability to understand spoken words also improves significantly.

If somebody wants to try this out, please tell me if it also works for you.


----------



## mally pense

I think I agree with what your are saying/suggesting if I understand it correctly, but I do have a problem with any technique which focusses so much on individual words simply because there are so many of them that it's impossible to apply such time consuming procedures to all of them - there simply isn't enough time to do it - or is there?

Having said that, as I've already remarked, it's amazing how each word learnt 'deeply' (for want of a better term) becomes a key to facilitate further understanding, and perhaps the secret is to concentrate on the basics, words that are commonly used in any context, and then to focus a little more perhaps on the key vocabulary in your own particular area of interest rather than trying to encompass the whole dictionary (which itself is limitless and ever changing).

_(Once again I am left wondering if I have made myself sufficiently clear here!)_


----------



## Arrius

Fortunately, there is also the phenomenon of _redundancy_ in all languages including English that aids comprehension. The fact that we don't have to understand every single word in a long utterance in order to grasp its meaning means it is better to relax and be open to what is said, without struggling to grasp the significance of every single word. If you concentrate too much on single words you will not hear the rest and fail to get the gist. A frequent exercise in modern language learning for some years now has been the gap-filler in which a student is given a passage with a greater or lesser percentage of its words deleted, very useful in Computer Assisted Language Learning or CALL, which clearly demonstrates how surprisingly little of an utterance we need in order to work out the meaning. 
People watching films even in their native language would be surprised how much of the soundtrack they miss, without failing to follow the plot of the film: they generally just do not realise they have missed anything.


----------



## Sepia

mally pense said:


> I think I agree with what your are saying/suggesting if I understand it correctly, but I do have a problem with any technique which focusses so much on individual words simply because there are so many of them that it's impossible to apply such time consuming procedures to all of them - there simply isn't enough time to do it - or is there?
> 
> Having said that, as I've already remarked, it's amazing how each word learnt 'deeply' (for want of a better term) becomes a key to facilitate further understanding, and perhaps the secret is to concentrate on the basics, words that are commonly used in any context, and then to focus a little more perhaps on the key vocabulary in your own particular area of interest rather than trying to encompass the whole dictionary (which itself is limitless and ever changing).
> 
> _(Once again I am left wondering if I have made myself sufficiently clear here!)_




But the language consists of words - there is no way we can change that. And there are lots of them. However, most people only have a vocabulary of some 10.000 of them. But, when you study full time and use some clever learning methods some 50 - 100 new words per day should not be out of reach. Then you'll have your 10.000 in 4-6 months. With "clever learning methods" i mean methods that really use the back doors into your sub-consciousness - not the way they usually teach in schools. For my part I use a lot of visualization and autogenic training. 

I wonder how you imagine being able to understand a language well without being able to understand the single words ... or what do you mean?


----------



## mally pense

> I wonder how you imagine being able to understand a language well without being able to understand the single words ... or what do you mean?


 
I can understand your concern, but as you already suspect, I _don't _mean that. I said "I do have a problem with any technique which focusses *so much* on individual words", so I'm really questioning *the degree* to which time-consuming techniques can realistically be applied to learning vocabulary *balanced against* the importance of also learning the structures, patterns and rhythms of the language.

Perhaps I've misunderstood what you were saying in your original post on this. I thought that because you said you spend "a lot of time visualizing not only the meaning of single words, but especially different situations etc" that you would be stuggling to learn sufficient words to really make the necessary progress. However from your latest post, given that you're learning 50-100 a day, then perhaps this is not the case. But then again, you say that these figures would be through studying full-time, which is a luxury not immediately available to some of us.

To clarify the balance I'm taking in my own case, I am _occasionally_ dipping into a dictionary or vocabulary list to actively learn new words, and of course I learn a lot through typing words I don't know into the Dictionary Look-up box above, but I'm probably learning most words passively simply through listening to the radio and gradually fitting more and more pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together. Maybe this also works as a way through "the back doors into your sub-consciousness"?

Of course it's helpful to be able to recognise words such as "cyclisme" or "scandale de dopage" on the radio simply because they sound so obviously similar to English _(and in context are obviously *not* false friends)_, but the jigsaw scenario also works for less obvious translations such as "gilet de sauvetage" which I was able to understand yesterday simply because of how it fitted into the dialogue and the fact that the local story to which it related cropped up so many times through the day (and not just as a repeat news report, but also with various people phoning in etc).

Well, despite all my 'meanderings' on this, it's still very much a personal experiment, immersing myself in listening to French radio alongside much sparser active learning activity, and I can't say for certain that it's working, or even working effectively, but at this moment in time I certainly _feel_ that it's working. The fact that just yesterday I was able to have a lengthy conversation via msn with a French friend without once resorting to a dictionary or grammar reference, and more or less without any hesitation in typing, is something I would not have imagined possible a short while ago.

However, in terms of the subject line, "Trouble understanding spoken words", I'm confident that listening so much to French radio without necessarily even consciously trying has helped immensely.


----------



## ayupshiplad

I am pretty sure no-one has already mentioned this, so I apologise if they have!

A while ago my German teacher was telling me how in German you have 'Ohrenmenschen' (ear people) and 'Augenmenschen' (eye people). As far as I am aware, you are born either an Ohrenmensch or an Augenmensch (or for a large majority of interpreters/translators,both), although it is far easier to learn skills assosciated with Augenmenschen (reading and writing) than Ohrenmenschen (speaking and listening). It is not only hearing words, but the ability to pick up on different accents, to repeat an unknown word correctly after hearing someone else say it etc...

I'm quite surprised no-one else has mentioned this! Perhaps it's just something known by grammarians, and not by 'the public'!


----------



## Arrius

Interesting, *ayupshiplad*, but there is an alternative analysis of ways of learning that mentions three channels of the language learning process, each channel of varying importance in any given individual learner: visual, aural/oral and motor. The last one (which you have included under _Augenmenschen_) applies especially to a minority of people who learn best by writing things down, the physical action involved being the main factor in their learning process.


----------



## ayupshiplad

Arrius said:


> Interesting, *ayupshiplad*, but there is an alternative analysis of ways of learning that mentions three channels of the language learning process, each channel of varying importance in any given individual learner: visual, aural/oral and motor. The last one (which you have included under _Augenmenschen_) applies especially to a minority of people who learn best by writing things down, the physical action involved being the main factor in their learning process.


 
Ah yes, I'd forgotten about that (in fact, one of my teachers owns a company assosciated with educating people that people learn in those different ways). Though, to be honest, I prefer 'ear people' and 'eye people'! I forgot to mention (I actually originally wrote menschen there!) that musicians are Ohrenmenschen too...an interesting side note I feel! 

As far as I am aware, it's quite a rare gift to be an Ohrenmensch, so feel special if you are one!


----------



## mally pense

I can't help feeling that we all must be _Ohrenmenschen_, or at least we were when we learned our first language as babies/toddlers (if that doesn't conflict too much with _menschen_). But maybe right from the start there's also an element of _Augenmenschen_ too in terms of incorporating lip-reading/facial expressions/body language into the learning process at that age.

Anyway, if the above is true, what happens to the 'ear-learning' in later life? Are we just talking about which way of learning different people find _easiest_ of the two, or is there a real loss of facility for one or the other?


----------



## ayupshiplad

mally pense said:


> I can't help feeling that we all must be _Ohrenmenschen_, or at least we were when we learned our first language as babies/toddlers (if that doesn't conflict too much with _menschen_). But maybe right from the start there's also an element of _Augenmenschen_ too in terms of incorporating lip-reading/facial expressions/body language into the learning process at that age.
> 
> Anyway, if the above is true, what happens to the 'ear-learning' in later life? Are we just talking about which way of learning different people find _easiest_ of the two, or is there a real loss of facility for one or the other?


 
As far as I am aware, being an Ohren- or Augenmensch isn't to do with the skills we are all born with as children. As I think I've already mentioned, it's a lot more common to be an Augenmensch. My teacher explained to me that an Ohrenmensch can learn an Augenmensch's skills, but the reverse is very, very, very rarely true. However, most interpreters/translators are either both or can manage very high competancy in the skills they are not born with...I'm not sure why. Perhaps merely desire to aquire these skills, or maybe all interpreters and translators are born with both skills but one is more prominent.


----------



## HIEROPHANT

Well, it's true that there are 9 kinds of intelligences, but having a particular hearing ability I don't think is necessary to learn a language, at least a European one...
Of course there are people that learns languages more easily than other, but to master a single language over a long period of time (soome years)...everybody can, I think.
Being "ear people" will be necessary to be a great musician, but not for learning the 44 sounds of the English language.


----------



## HIEROPHANT

ayupshiplad said:


> As far as I am aware, being an Ohren- or Augenmensch isn't to do with the skills we are all born with as children. As I think I've already mentioned, it's a lot more common to be an Augenmensch. My teacher explained to me that an Ohrenmensch can learn an Augenmensch's skills, but the reverse is very, very, very rarely true. However, most interpreters/translators are either both or can manage very high competancy in the skills they are not born with...I'm not sure why. Perhaps merely desire to aquire these skills, or maybe all interpreters and translators are born with both skills but one is more prominent.


 
Well, I don't think it's a big deal to be a interpreter or a translator...
_A lot of people who *have* parents from different countries can speak *two* languages_ (sentence kindly corrected by *mally pense*)without any problem...

For sure, *he* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziad_Fazah should have some kind of gift


----------



## San

Arrius said:


> *so many Spanish speakers omit the "s"* (*La Reinita*)
> 
> You're dead right about that: an at first mysterious utterance  I once heard, around a swimming pool in Andalusia, was _La moca metan moletando!_ I at first thought that the _moca_ had something to do with coffee. But no, the young lady was simply complaining that she was being bothered by flies buzzing around her as she lay in her swimsuit. (_La*s* mo*s*ca*s* me e*s*tan mole*s*tando_!)
> Even Felipe Gonzalez used to refer to_ Epaña_ in public speeches.



_"Lah mohcah mehtan molehtando"_.
"Ehpaña" 

Hi,
Andalusian people, like all Spanish speakers I know, can tell apart singular and plural. Otherwise it would be a nonsense. You can hear an aspiration in the West and a broad vowel in the East.

Back to the topic I think that understanding real speech has much more to do with accent and vocalization than with speed. I'm an English learner and have no trouble understanding the words said in the BBC, for example. Actually I understand most of the latin words and many expressions the first time I hear them, whatever speed they was delivered to me.

In the other hand, sometimes I talk to an English native and I cannot understand the word "water", even when it's all alone.

For example, talking about two British series, I understood about 80% in Sugar Rush but only about 5% in Torchwood. And just because there was an American guy around  I don't think this difference has much to do with speed.


----------



## Arrius

*Andalusian people, like all Spanish speakers I know, can tell apart singular and plural.* *San*

Of course they can and I didn't say they couldn't: otherwise the girl would have said *" La moca meta moletando.* But the fact remains that for a few moments I did not know what she was talking about.


----------



## San

Arrius said:


> *Andalusian people, like all Spanish speakers I know, can tell apart singular and plural.* *San*
> 
> Of course they can and I didn't say they couldn't: otherwise the girl would have said *" La moca meta moletando.* But the fact remains that for a few moments I did not know what she was talking about.



Sure, you had troubles telling apart la mosca/las moscas just because it was an accent you were not used to. The same happend to me the first time I was able to understand "getting" or "waiting" said with a glottal stop.

I think that understanding spontaneous, informal speech among natives is really hard, even if they speak with the accent you are supposed to know.


----------



## Sepia

San said:


> _"Lah mohcah mehtan molehtando"_.
> "Ehpaña"
> 
> ...
> 
> For example, talking about two British series, I understood about 80% in Sugar Rush but only about 5% in Torchwood. And just because there was an American guy around  I don't think this difference has much to do with speed.



5% isn't much. Did you at least understand more than the American guy?

(Although I don't know you I wouldn't be surprised if you did)


----------



## mally pense

> For example, talking about two British series, I understood about 80% in Sugar Rush but only about 5% in Torchwood. And just because there was an American guy around  I don't think this difference has much to do with speed.


 
For someone unfamiliar with either series, can I ask what it is that makes such a difference in the levels of comprehension between the two of them? I've looked at the relevant wiki entries but can't see anything which gives me a clue as to why this may be. It's a big difference!


----------



## ayupshiplad

HIEROPHANT said:


> Well, I don't think it's a big deal to be a interpreter or a translator...
> _A lot of people who *have* parents from different countries can speak *two* languages_ (sentence kindly corrected by *mally pense*)without any problem...
> 
> For sure, *he* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziad_Fazah should have some kind of gift


But being an interpreter or a translator isn't merely being bilingual or anything of the sort! Language learning is a great skill that I can assure you not many people are capable of!

I have a friend who was born in Germany but has moved around and claims to be bilingual in English and German...well, yes, he is...if you count having the vocabularly of a 10 year old in both languages as bilingual. He can have a normal conversation with someone in either language no bother...but if you say a word such as naive, superfluous or pretentious in either language he has no idea what you mean. Being an interpretor or a translator isn't merely being fluent in a language!


----------



## San

mally pense said:


> For someone unfamiliar with either series, can I ask what it is that makes such a difference in the levels of comprehension between the two of them? I've looked at the relevant wiki entries but can't see anything which gives me a clue as to why this may be. It's a big difference!



Well, perhaps I cought a bit more than 5%, but any way, I had many troubles. I thought it was because of the accent, since the series is set in Wales. Although honestly, I cannot recognise the accents in the UK, maybe just Scottish.


----------



## Loob

mally pense said:


> Getting right back to the original question, I think the answer is that *you simply need to get used to hearing the language*. It's important for the brain to get used to the rhythms, patterns and sounds of the language, and I think a lot of this is subliminal, so to a large extent you don't even need to actually listen or understand; it's enough for the brain to simply HEAR the language _(a lot)_ and before long the brain should start tuning into the language in a way that is probably more innate than intellectual.
> 
> I've been giving myself a bit of an immersion course in listening to French as much as possible. That means having French radio on (via the internet - marvellous!) a lot of the time *even if I'm not actually listening* and *even if I'm not understanding*


 
I really agree with this earlier post by mally.

As others have said, intonation and stress patterns are crucial in attuning the ear/brain. Exposure helps enormously.

A year ago, I was getting really frustrated with the fact that my fluent-in-the-1970s Spanish was so rusty. But it was no more than I deserved: I hadn't listened to any significant amount of Spanish for years...

This year, I've made sure I was exposed to the spoken language at least a couple of times a week; and that has really helped. To bring it back properly, though, I think I need daily exposure. So I'm sneakily watching TVE after my dearly beloved has gone to bed

All the best to all foreros

Loob


----------



## thuja

mally pense said:


> More to the point: Can you guess if they are from Chicago or not? As with any great metropolis, you will hear all sorts of accents, I suspect. I don't think the Chicago accent itself will present too much difficulty, but you will soon be in a better position to judge that than me!
> Mally



Folks,

having lived in Chicago for eight years, I can tell you that there really is no such thing as a "Chicago accent".  It´s pretty much undifferentiated midwestern speech one hears, which is in turn pretty close to the accent heard from radio and television announcers.

One cautionary note, Chicago does have a large black population, which had its origins largely in migrations from the southern US in the first half of the twentieth century. This urban black accent can be difficult, sometimes even for us native speakers of "standard" american english. This is variable, of course. Some blacks speak standard american dialect, and some change their speech depending on whom they´re talking with (I suspect this is a common linguistic phenomenon, where people get exposed to one dialect in their home setting, but hear a more standardized speech in school, the workplace, and the media.) 

One is also likely to hear many varieties of immigrant english, as in any big city.


----------



## thuja

tvdxer said:


> That's exactly how I feel.
> 
> Reading Spanish and writing Spanish is quite easy for me, though I tend to make mistakes if I'm not careful.  Speaking it isn't that bad.  But listening...
> 
> It's true about the different speakers as well.  Regardless of accent (which does make a difference - I have less trouble understanding Mexican or Standard Castillian Spanish then I do Andalucian or Rioplatense), some speakers talk in a way I can easily understand, even at relatively high rates of speed (like newscasters), others just seem to intone everything or join their sentences together in a way where everything becomes a rumbling mush.  It's a challenge, that's for sure.



I think this is a pretty universal phenomenon in second language acquisition--that some speakers, and some accents or styles of speech come in loud and clear, but others are really opaque. One thing it made me appreciate, is how amazingly good we are at extracting meaning in our native language, how complete our mastery is of all the different speech registers. Most of us don´t notice at all, in our own language, that the "news readers", as the Brits like to call them, speak more clearly than we do around the dinner table, or than the people one hears talking on the bus.


----------



## Musical Chairs

My teacher described learning a language as pieces of a puzzle fitting together. I think this is how it's been for me so far. After only a few months of French, I still don't know most of what's being said on TV but common words and phrases ring bells in my head immediately, because I hear them a lot. And it is remarkable what staying in France for a while did to me, because when I came back to the United States, I could understand a lot more of the same movies I tried to watch before. Exposure helps, and even more when you try to talk to native speakers and understand conversations between native speakers. There's something different about hearing a conversation in real life that's not there when you listen to recordings or watch movies. I like listening to mothers talk to their children. They don't use such big words so it's easier to understand, and you learn very basic vocabulary that you don't learn in class (but should).

I've always thought that British English is easier to understand for someone learning English than American English, because they seem to articulate their words more (like "little" and words with "o" in it). Do others agree?


----------



## samanthalee

Musical Chairs said:


> I've always thought that British English is easier to understand for someone learning English than American English, because they seem to articulate their words more (like "little" and words with "o" in it). Do others agree?



I will disagree on that. When I was young and grew up speaking English with a Singapore accent, American English was easier to understand than British English.

As you have mentioned, exposure helps. As I grew up on a diet of Sesames Street and Electric Company and Ninja Turtles, American accent was more familiar and a lot easier to understand than British.

Sometimes articulating the words more (as you observed in British English) doesn't make the words clearer. For example the pronunciation of "what" always sound like "who-art" to me when spoken by a British.


----------



## Musical Chairs

How was it easier to understand? Is it because you were exposed to more of it than British English?


----------



## sound shift

My German dictionary states that AE has simpler sentence-melodies than BE. Perhaps that's one reason why some people find AE easier to understand than BE.


----------



## mally pense

> My teacher described learning a language as pieces of a puzzle fitting together. I think this is how it's been for me so far. After only a few months of French, I still don't know most of what's being said on TV but common words and phrases ring bells in my head immediately, because I hear them a lot. And it is remarkable what staying in France for a while did to me, because when I came back to the United States, I could understand a lot more of the same movies I tried to watch before.


 
Side-stepping the controversy over whether British English is easier to understand than American English for a learner (which I think is both a question of exposure and exactly which of the many variations of each are involved), I'd just like to say that the part of your post that I've quoted corresponds exactly to my experience. The good news is that as time goes on more and more bells ring and it becomes easier to fit in the remaining pieces (exactly like the jigsaw metaphor where it gets easier to fit in the pieces towards the end). I noticed this again even this morning when I kept on hearing an expression or two on the radio that I'd only learnt yesterday, and it's like this many days. There's a real sense of excitement in discovering that you tangibly recognise more and more as the days and weeks pass.

EDIT: The difference is of course that the jigsaw in this case is infinite, never finished, but then what a sense of anti-climax it is when an actual jig-saw puzzle is finished. At least with this game the fun goes on forever...


----------



## gaer

thuja said:


> Folks,
> 
> having lived in Chicago for eight years, I can tell you that there really is no such thing as a "Chicago accent".


I'm not quite sure what you mean.

I knew that John and Jim Belushi were born in Chicago by the way they spoke (and Jim still speaks), and Dennis Franz's (NYPD) voice has Chicago "stamped all over into it".

The fact that everyone in Chicago does not have this accent does not change the fact that those who do don't sound like people from any other place on the planet. 

Gaer


----------



## Fluteroo

NickJunior said:


> I am a struggling listener in the English language. Despite giving my very best attention to the speakers, most of the time, I don't understand what is being said. Everything flies by so fast to my ears. I cope on a daily basis by asking my friendly neighbors to tell me what to do all the time. My brain is always working in the frustration nervous sweaty mode or something when it comes to listening. Something is definitely wrong with my listening ability. Would someone help me figure out how to understand what is being said to me? Thanks you in advance so much for your great and wonderful help.​


I will never forget the day I was listening to a ShortWave Radio BBC News and I found I was understanding nearly the whole thing, I was in limbo and so proud of my achievement, but sadly after a while the speaker said something about Special English News and everything changed thereafter...I was in the mist again and so disappointed...Well, I have been living in Australia for 16 years now and  I acknowledge things wouldn't be  so easy if I hadn't insisted, by the way you are able to write the language, I forecast a bright future and the reward to all you efforts  coming in the near future.


----------



## Forero

NickJunior said:


> I am a struggling listener in the English language. Despite giving my very best attention to the speakers, most of the time, I don't understand what is being said. Everything flies by so fast to my ears.


I am sure I would have the same problem in your language.  The rhythm and accent of the two languages are very different.


Alex_Murphy said:


> ... people speak louder thinking it will be more clear, it's ignorant yes, but a lot of us just don't understand "speaking clearly" because when someone doesn't understand us, it's nearly always a volume thing, and people are conditioned to speak louder when someone has trouble listening, it's not like the majority of it are doing it deliberately. They just don't know.


I think a phrase book for learning English needs to have a terse, easy to pronounce, way to say something like "Imagine you are speaking on a poor-quality telephone line, that is loud but hard to understand.  I need you to speak slowly and clearly, not loudly."


----------



## john_riemann_soong

sound shift said:


> English speakers do NOT skip articles. English is a stress-timed language, which means that "grammatical" words such as articles are spoken with less force than "lexical" words such as nouns. Speakers of syllable-timed languages such as the Romance languages have trouble adjusting to stress-timing.



The Romance languages are syllable-timed? Since when? I had the impression most IE languages were stress-timed, even the Semitic languages. This aspect becomes useful in studying long-range histories of language change, and syllable-timed languages are usually very distant from stress-timed ones. 

If French people spoke with syllable-timing, they would probably would sound drastically different. Speaking a syllable-timed creole, I know the difference.  

What the Romance languages don't do very often is vowel reduction, where unstressed vowels are turned into neutral vowels / schwas (though not necessarily the English schwa -- the Sanskrit neutral vowel is /a/ for example) . In fact, I wonder where English got stress reduction from. The Romance languages have a hint of it. In the sound changes from Latin to French, "musica" became "musique" because the ending /a/ got turned into a schwa (and before the schwa itself was dropped in Classical French, giving us a two-syllable word). "Salut" (a common greeting ) is sometimes pronounced as "selut", and such. 

Besides, Singlish is a syllable-timed dialect of English, and that doesn't make it easier to comprehend either.  


But note that while American English and British English both are stress-timed, their systems of stress and pitch are slightly different. This is how differences develop in the first place I suppose.


----------



## john_riemann_soong

Musical Chairs said:


> How was it easier to understand? Is it because you were exposed to more of it than British English?



Especially ironic since Singapore was a British colony. Having spent five years in a US elementary school, my own experience is too biased though.


----------



## samanthalee

Musical Chairs said:


> How was it easier to understand? Is it because you were exposed to more of it than British English?


Singapore is more exposed to American English than British English, especially so for children.

We have children's TV programs such as Sesames Street, Electric Company, Ninja Turtles, Gummy Bears, Muppet Babies; just to name a few. I can't think of any UK produced children's TV program broadcasted regularly in Singapore.

Exposure is certainly a big impact on the learning of languages


----------



## Loob

john_riemann_soong said:


> The Romance languages are syllable-timed? Since when?


 
See here ...

Loob


----------



## mally pense

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *john_riemann_soong*
> 
> 
> The Romance languages are syllable-timed? Since when?
> 
> See here ...


 
To be fair, there are two qualifiers in the wikipedia article pointed to by Loob's link:


"However, such a classification _should be used carefully_, a spoken language being less settled than a written language; thus the way the rhythm is produced may vary from one region to another, or with time" _(my emphasis)_
"Romance languages are _generally_ syllable-timed" _(again my emphasis)_
I've no idea how significant these qualifiers are, but I thought it worth pointing them out.


----------



## mally pense

franzisca said:


> ...I was only wondering if any of you, learning a new language, is already able to understand some little o big differences in the tongue, dependin the part of the country they're coming from..
> but this is totally O.T.





mally pense said:


> I don't see how it's off topic. It's certainly relevant if the differences make the spoken word in speakers from different parts of the country less or more trouble to understand.





franzisca said:


> And have you ever had this kind of problem?


 
Sorry it's taken me a little while to respond to this dialogue from earlier in this thread (end of page 3, start of page 4), but the subsequent discussions took on some different directions. However, it does seem relevant and on topic, so I hope no-one minds me reviving it, even at this late stage...

However, I thought perhaps it deserved it's own thread, so I've started a new discussion here:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=607050

I will eventually post a reply to the question "And have you ever had this kind of problem?", but for the moment have concentrated in simply creating the new discussion.


----------



## Loob

On the syllable-timed vs stress-timed point: I'm finding spoken Portuguese much more difficult to learn than spoken Spanish, despite the fact that my mother-tongue and peninsular Portuguese are both stress-timed languages.

Perhaps syllable-timed languages are, in general, easier to "hear"?

Loob


----------



## john_riemann_soong

I always thought French had a closer rhythm to English than say, Mandarin to English. Or maybe tone affects perception of stress and rhythm ...


----------



## mally pense

I can't comment on the relative closeness of the different sets of languages in this respect (not being familiar with anything other than Spaniish and French), but for me, realising the importance of, and beginning to understand and appreciate the nature of the differences in respect to rhythm, was a key to progressing in understanding and speaking French.


----------



## Arrius

What is all this talk about stress and syllable timed languages? I thought I knew a little about linguistics, but although I have heard of this before, I have never seen it dealt with in print. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have anything on it. Can anybody please provide me and anybody else interested in this subject with a useful link that may enlighten us and help us to decide how far this is a valid consideration?


----------



## mally pense

> Can anybody please provide me and anybody else interested in this subject with a useful link that may enlighten us and help us to decide how far this is a valid consideration?


 
There is a link in Loob's earlier post, but it is easy to miss (just consisting of a hyperlinked "here"). Here it is again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllable-timed_language

_I make no claims as to the quality or veracity of the information given in this link - I am merely reposting it from the earlier post._


----------



## john_riemann_soong

mally pense said:


> I can't comment on the relative closeness of the different sets of languages in this respect (not being familiar with anything other than Spaniish and French), but for me, realising the importance of, and beginnning to understand and appreciate the nature of the differences in respect to rhythm, was a key to progressing in understanding and speaking French.



I know French had a different rhythm, but the rhythm seems to be just another take on the English style stress-timing. Perhaps it's because Chinese makes its syllables last so long ...


----------



## Arrius

Thank you. *mally pense*. I must have been phrasing my search words badly. But there doesn't seem to be very much here and the little there is is extremely woolly. I shall try to learn more about the subject, but at present, especially in view of the reservations expressed in the brief articles, I tend to think it is once more a case of the "Emperor's New Clothes" in linguistics circles.


----------



## john_riemann_soong

If you want to contrast syllable-timed and stress-timed within English, compare standard English versus Singlish.


----------



## Outsider

This interesting article, which seems relevant here, was posted in another thread about how fast different languages are spoken. It challenges the stress-timed/syllable-timed dichotomy. Also interesting is that if you look in Wikipedia there is a third category called *mora-timed*. Perhaps Singlish is mora-timed...


----------



## jga68

> I've been giving myself a bit of an immersion course in listening to French as much as possible. That means having French radio on (via the internet - marvellous!) a lot of the time even if I'm not actually listening and even if I'm not understanding. Before long you start recognising words and phrases, and that helps put together the rest of what you're hearing, but I'm sure it's also helpful to also actively try recognising words and phrases from time to time so that you can start to consciously listen and understand. For this, it's almost certainly a good idea to ALSO listen to sources where the actual words are available to you, either as a separate text (e.g. with course material) or as subtitles etc.



I definitely agree with this post!  I have been studying Italian for about a year, and lately have been listening to Italian radio while I work.  Though I don't consciously try to translate it, over time it has really helped with my comprehension.  (For radio stations around the world, do a search for "Mike's Radio World".  I also bought a CD by an Italian singer I love, and it's amazing how over time the lyrics become clearer and clearer to me.  I really believe there's a lot to be gained by surrounding yourself by your target language and letting the rhythms, structures and sounds seep into your subconscious.  Certainly we all had that experience as kids when we learned our native languages!

Case in point: when I went to Italy last November I was so excited to practice my Italian -- and I was crushed when I realized how poor my audio comprehenson was.  Words flew by me in a whirlwind -- and while I could recognize individual words, my brain didn't know how to put them together into actual phrases.  Yet, when I got home and returned to class, I was astonished at how much my comprehension had improved in that setting.


----------



## Qcumber

Nick Junior, the frequency areas (called formants, and measured in Hz) of the sounds of a given language may be different from those of the sounds of another. So at the beginning your brain eliminates them as mere noise.

There are training programs for students of a foreign language. These programs draw the learner's attention to formants which are unimportant in the learner's language, but significant in the new language. Such programs are now available on DVDs that you can play on your computer.

In the case of English, in addition to the different formants, you'll have to get used to stress. It's a matter of time until you brain is tuned to the stress patterns of English.

Good luck.


----------



## mally pense

> There are training programs for students of a foreign language. These programs draw the learner's attention to formants which are unimportant in the learner's language, but significant in the new language. Such programs are now available on DVDs that you can play on your computer.


 
My internet search for these _(formant language training)_ turned up "Stabilizer training wheel for bicycle" as the first result, and "Toilet training chamber pot" as the second. Do you have any further details for those of us who might be interested?


----------



## Arrius

Various contributors to this thread have mentioned that they were using or had used "total Immersion" to learn a foreign language. Pointing out that speech is rendered far more comprehensible if one can simultaneously watch connected video footage, I have already provided the link to the very useful site *Euronews *at post *#50*. Another free site, _*BeelineTV*,_ which relays TV programmes in a wide range of languages, including English, Spanish, both varieties of Portuguese, Italian, French, German, and even Arabic and Chinese, is at:
http://beelinetv.com/
I wish those interested happy and fruitful viewing.
By the way, having no satellite dish, I have been using this site for two or three years, and it appears to be quite free from viruses or Trojan horses.


----------



## mally pense

As one of the aforementioned contributors, I have to say that the _'immersion'_ aspect only really works with an _audio_ source, e.g. radio, because otherwise you're having to divert too much attention to it to be able realistically to sustain the effort and at the same time get on with the rest of what you have to do in life.

_('Immersion' in my own posts merely refers to hearing as much of the target language as possible, even if not consciously trying to listen and understand)._

Having said that, it's always useful to have audio-visual sources as well, though surprisingly, I find myself watching them very little despite their ready availability on the internet via sites like Beeline TV as described by Arrius (thanks for the link). I don't know if BeelineTV has already been added to the appropriate list in the Resources Forum but if not, it would be a good idea to add it [EDIT: Done, see below]. (I should probably add http://wwitv.com to it myself, an extremely comprehensive site covering a claimed 2572 online TV stations at the time of writing, and from experience sampling some of those links, most of them do actually connect to a live source.

For anyone wanting to browse or add online radio or TV sources to these lists, the two most relevant lists seem to be:


Audio-Visual: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=184222
Audio: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=47616
EDIT: I've just added both BeelineTV and wwITV to the audio-visual list, though it is still subject to moderator approval at the time of writing. _(I hope Arrius does not mind me having taken the initiative on this. I have credited the information to him of course)._


----------



## Arrius

Not at all, *mally pense*. I was going to suggest anyway that the moderator should do it after approval, and whilst they are at it also list the very useful *Euronews* site which I posted at *#50* on this very thread, assuming that it hasn't already been included. I require no credit.

However, as regards, your observation,
*I* *have to say that the 'immersion' aspect only really works with an audio source, e.g. radio, because otherwise you're having to divert too much attention to it to be able realistically to sustain the effort,*
I beg to disagree.

Radio or a tape recording have the advantage that they can be used to improve your comprehension of a foreign language or just listen to something that interests you in your own tongue, whilst taking a bath, cooking dinner, or trying to cut your toenails without mishap. But a DVD, a VHF cassette or a TV programme provides visual clues to comprehension that an entirely acoustic signal does not. This enables you to tell at a glance whether a speaker is discussing the threat of extinction posed to the wildlife of the Arctic by global warming, or if they are giving you instructions on preparing a complicated dish to eat - and that is so , even if the language used is totally unknown to you such as Albanian or Basque. Adults do not learn in the same way as babies, but the latter are certainly subjected to total immersion, and are greatly assisted in the acquistion of language by what they see as well as what they hear, and, of course, by using their other senses too. So, when we have time, it is wise for us to add visual stimulus, at least, to the aural.
I know for a fact that both Portuguese and Italian give me far more difficulties on the radio than, say, when I select those respective soundtracks on a DVD (which can be further supported by subtitles in the same language, even if these are worded but rarely in the same way). Then I can get virtually everything.


----------



## mally pense

I think the disagreement here is partly over my personal use of the word 'immersion'. By grace of my habitual signature and county of residence, I claim the right "to use it to mean just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less" _(Lewis Carrol). _For me personally, I cannot immerse myself in the language if it means having to stop what I'm doing and watch a video instead. I can do that part of the time, but that to me is not immersion, or at least not in the sense that I'm personally using it. I note also that you're referring to 'total immersion', and I would happily agree that what I'm doing is far from that. I may be wrong, but in any case, I think I've qualified my use of the word with "a kind of" or quotes or similar in some of my posts - I'm aware that I'm not familiar with what has already been defined using the word 'immersion'.

Anyway, verbal niceties aside, I seriously have not found any great advantage in watching video, or at least not enough to justify me doing it on a cost/benefit analysis of the dedicated study time needed vs the additional benefit it gives over listening to (or just hearing) radio only. If I was trying to learn a completely new language from scratch, the case would be different because I certainly would need visual clues and cues in the absence of any other starting points, but I seem to have reached the stage now where I can usually (or maybe just 'often') tell fairly quickly what is being discussed, even if there are still occasions when factors conspire against me to leave me almost completely clueless.

When I started looking around for online TV and video sites, I seriously thought they would make comprehension easier. In practice, I've been disappointed to find that they don't really add that much - not to me anyway. We're all different though, and your experience and that of other forum members may differ.

I'd be interested in other people's thoughts on this. I'm not trying to evangelise any particular way of learning. What I'm doing for myself is very much by way of a personal experiment (and I make no claims to it's uniqueness obviously), but it certainly seems to be working unless I'm deluding myself (which is possible), and I have to say, when I'm concentrating on what's being said rather than just having it in the background, it gives me a lot of amusement and satisfaction. I've simply not found the same degree of reward in watching videos.

EDIT: The other point, which I think is important, is that I seriously don't care if I don't understand a word, a phrase, a sentence, a paragraph or even a whole programme. I don't worry if I don't understand it at all in fact. The whole point to me is that I'm not trying too hard to consciously learn the language, but eventually I hope, more and more of it will start to sink in by sheer virtue of becoming more familiar, whether understood or not. It could be argued in fact that the less I've understood, the more I've benefited: if I understood it all in one go I'd be wasting my time, nothing more to learn (or assimilate). The pieces of the jigsaw that are eventually starting to fit together are all snippets of audio too. I'm not quite sure how visual cues fit into that scenario, though I'm sure if I could spend most of my days watching French TV, they would start to play their part, and no doubt very effectively too. However that is a luxury I can't afford.

DearPrudence had already mentioned Euronews in the resources list or I would have added it too.


----------



## Arrius

_Total _immersion? Outside the country where the foreign language is spoken, total immersion is virtually impossible, but even if we cannot achieve this ideal in practice, we can ar least get both our legs into the language bath, or if we feel even that to be impossible, at least a tentative toe will afford us a little progress. But we must be devoted to or at least keen on our objective: as in weight training, no gain without pain! But in both fields there is pleasure too.


----------



## mally pense

Very true, though as I've said in my earlier posts, it's important to also pursue language skills _actively_ in order to fit together more and more parts of the jigsaw, I don't want to end up repeating myself, but this mostly passive aural immersion is just part of a wider program of learning activity, and so is not without pain as you put it. However, I would still argue that having a radio on in the background throughout _most_ of the day is far more 'immersive' than however many hours of the day you can afford to devote to watching TV or video.


----------



## scotu

I agree with mally pense. Watching TV without translating and gradual absorbotion works for me. This is the way children learn their language.

Some additional ideas on the TV thing. 
· If you know what is happening on the show, understanding the language comes easier and more naturally so watch shows that relate to your interest (sports, cooking) or shows like Animal Planet and Discovery. (This may only work if you are living in the country speaking the target language.) In EEUU most cities have Spanish stations if Spanish is the target.
· Read the (international) news, watch it in your language, then watch it on TV in the target language. Don't translate, just listen. Read it one language then in the other. The BBC/CNN web sites and cable news casts are good tools for this
· Buy or rent DVDs that have tracks in both languages. Watch in your language then in the target language. (harry potter movies for example)
· If TV isn't your thing, buy a pair of books one in your language and its equal in the target language. Read a page in your language and then in the target language. Try to understand, not translate.
· Most librarys have dual language books. Especially childrens books. These are a good tool.
· Classic childrens stories, Snowwhite, Cinderella, Pinoccio, etc.
These tricks have helped me, maybe they'll work for you?

scotu


----------



## LaLoquita

All of you who are learning or have learned English as a second (or third, or whatever!) language have my complete admiration! I grew up speaking English, and it is a very difficult language. Not only do you have the fact that there are more exceptions to the rules than there are rules (or so it seems!), but so many of us are "lazy" speakers. Words are slurred together, vowels softened, g's dropped from gerunds, there are so many idioms and so much slang that you could go crazy. 

I was sitting in on a new hire orientation at work Friday (I am there to provide interpretation and translation for non-English-speaking Hispanic employees, as needed) and as I was listening to the facilitator, I just kept thinking how difficult it must be for our new employees to understand her. She's educated, smart, a good teacher--but she speaks very casual English. (Makes it very difficult to interpret, too!)

Like all our other friends have done here, Nick Jr, I encourage you to keep trying and your listening comprehension will improve. Listening is one of the hardest parts of learning a foreign language, but the more you do it, the easier it will be.

Good luck!


----------



## mally pense

> new hire orientation


 
You forgot to mention _jargon_ in your list!


----------



## tinlizzy

LaLoquita you are so right. At work last week I said to a co-worker who had a raspy voice, "It sounds like you have what I feel like I'm getting." Then, because of this forum, I thought how in the world would that sound to a person learning English.

Do adult learners of foreign language have the same "language burst" that toddlers have?


----------



## scotu

tinlizzy said:


> Do adult learners of foreign language have the same "language burst" that toddlers have?


Very interesting question! For me there were a three "bursts":
1. When I could travel in a country and speak the language well enough to get a room, a meal, a date, a drink, a ticket, ask where the bathrooms were, etc. 
2. When I could actually carry on a meaningful conversation with a local.
3. When I could understand a TV program without translating in my mind. 

I would think that there probably are experts and books on this subject, I anxious to hear if anyone knows more about it? 

scotu


----------



## Arrius

Further to *Laloquita*'s post: native English speaker who know only their own language (which is usually the case) are often quite oblivious of how exotic and unintelligible the idioms they use seem to listeners with English as a second or foreign language. I remember a recently arrived English maths teacher chatting in the common room with an African colleague, who described a student as being "thick as two short planks", then changing the subject he informed his bewildered listener that his washing machine had "gone for a burton" (and much of the same). The African colleague was too embarrassed to ask him what the hell he was talking about.
As possibly not even our American friends are familiar with these idioms, "thick as two short planks" means extremely stupid, and "gone for a burton" is ruined, broken, kaputt.


----------



## mally pense

scotu said:


> Very interesting question! For me there were a three "bursts":
> 1. When I could travel in a country and speak the language well enough to get a room, a meal, a date, a drink, a ticket, ask where the bathrooms were, etc.
> 2. When I could actually carry on a meaningful conversation with a local.
> 3. When I could understand a TV program without translating in my mind.
> 
> I would think that there probably are experts and books on this subject, I anxious to hear if anyone knows more about it?
> 
> scotu


 
Is this the same type of "language burst" that tinlizzie was referring to I wonder?

I ask mainly because I've been thinking of starting a "landmarks or milestones in learning a language" discussion, and it seems to me that these are examples of such milestones. I'm not sure if this is what tinlizzy was thinking of or not, but perhaps it would be better to have any follow-up which is specifically on the subject of such landmarks or milestones in a (new) separate thread in any case?


----------



## tinlizzy

mally pense said:


> Is this the same type of "language burst" that tinlizzie was referring to I wonder?


 
It actually was what I was trying to understand. Is there a sudden burst in understanding. Not just that it gets easier but the language clicks (the words are audible and seem slower) _suddenly._


----------



## mally pense

tinlizzy said:


> It actually was what I was trying to understand. Is there a sudden burst in understanding. Not just that it gets easier but the language clicks (the words are audible and seem slower) _suddenly._


 
I think you can suddenly _realise_ that your level of understanding has improved noticably (hence the milestones/landmarks), but I think the process itself remains largely gradual. (Though I stand to be corrected on this if anyone has any thoughts to the contrary).

But this is exactly why I thought it might be useful to have this separate discussion about landmarks. It's easy for it to seem as if progress is very slow and difficult, and you don't actually realise or appreciate just how the day-by-day improvements are accumulating until _suddenly you realise_ that you can now do something tangible that you know you couldn't do before.

Do we need a new discussion on this? Already it feels like we're not actually discussing the problems (as per the topic), but the progress, or the perception of the progress.


----------



## badgrammar

I find it is easy to understand spoken words in a language you are learning IF  you are pretty sure of what is going to be said to you.  For example, if you ask for a cup of coffee, you can expect to hear something about "Would you like sugar or cream with that?".  If you ask for a cup of coffee and the person says "sorry it'll be just a minute, we're brewing some more...", then you're totally lost.  

Or you're asking for directions, and you expect the answer to be something like "go that way, then right, then left, etc..." and the answer is "Nobody goes there on Sunday..." then you're totally lost.  

If you ask for the price of something, and you expect to hear a number but the person says "Which one, the black one or the red one?", again you're lost. 

Which is what also makes it difficult to follow/participate in a free-form discussion, where you have no idea what is coming next.  

But in general it is said that when you first learn a language it is hard to know where one word ends and another begins.  Which is why I, like someone mentioned before, try to slow down and seperate each word when speaking to someone learning English or French.  

I wish people always did this for people beginning to learn their language, and would repeat what they said again in the same way, then give you time to process and respond.  And would use very simple verb tenses.


----------



## mally pense

mally pense said:


> I think you can suddenly _realise_ that your level of understanding has improved noticably (hence the milestones/landmarks), but I think the process itself remains largely gradual. (Though I stand to be corrected on this if anyone has any thoughts to the contrary).
> 
> But this is exactly why I thought it might be useful to have this separate discussion about landmarks. It's easy for it to seem as if progress is very slow and difficult, and you don't actually realise or appreciate just how the day-by-day improvements are accumulating until _suddenly you realise_ that you can now do something tangible that you know you couldn't do before.
> 
> Do we need a new discussion on this? Already it feels like we're not actually discussing the problems (as per the topic), but the progress, or the perception of the progress.


 
Sorry to reply to my own post, but I have in fact now started a new thread on this topic:

"Landmarks / milestones in learning a language" :
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=3448906

Please feel free to contribute. I think it could be an interesting discussion.


----------



## scotu

tinlizzy said:


> It actually was what I was trying to understand. Is there a sudden burst in understanding. Not just that it gets easier but the language clicks (the words are audible and seem slower) _suddenly._


 
"They speak so fast" is what I hear most often from people trying to understand another language. It seems fast because the speaker is three sentences ahead of you while you are still trying to understand the first sentence. When you understand the other language to the point that you can think in the language without mentally translating it, it no longer seems so "fast". I think this must be a different process than knowing the rules and grammar of the language.


----------



## mally pense

scotu said:


> When you understand the other language to the point that you can think in the language without mentally translating it, it no longer seems so "fast". I think this must be a different process than knowing the rules and grammar of the language.


 
I'm not sure it's even a question of "thinking". When you're familiar enough with the language through repeated exposure, it seems to me that the brain does most of the processing _without_ thinking (whether in your own language or the language you are learning) using the innate language processing capabilities which we all have. The problem beginning language learners have is that they are having to think to compensate for the lack of automated processing and language recognition, and of course, the pace of normal speach simply does not allow for that amount of thinking to be done in the time available.

This is why understanding spoken language seems so impossible and unachievable a task during the earlier stages of learning. Being able to magically "think" fast enough to understand at the spoken pace seems impossible, and in fact, _is_ impossible I would suggest. That's why we need to understand the importance of training the brain to do the automated tasks. In my own case, I'm convinced now that my 'immersion' listening to online radio has been an essential part of the process, even without necessarily consciously trying to understand or worrying about not understanding what I'm hearing much of the time.


----------



## scotu

mally pense said:


> In my own case, I'm convinced now that my 'immersion' listening to online radio has been an essential part of the process, even without necessarily consciously trying to understand or worrying about not understanding what I'm hearing much of the time.


 
I call this passive learning. It has worked for me too, (I use the telly.) It works great for comprehension, every day I can understand a little more and re-enforce words and phrases that I know but that I am still "translating." 

Unfortunately passive learning it doesn't do much for my grammar. That seems to require good old fashion hard work.


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

Being an interpreter and translator, I am an advanced learner of English, but although I am able to perform a simultaneous translation, I realize that it requires a great amount of concentration with a subsequent headache (but the context is that of a congress or seminar where everybody speaks very clearly)

And My greatest concern is that I have difficulties understanding when people speak among them in an informal context, and even more when I try to watch a movie in English.

I'm not anymore in the phase where I need to mentally translate : I associate English words with their corresponding concepts, but the difficulty in listening comprehension remained.

Does anyone have a suggestion to improve my listening comprehension, considering my "advanced level" ?

Thanks a lot


----------



## scotu

Lavinia.dNP said:


> And My greatest concern is that I have difficulties understanding when people speak among them in an informal context, and even more when I try to watch a movie in English.
> 
> Does anyone have a suggestion to improve my listening comprehension, considering my "advanced level" ?


 
Try renting movies on  DVD's that have multi language tracts. Watch them in your language then re-watch them in the target language.


----------



## Arrius

On top of this unwillingness of some people to slow down a bit for the poor foreigner, or even to leave a little space between the sentences so that you can catch up, there is what I would call the "I'm not going to understand this foreigner whatever he says" - syndrome that may come into play when they hear you have an accent which causes the person at the other end of the line to start talking excruciatingly horrible English, insist on fetching someone else who allegedly can speak English or, if you ask them politely to repeat something too technical and complicated for you to have understood right off even in your own language, even to ring off abruptly. It may sound sexist, but it is a fact, that I have never had this trouble when talking on the 'phone to men. Don't get me wrong, some ladies who call you up out of the blue on some technical or business matter are the soul of courtesy and even motherly in their approach.


----------



## jolynnn

hmmmm, for the english language, i have problems understanding the british accent though i can understand every other accent. i never could comprehend why i cannot understand the brit accent. :/ and to me, spanish is just sooooo fast. i'll need like a whole minute (30 seconds, minimum) to understand what the person has just said even if it's just "como esta usted". :/


----------



## jolynnn

scotu said:


> Just a suggestion, all of the above require capital letters in English.



Oooops, sorry.


----------



## mally pense

Lavinia.dNP said:


> Being an interpreter and translator, I am an advanced learner of English, but although I am able to perform a simultaneous translation, I realize that it requires a great amount of concentration with a subsequent headache (but the context is that of a congress or seminar where everybody speaks very clearly)
> 
> And My greatest concern is that I have difficulties understanding when people speak among them in an informal context, and even more when I try to watch a movie in English.
> 
> I'm not anymore in the phase where I need to mentally translate : I associate English words with their corresponding concepts, but the difficulty in listening comprehension remained.
> 
> Does anyone have a suggestion to improve my listening comprehension, considering my "advanced level" ?
> 
> Thanks a lot


 
It seems a little crazy me even contemplating giving advice to a professional interpreter, but I'd say the answer is essentially the same, namely that it's a question of exposure. In this case, not to the reasonably formal, measured language and vocabulary of the congress and the seminar, but the very different speach patterns, rhythms and vocabulary of everyday speech. Also the complications that arise from there being no formal structure to the conversation: incomplete sentences, interruptions, two or more people talking at once, sudden changes in topic, "in jokes", idioms, references to current films or TV programs, completely different vocabulary, etc. There's also the problem that there are far more likely to be sonic distractions in an informal context, e.g. background music, general chatter, traffic noise, ventilation systems etc.

I don't know how you go about getting that exposure. There are practical limits to what you can do, but the ideal would of course be to spend time as much time as possible in the target group or target culture, e.g. living in London rather than Paris, but as I say, there are practical limits.

Films are a different matter too. I'm not an expert on watching films because it's something I don't do much even in English, but it seems to me that in many films the dialogue is intentionally sparse in a way that would not normally happen in real life. It heightens the dramatic effect, and helps keep the film moving, but it doesn't provide the repetition and redundancy that often exist in real world dialogue - and of course it doesn't give you the chance to say "Sorry, I missed that, would you mind repeating it?". Personally, I'm not too worried about films, but obviously for anyone who _is_ keen on films, that's a different priority, but either way, don't assume that difficulty in following the dialogue in films is necessarily representative of real life.


----------



## Arrius

Lord Byron, the poet and adventurer, said (and it was typical of him) "If you want to learn a language, take a two-eared dictionary".  By this he meant a foreign companion of the opposite sex. Naturally, one's domestic circumstances and other considerations may prevent one from putting into practice this sound advice from a man with great experience in this matter.


----------



## tinlizzy

NickJunior - This link may be a fun way to practice listening.


----------



## argentina84

Arrius said:


> Lord Byron, the poet and adventurer, said (and it was typical of him) "If you want to learn a language, take a two-eared dictionary". By this he meant a foreign companion of the opposite sex. Naturally, one's domestic circumstances and other considerations may prevent one from putting into practice this sound advice from a man with great experience in this matter.


 
hahaha Great advice! I would like to put it into practice...

One good way to practice listening is watching films or listening to the radio. They can make up for the lack of a "two-eared dictionary"!  It is wonderful how Lord Byron keeps on surprising me!


----------



## Encolpius

First of all do you agree there are languages which are easier to understand and vice versa? I think languages with vowel reduction (English, French, European Portuguese, Danish) are very difficult to understand and that's not the worst because most learners' primary method is reading and not studying by listening, they are more used to the written language. On the other hand languages without vowel reduction or lower level (German, Russian, Italian, Brazilian Portuguese) are easier to understand. 

But I have learnt the more you want to understand what you hear the less you understand it. So my advice is do not concentrate on what they are saying, just relax and you'll hear what you need to hear. Most learners think they have to hear every sound, you must learn what you have to hear.


----------

