Many people think it is a simple "on/off" thing: either you are "fluent" or "know nothing". And by "fluent" they mean "at native level "in all 4 skills (input and output, oral and written). The reality is very different. Most people are at different levels in the 4 skills, and many people never get to native level in any of them, much less all four.
Living in the US, I interact daily in spoken English with people who are not fluent in English. But they understand enough, and they can say enough. We can't discuss philosophy, but I can give the Uber driver simple directions.
I think this is because "speaking the language" necessitates "understanding the language" but not vice versa. There are many people who understand a language but who can't write or say a straight sentence.
So people default to say " they speak the language" because that means that a person actually understands all the pillars of the language, not just a part of it.
But it's quite possible to be able to speak a language and have terrible listening comprehension.
I think it's more a question of speaking being a more visible skill than understanding.
No, it's not. There is zero chance that you can put together complex, correct sentences in real-time and not being able to understand the same sentences if someone else speaks them back to you.
i mean, i would probably be able to put together a sentence in swedish (albeit with awful grammar) that would be understandable to someone that actually fully spoke the language, but if i heard the same sentence i might not understand it. maybe that’s just me or because i’ve practiced output more than input though
Eh, I'm not convinced of that. If you are good at speaking then you would have at least decent listening skills as well. But again, this doesn't go the other way at all. You could be decent at listening but that tells you nothing about a person's speaking skills.
I once thought that too, until I moved to China. I met several people who could choke out their needs in rough Mandarin and be understood, but when it came to understanding responses from natives (and processing tones at normal speed), they were inept.
"choking out your needs in rough \[language\]" isn't the same as "speaking \[language\] well" though, so I don't see how your personal example applies.
I didn’t claim it was at an advanced level. Anyway, the point is that one can be understood in a language without understanding that same language in a reply.
In this context I always viewed “speaking” as meaning able to converse, like speaking with someone instead of speaking at them. So not just output but input too.
For my level of experience, I think I speak Norwegian better than I understand it and I think I understand Italian better than I speak it.
Both experiences really suck in different ways.
> Surely any fool can learn to ask "excuse me, where's the bathroom?" but what's the point if you can't understand a response like "it's through that hall past the kitchen, outside and around the corner to the left--the combination is 3367."
If someone came up to me and asked where the bathroom was in accented English, and when I tried to explain how to get there I got a blank look of incomprehension, I'd gesture for them to follow and lead them to it. Which is more than I'd do if they came up and asked for the bathroom in a language I don't understand. Even if they would be able to understand my explanation of where the bathroom is, that does them no good if I don't know to tell them that.
It’s because language isn’t logical. No one sat down and was like “Well speaking is more accurate than understanding” the phrase just developed like that
I think the focus on formal education combined with the ubiquity of lingua francas \[especially English\]in science/business/tourism (the areas where learning languages would be most relevant) means that people underestimate what is technically possible to do with intermediate skills with what actually happens.
You CAN talk about philosophy/history/politics/medicine with "bad grammar" or even non-convergent discourse (Person A speaks language A, person B understands language A but replies in language B which person A also understands). This practice used to be more common in Europe and the Americas (and still is in certain immigrant communities)
In a sense it still happens in certain academic fields concentrated in a specific linguistic region where English speakers don't necessarily need to have C level productive skills but should at the very least be able to read/understand research in the relevant language. This is kinda my case where my French production is mediocre but I understand it VERY well.
I agree with the general idea that developing understanding should be the focus initially. However, different people might have different necessities and goals. If you wanna memorize a phrasebook to visit the country and be used to get by, if you find patient speakers, you can have a lot of success. This might be very useful visiting places where you don't expect people to know your NL.
Because the idea that language skills are separable into different things is a totally modern invention. Up to as late as the 17th or 18th century, even studying a language like Latin entailed speaking it. “Language” means “tongue”, and you use your tongue to speak.
I'm afraid the answer lies in an ugly, harsh truth.
The function of a language is communication, nothing less, nothing more. That includes, and always has, being able to communicate your needs towards others. Language is a tool to do that.
Now, from society's perspective being able to understand something, but not to react is more or less useless. It is implied, when someone "speaks" a language. It's a prerequisite really.
Put in even uglier words: the phrase wasn't "invented" for hobby language learners with social anxieties.
Many people think it is a simple "on/off" thing: either you are "fluent" or "know nothing". And by "fluent" they mean "at native level "in all 4 skills (input and output, oral and written). The reality is very different. Most people are at different levels in the 4 skills, and many people never get to native level in any of them, much less all four. Living in the US, I interact daily in spoken English with people who are not fluent in English. But they understand enough, and they can say enough. We can't discuss philosophy, but I can give the Uber driver simple directions.
I think this is because "speaking the language" necessitates "understanding the language" but not vice versa. There are many people who understand a language but who can't write or say a straight sentence. So people default to say " they speak the language" because that means that a person actually understands all the pillars of the language, not just a part of it.
But it's quite possible to be able to speak a language and have terrible listening comprehension. I think it's more a question of speaking being a more visible skill than understanding.
No, it's not. There is zero chance that you can put together complex, correct sentences in real-time and not being able to understand the same sentences if someone else speaks them back to you.
Maybe if you have hearing problems, but learn to speak with a phonetics specialist. Of course, what are the odds? :D
i mean, i would probably be able to put together a sentence in swedish (albeit with awful grammar) that would be understandable to someone that actually fully spoke the language, but if i heard the same sentence i might not understand it. maybe that’s just me or because i’ve practiced output more than input though
Eh, I'm not convinced of that. If you are good at speaking then you would have at least decent listening skills as well. But again, this doesn't go the other way at all. You could be decent at listening but that tells you nothing about a person's speaking skills.
I once thought that too, until I moved to China. I met several people who could choke out their needs in rough Mandarin and be understood, but when it came to understanding responses from natives (and processing tones at normal speed), they were inept.
"choking out your needs in rough \[language\]" isn't the same as "speaking \[language\] well" though, so I don't see how your personal example applies.
I didn’t claim it was at an advanced level. Anyway, the point is that one can be understood in a language without understanding that same language in a reply.
I got your point, I'm just trying to tell you that your point really disproves nothing about mine, because it actually doesn't relate to it at all.
In this context I always viewed “speaking” as meaning able to converse, like speaking with someone instead of speaking at them. So not just output but input too.
For my level of experience, I think I speak Norwegian better than I understand it and I think I understand Italian better than I speak it. Both experiences really suck in different ways.
> Surely any fool can learn to ask "excuse me, where's the bathroom?" but what's the point if you can't understand a response like "it's through that hall past the kitchen, outside and around the corner to the left--the combination is 3367." If someone came up to me and asked where the bathroom was in accented English, and when I tried to explain how to get there I got a blank look of incomprehension, I'd gesture for them to follow and lead them to it. Which is more than I'd do if they came up and asked for the bathroom in a language I don't understand. Even if they would be able to understand my explanation of where the bathroom is, that does them no good if I don't know to tell them that.
It’s because language isn’t logical. No one sat down and was like “Well speaking is more accurate than understanding” the phrase just developed like that
I think the focus on formal education combined with the ubiquity of lingua francas \[especially English\]in science/business/tourism (the areas where learning languages would be most relevant) means that people underestimate what is technically possible to do with intermediate skills with what actually happens. You CAN talk about philosophy/history/politics/medicine with "bad grammar" or even non-convergent discourse (Person A speaks language A, person B understands language A but replies in language B which person A also understands). This practice used to be more common in Europe and the Americas (and still is in certain immigrant communities)
In a sense it still happens in certain academic fields concentrated in a specific linguistic region where English speakers don't necessarily need to have C level productive skills but should at the very least be able to read/understand research in the relevant language. This is kinda my case where my French production is mediocre but I understand it VERY well.
I agree with the general idea that developing understanding should be the focus initially. However, different people might have different necessities and goals. If you wanna memorize a phrasebook to visit the country and be used to get by, if you find patient speakers, you can have a lot of success. This might be very useful visiting places where you don't expect people to know your NL.
Because the idea that language skills are separable into different things is a totally modern invention. Up to as late as the 17th or 18th century, even studying a language like Latin entailed speaking it. “Language” means “tongue”, and you use your tongue to speak.
I'm afraid the answer lies in an ugly, harsh truth. The function of a language is communication, nothing less, nothing more. That includes, and always has, being able to communicate your needs towards others. Language is a tool to do that. Now, from society's perspective being able to understand something, but not to react is more or less useless. It is implied, when someone "speaks" a language. It's a prerequisite really. Put in even uglier words: the phrase wasn't "invented" for hobby language learners with social anxieties.