I think this question is too vague to answer very straightforwardly. "Listening comprehension" can mean all kinds of different things. At some level, languages with different features present or absent will obviously necessitate different strategies (for example, consider the listener's problem of figuring out what's a subject and what's an object; to do this in English you need to pay attention to word order, but to do it in German you need to pay attention to case marking, and to do it in Chinese you need to pay attention to a combination of things like animacy, word order, and discourse). On the other hand, there are surely aspects of comprehension that are common to all languages. So the answer to the question depends on how you operationalize "listening comprehension", i.e., what particular aspect of it you're wanting to test.

Frankly only English language is spread wide across continents, whereas other languages have not ventured into such a seriousness of action or spread. 

In this contexts such a language to speak and read as societal language is uncertain of the future, as that is different from the language spoken at home. It requires more ground work to prepare the students through listening, viewing various programs and also participating in actual talk and relevant discussions.

English as a Second Language (ESL) is proven worldwide in children; as it promotes biliteracy/  multi lingual skills thorough various forms.

This is not my field, but is it not logical to assume that listening comprehension of any second language will depend on the similarity of that second language to the listener's native tongue? Similarity in the speaking sounds, certainly similarity in the root of words, and similarity in grammar/sentence structure.

For instance, from one Romance language to another would seem like relatively easy. And too, from a language with complicated grammar, such as German or Latin (strangely similar grammar and sentence structure), to a language in which the grammar is collapsed into something simpler, such as English, ought to be easier than the other way around, no?

Here's one example. In Latin and German, the listener has to do the same sort of process, before the past participle finally arrives. (Usually, the well-trained listener has guessed what the past participle is going to be, by the time it arrives?) It would seem to me that someone trying to understand German, from a language that does not have that sentence structure, would have to adjust to this way of listening. Perhaps the other way around, German to a simpler structure, would be easier.

And the more mundane aspects of noun gender. German and Latin, both with three genders, both very illogical as to what gender is assigned. Most Romance languages simplify this to two genders, but equally illogical and inconsistent. Then English, where it's trivially easy.

Some languages place the adjectives before the noun, some after. Another sentence structure aspect that might make listening comprehension easier or more difficult, depending native language to second language.

I think this question is too vague to answer very straightforwardly. "Listening comprehension" can mean all kinds of different things. At some level, languages with different features present or absent will obviously necessitate different strategies (for example, consider the listener's problem of figuring out what's a subject and what's an object; to do this in English you need to pay attention to word order, but to do it in German you need to pay attention to case marking, and to do it in Chinese you need to pay attention to a combination of things like animacy, word order, and discourse). On the other hand, there are surely aspects of comprehension that are common to all languages. So the answer to the question depends on how you operationalize "listening comprehension", i.e., what particular aspect of it you're wanting to test.

Dear Margarete Imhof,

It seems that a comprehensive model of L2 listening comprehension should bring in all the factors involved  in the listening process. Evidently, a  good number of variables are biological and involve such aspects as memory, cognitive strategies, and attentional control. These variables are universal and are exercised by all human beings; however, linguistic/pragmatic parameters are culture/ linguistic specific. Accordingly, Berne's(2004) suggestion about specificity of linguistic and extra linguistic features of L2 systems is very close to what is actually observed in L2 classrooms.

Best regards,

R. Biria 

Top-down listening skills, such as predicting, inferencing, summarizing and using background knowledge will be the same for all languages. However, the importance of specific bottom-up skills related to sound and word recognition, and to grammatical processing, will vary from language to language. For example students of English will benefit particularly from teaching techniques which raise their awareness of the various sound changes-vowel reduction, changing consonant sounds, etc- which words undergo in continuous speech. Such changes are not exclusive to English, but they are especially problematic for learners of English. Learners of German on the other hand are likely to benefit from training which focuses on "parsing" German word order. 

When discussing the role of language specific factors in listening, it is also important to bear in mind the learners' L1 and its similarity to the target language. In this regard, one interesting question is whether the linguistic ceiling-the proficiency level at which comprehension strategies can transfer from the L1 to the L2 -will depend on the learners' L1 and its relationship to the L2. When two languages are more similar and pose similar listening difficulties, students may be able to transfer listening skills at a lower proficiency level. There may be studies which attempt to provide an answer to this question. Perhaps some other RG contributors can help us here.

I can see that the similiarities between L1 and L2 Keep re-occurring in the discussion of listening strategies. If it is correct that L2 learners benefit from differential instruction which takes into account the characteristics of L1, would this not imply that language teachers need at least some basic competences in the respective L1 to teach listening, or in a more general term, comprehension strategies? - Just a thought spinning off or as a sidetrack to this interesting discussion.

Hi Margarete, 

Yes - an interesting thought. Definitely, the language skills/knowledge of the teacher may be useful for designing appropriate teaching materials, and for being aware of common challenges their students might have. Indeed, if they share an L1 with the students, they may already be aware of some common challenges, or strengths on learning the L2 coming from that particular L1. I guess at a very basic level, it would be beneficial for teachers to be aware that students with different L1s may face different challenges, or find some things easier, than students with other L1s, and they should keep this in mind when designing their materials, or responding to students' needs. And of course, it would be great for teachers to have the opportunity to learn some of the L1, or understand a little about its linguistic features. :-) 

This is an interesting question with respect to learning, and teaching listening comprehension, as well. From experience with a number of different languages I have one observation to contribute, namely that correspondance between letters and sounds might play a major role. This assumption is based on the observation of e.g. learners' progress in understanding spoken Swedish vs. spoken Danish. There is a rather straightforward correspondance between letters and sounds in Swedish and learners find it not very difficult to understand spoken Swedish. The correspondance between letters and sounds in Danish is rather complicated (vowel quality not easily or not at all to be predicted from spelling, many "silent" consonants or consants that "merge" into diphthongs with the preceding vowel, vocalization of r that leads to homophones etc.). Learners are often able to speak Danish to some extend but are unable to understand it without intensive exposure to spoken Danish.

Some of my colleagues http://www.sdu.dk/en/om_sdu/institutter_centre/c_boernesprog even claim that the sound system per se makes it more difficult for Danish children to acquire their native tongue.

From my own experience learning Danish I can add that learning the phonetics of the language and phonetics of connected speech in particular helped a great deal decoding the input and relating it to the written form of the language.

I take the term "listening comprehension" in this question to mean, quite simply, the ability to be able to understand something that is being said in another language well enough to follow the conversation and respond on a level consistent with that on which she responds in her own language. I speak only two languages besides English: French and Spanish. Even though I have given far more attention and study to French, I understand spoken Spanish far more easily than I do French. I have empirically identified two reasons why Spanish is easier for me than French. 1) Spanish seems to have more distinctive sounds, so it is easier for me to tell where one word ends and the next word begins. 2) French is spoken in breath groups rather than in individual words. Perhaps because French has so fewer words than most other languages, it uses specific phrases to get ideas across where English and Spanish could just string a few words together in a more casual order. The word-order of the French phrase is very particular, and the entire meaning is lost if one word is missing or out-of-order. In English and Spanish, a word out-of-place or missing doesn't have near that impact,.  It is possible that because of this use of phrases rather than words to communicate ideas, French is a language which is more inferential than direct. To a person accustomed to stringing more words together rather than to composing an entire phrase, it is hard enough to understand the language when reading it, never mind catching it on the fly when the seemingly mushed-together sounds of the language make it difficult to tell when the phrase starts and ends. I have known many hispanophones who have told me that they find English easier to learn than French. So I tend to agree with Albert Manfredi, who says that ease of attaining an effective level of listening comprehension often depends on similarity of L1 to L2.

 I have not deepened in theoretical perspective about the question proposed, but I would agree with all of you who state that similarity between to languages favors oral comprenhesión skills in L2.   I have taught Spanish for foreign students for 30 years, and my experience confirms that it is easier for the learners acquisition  when a comparison can be stablished between their language and the goal one. Since all competences are involved in communication, all of them should be taken into account when teaching or, better said, when focusing on a specific one.

   As a tool to know about Spanish teaching I would propose Instituto Cervantes' web page, A bibliography about Spanish as foreign language teaching is provided there, and also a wide variety of other pedagogycal means concerning language and culture teaching.

The only thing is that it is in Spanish. Sorry :)

About oral skills I would recommend Dolores Abascal books and papers. Although, again, they are written in Spanish.

http://cvc.cervantes.es/

http://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/default.htm

http://cvc.cervantes.es/el_rinconete/busqueda/busqueda.asp