Kato Lomb and reading dictionaries

[LeifGoodwin]

@Obsttorte

You argumented for your point of view and I brought up counterarguments.

In British English we would say argued. I cannot speak for Americans, as they are still getting to grips with our language, (Yes, that last sentence was humour, please don’t take it seriously. But American usage might be different,)

@Obsttorte

So you are playing at reduced difficulty, so to speak. In speech you consider learning it to mean that you can understand everything at fast pace. But in written form you are okay if you do it slowly. This isn’t a proper comparision. Learning to read a language imho implies that I can skim read something and understand its content, as I can do it in my native language or in English, too, and not just to be able to understand it if I read it at my own pace, which could be super slow. If you set the bar for reading way lower then for listening, it is not surprising that you consider one thing to be more difficult then the other.

It seems that you are post hoc applying your own conditions. I think most of us would consider speech harder because it is a real time problem i.e. one has to decode it as the words are produced, whereas one can take one’s time with written language. Obviously if you impose a new condition, that you have to read at speaking pace, then reading acquires many of the issues associated with listening.

[gaoli]

@Obsttorte

If you set the bar for reading way lower then for listening, it is not surprising that you consider one thing to be more difficult then the other.

I agree. But it is not me “setting a bar”. I am pointing out a real-world imbalance, not creating one.

Reading speed is not an issue. It is not part of language skill level tests, as far as I know. Every native speaker reads at a different speed, and writes at a different speed. It doesn’t matter if most people can read a sentence in 20 seconds, and it takes you 40. I agree that there is still learning. If it takes you 300 seconds, you are not fluent yet. But there is no specific time limit.

Speed is a consideration in speech. There is a time limit. People speak at different speeds, but there is a range of speaking speeds that is considered normal. TV shows and movies are all in this range. Normal conversations are in this range. A “fluent” person can understand any speech in this range. In many languages (I won’t say “all”), an A2 learner cannot do this.

@Obsttorte

Learning to read a language imho implies that I can skim read something and understand its content, as I can do it in my native language or in English

I can’t do that in my native English. I was never taught the “skim read” skill. It is not part of the skill of reading, in my opinion. I am not really sure what “skim reading” is. Do you identify every word? If not, the meaning might be wrong. If so, how is it different from “reading”?

[Obsttorte]

@LeifGoodwin

In British English we would say argued.

Ooops.

@LeifGoodwin

It seems that you are post hoc applying your own conditions. I think most of us would consider speech harder because it is a real time problem i.e. one has to decode it as the words are produced, whereas one can take one’s time with written language. Obviously if you impose a new condition, that you have to read at speaking pace, then reading acquires many of the issues associated with listening.

Well, if you want to compare two things I would assume that you should do it in a way that makes them comparable. Stating that weight lifting is easier then sprinting just because you can lift 20 pounds but are unable to run 100 meters in less then 10 seconds is a bit odd, isn’t it. And it isn’t really as if I would impose new conditions, because there weren’t any to begin with. Just a very general statement that in its generality has not been proven by him, so I question it. I am not questioning his personal perception, though.

@gaoli

Reading speed is not an issue. It is not part of language skill level tests, as far as I know. Every native speaker reads at a different speed, and writes at a different speed. It doesn’t matter if most people can read a sentence in 20 seconds, and it takes you 40. I agree that there is still learning. If it takes you 300 seconds, you are not fluent yet. But there is no specific time limit.

Speed is a consideration in speech. There is a time limit. People speak at different speeds, but there is a range of speaking speeds that is considered normal. TV shows and movies are all in this range. Normal conversations are in this range. A “fluent” person can understand any speech in this range. In many languages (I won’t say “all”), an A2 learner cannot do this.

I can only partially agree on this. The statement in regards to reading speed in language tests is right as much as that you only have to be able to read fast enough in order to finish the test in time, and this might not be super fast. However, if the main goal in language acquisition isn’t to pass a test but to be able to use it, things can change if your application of the language requires you to read a lot of complicated texts within a limited amount of time. Of course, you might still be able to accomplish what’s neccessary if you are slow, but than it is still a hinderance. And the lack of reading skills even or especially for native speakers is a hinderance when it comes to education. I am not sure whether the ability to be able to understand what’s been said in movies outweights the independence in education one gets when beeing able to comprehendible read large amounts of text in a proper time frame, allowing him for a better job perspective and live quality, for example. So you assume a “real-world imbalance” due to you weighting the spoken language more then the written one. But that is only your subjective perception.

And btw. I am not able to understand every speech in TV shows and movies in my mother tongue, for example due to dialect, too loud background music and, most often, fast and unclear speaking actors. Does this mean I am not fluent in it?

And an A2 learner isn’t able to understand most written text, either.

@gaoli

I can’t do that in my native English. I was never taught the “skim read” skill. It is not part of the skill of reading, in my opinion. I am not really sure what “skim reading” is. Do you identify every word? If not, the meaning might be wrong. If so, how is it different from “reading”?

Skim reading means that you only read the most important parts of a text. It is actually hard to explain. You basically start by trying to read a text as fast as possible. At some point your brain will start to skip less important parts of the text. Of course, this will mean that details or nuances might get lost, but that isn’t the point of skim reading. It is about getting the basic idea and thoughts of a text.

We were taught that at school, not intensively, but every know and than. However, in the end it requires a lot of reading. And I would say that it is a reading skill. How important it is depends on how much you rely on working with texts, though.