6

JAMES R. NORD

response has and continues to receive far more attention than aural comprehension.

Problems arise in achieving functional listening ability when a course is developed according to the "A-L" approach and focuses on "oral production" rather than on "aural comprehension". Even the basic materials are not readily useful for a listening approach. First, the emphasis on speaking severely limits the amount of listening comprehension normally taught since it restricts the exposure of vocabulary and structure to those which can and should be spoken. It also limits the type of listening which can be practiced. In most courses oriented to the productive mode of speaking, the vocabulary selection is based less on the actual frequency of use and more on the "utility" from the point of view of the speaker. Finally, the rate one can learn listening comprehension is restricted by the rate at which one can learn to speak, generally a much slower rate.

Many of the early advocates of the "oral approach" recognized the distinction between listening and speaking or receptive and productive skills. Fries, for example, pointed out,
The two complementary aspects of communication are recognized in the two phrases
"oral production" and " receptive understanding" . It seems important to recognize
the fact that one's mastery of any language--even of one's own native language--is
always on two major levels, production and recognition".^{1 9}
He went on to point out,
These two levels are practically never equal. The range of "words" that we can
recognize and understand exceeds that of the "words" we actually use in speech or
even in writing.²⁰
Then, however, he rejected the distinction from any but a conceptual point of view. He stated,
This recognition of the differences between the productive and the receptive controls
of the language does not imply a mechanical separation of the materials into
"practices" in producing for the sake of production only and "practices" in recognition
for the sake of receiving only.²¹

And then he expressed the primary position of the behaviorist school of learning, the basic assumption of the speaking paradigm. "As a matter of fact, practice in production is one of the best means of developing recognition".^{2 2}

This assumption that "practice in production (speaking) is one of the best means of developing recognition (listening)" is not a "matter of fact" . It is an opinion held by many. It is a theoretical position used to justify a general practice. But it is not a matter of fact or data. This paper will argue the other point of view, that "... Iistening carefully in order to hear accurately may be used to advantage in learning to produce"²³, but that speaking before understanding can be detrimental. There appears to be extensive evidence to support the positive transfer from listening to speaking. There also appears to be little evidence of transfer from speaking to listening.

Simon Belasco writes that at the end of the 1960-61 Pennsylvania State University French Institute, he was "jolted by the realization that it is possible to develop so-called 'speaking' ability (vocalizing) and yet be virtually incompetent in understanding the spoken language".²⁴For many years, investigators of child behavior have noted that when children learn their first language, listening comprehension of many complex utterances is demonstrated before these children produce any intelligible speech .^{2 5}There are also cases of youngsters, who because of congenital disability, can never learn to speak; yet they learn to comprehend and are not prevented from comprehending the language because of their inability to speak.²⁶On the other hand, children with listening difficulties, such as deafness, have very great difficulties over learning how to speak.