AlexandreC Wrote:@kazalee Japanese and Spanish have 5 vowel sounds each. That's a fact. I'm not sure why you think it sounds or feels like more... but it's still 5.

As long as one does not consider voiced and devoiced versions of the same vowel to be different, and as long as one considers dipthongs to be the slurring of two vowels and not a new vowel sound, and does not consider the other sound changes that may accompany the change from short to long vowel to actually create a different vowel sound, and as long as one considers different pronunciations from different regional accents to be regional variation of the same vowel sound and not different vowel sounds... as long as all of that is one's viewpoint then it's a fact in Japanese that there are only 5 vowel sounds.

undead_saif Wrote:So, what improved my listening ability? [...] Songs naturally fit to this task, their lyrics are available and we constantly repeat them, that's it!

That's something that was my experience with learning English as well.

I remember quite well, when in my 4th year of English study, our teacher got us to listen “Feelin' Groovy” by Simon And Garfunkel. We felt completely down when we could not understand 95% of the lyrics. We asked ourselves a question “how come people can hear anything in it?” But with time, after constant listening to the same song, more and more of it was becoming comprehensible (and I had similar experience with other English songs). From the time perspective I can say that with every song I was able to parse/understand (and sing, ftm), my listening comprehension, and my general language skills, were getting better. Which is why I don't really understand people on this forum who say that trying to listen and understand Japanese songs is not useful.

I appreciate that English and Japanese have different phonetics but this shouldn't render songs as an ineffective study method. I'm puzzled.

The singing voice doesn't sound much like the spoken voice to begin with, and even less so in Japanese where pitch matters and vowel sounds are short and often slurred together - whereas in singing the pitch follows the melody and the vowel sounds are distinct and drawn out (as in all singing, it's just a sharper contrast in Japanese...). Never mind the totally different rendering of っ ...

I wouldn't say that songs are useless - but I would say that as listening practice, listening to songs makes you better at listening to songs, not speech. On the other hand, for me learning songs is a given since I want to listen to them and understand them for their own sake. I just don't find that understanding song lyrics helps to be better able to understand a newscast or a drama, in terms of listening comprehension. It is of course still constant vocabulary/grammar reinforcement, once you can understand the lyrics of a given song.

I think you can do much better with your time if your goal is to communicate in spoken Japanese, so there's no reason to force yourself to study songs. But if you're -enjoying- learning the songs, it's also true that you'll learn something from them, so why not.

I don't care for rap, but a lot of what I say about singing is probably not very applicable to that kind of chanted vocalization. Although it's not normal speech either it's closer than singing is.

Inny Jan Wrote:From the time perspective I can say that with every song I was able to parse/understand (and sing, ftm), my listening comprehension, and my general language skills, were getting better. Which is why I don't really understand people on this forum who say that trying to listen and understand Japanese songs is not useful.

It's not so much that it doesn't help, but that it's not the most effective thing you can do, in part for the reasons SomeCallMeChris mentions. I have nothing against songs personally, mostly because it can be a valuable source of fun and motivation, but the only other reason I would recommend using songs is if a person is unable to reach fluency. Singing along to moderate- to fast-tempo songs can bring someone to feel what fluency is like (something shadowing could probably also do), but one could also argue that you've simply memorized a routine, that it would have no effect on the rest of your ability... and I would have no counter-argument. You'd need other steps for this to be truly useful, such as using the phrases that you have learned to repeat fluently and modulate them for your own purposes.

But another problem arises when you say "From the time perspective". Over time, we do various things and inevitably improve -- how do you determine what caused the improvement or most of it? Usually, effective techniques don't just work over time, they work relatively quickly.

Well, you guys seem to know better. But there is this think I can't get over. Both undead_saif and myself achieved a reasonable level of fluency in English. The two of us are saying that songs played significant role in the process. Yet, you based on some theories, claim that songs are ineffective way of learning SL. So I can't help asking this question - have you reached, in any language you studied, the level of competency that undead_saif or myself have reached? How many languages do you speak?

And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you should study your target language by means of learning songs - of course I'm not. But I can't see how you can dismiss that from your study methods.

僕は外国語の日本語と母語の英語だけができます。（ドイツ語を勉強することがありますが、ぜんぜん覚えません）日本語がまだヘタで、Inny Janさんが英語で楽にしゃべるほどじゃありません。だけど、十曲以上全部を覚えてったことがあったのに、映画とテレビは全然分かりませんでした。会話とか聞き取り練習とかの後で、テレビ番組と映画を分かることが出来るようになりました。理論がありますが、理論だけのものじゃありません、ある程度の経験もあります。

Inny Jan Wrote:So I can't help asking this question - have you reached, in any language you studied, the level of competency that undead_saif or myself have reached? How many languages do you speak?

I don't know if you're talking to me, but French is my first language, I speak English at near-native level, and I speak German, Spanish and Japanese at an advanced level. (You'll have to take my word for it, but if need be, there is another forum where a few members have confirmed my native-like accent in English and in German). I've also studied 10 other languages.

@SomeCallMeChris

You should watch TV, movies, listen to music, overhearing the neighbors, go to theater, play word games, solve crosswords, be creative (or you can call it "not being serious") at times. Speak, whisper, shout, sing. All these are things that you normally do in your first language - you need to be able to do them in your SL. Otherwise your experience of that other language is limited.

AlexandreC Wrote:You'll have to take my word for it, but if need be, there is another forum where a few members have confirmed my native-like accent in English and in German.

Why not share with others how you achieved this? What were your study methods?

[s0apgun]

A good application I use to take audio from YouTube.

OSX - http://www.mediahuman.com/youtube-to-mp3-converter/

Inny Jan Wrote:Both undead_saif and myself achieved a reasonable level of fluency in English. The two of us are saying that songs played significant role in the process. Yet, you based on some theories, claim that songs are ineffective way of learning SL.

I could have said "you're absolutely right" or "it's absolutely useless" -- but I didn't. What I'm saying is that the usefulness of songs in language acquisition needs to be relativized.

I'm not arguing that listening to songs is not useful, or that it isn't fun -- actually, the fact it's fun is in itself a good reason to use the technique. However, we can debate what you mean by "played a significant role".

If you had increased your use of songs, would you have learned faster? If you say no, then you are agreeing that other things were more efficient. If you say yes, then I'll ask why you didn't put more emphasis on that technique.

In my case, I know that music played a tiny role in my acquisition of English, and that it played next an insignificant role in that of other languages. I also feel that most people I know who have succeeded at learning 2, 3, 4 or more languages share a similar opinion.

We all use a variety of techniques and methods to learn languages, and it takes a fair amount of introspection to determine, years later, which mattered most. Most people tend to favour a few processes over others. It's possible, even likely, some people may have used songs as their main method, but that doesn't make it the most efficient way by default. I'm sure if you analyze carefully exactly what role songs played, you'll come to the conclusion that it was only one of the many things you did. If you conclude otherwise, then post the info; we are all driven by different things and you may be an exception to the rule.

Inny Jan Wrote:@SomeCallMeChris

You should watch TV, movies, listen to music, overhearing the neighbors, go to theater, play word games, solve crosswords, be creative (or you can call it "not being serious") at times. Speak, whisper, shout, sing. All these are things that you normally do in your first language - you need to be able to do them in your SL. Otherwise your experience of that other language is limited.

I agree that variety is good (although much of that list is impossible when not living in Japan), but my point was that no amount of learning songs, studying from books, watching first-language subtitled material, reading manga, or doing written language exchange made it possible for me to comprehend spoken Japanese any better. Only when I specifically practiced spoken listening comprehension did my listening comprehension improve. (And my accent and speech may be permanently terrible as I've neglected any specific focus on that.)

I think, if you want to understand spoken language, you need to practice with spoken language. If you want to understand songs, you need to practice with songs. If you want to understand both, you need to practice with both.

People who are interested in music should certainly learn the lyrics to their favorite songs, just without the expectation that this will give them the ability to pronounce or even understand the same words in spoken form. People who are not interested in music shouldn't force themselves -simply- as a learning exercise. The greatest benefit to learning songs is to be able to understand songs.

(Edit: Also, please notice, I'm talking from the point of view of whether or not songs are, as the title of this thread reads, a good 'technique to improve listening and speaking'... that's what I'm saying they are not particularly good for.)

At last I can see some agreement

AlexandreC Wrote:We all use a variety of techniques and methods to learn languages

SomeCallMeChris Wrote:I agree that variety is good

As for 'how songs are useful' in general, unless there is a serious study on the matter, I don't think we can judge that. I guess it comes down to individual preferences.

Inny Jan Wrote:As for 'how songs are useful' in general, unless there is a serious study on the matter, I don't think we can judge that. I guess it comes down to individual preferences.

Singing a few good songs in Japanese when you go to karaoke with your new Japanese acquaintances could help you find conversation partners.

AlexandreC Wrote:We all use a variety of techniques and methods to learn languages, and it takes a fair amount of introspection to determine, years later, which mattered most.

I would argue that it's even worse than this. People differ in how their minds work, and from the differences I've observed in other language learners it seems that what works for one person is seldom generalizable. So, even if someone has carefully reflected on what worked for them, I think it has limited applicability to other people. It is useful as a data point, but I think to a large extent people need to learn individually what works for them.

IMHO,

CJ

AlexandreC Wrote:@kazalee Japanese and Spanish have 5 vowel sounds each. That's a fact. I'm not sure why you think it sounds or feels like more... but it's still 5.

Is it kekko desu? Or Kaykkoh daysuu?

Could you explain more on exactly why there are only 5 vowels.

kazelee Wrote:

AlexandreC Wrote:@kazalee Japanese and Spanish have 5 vowel sounds each. That's a fact. I'm not sure why you think it sounds or feels like more... but it's still 5.

Is it kekko desu? Or Kaykkoh daysuu?

Could you explain more on exactly why there are only 5 vowels.

There is no reason why it only has 5 vowels... That's just how it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_phonology#Vowels

Perhaps you aren't clear on what vowels are. Every language has a given number of vowels in its vowel inventory. On the lower end, you have languages like Japanese and Spanish with 5, and on the higher end, you've got languages like French with 16 distinct vowels that can be used to distinguish words.

kazelee Wrote:

AlexandreC Wrote:@kazalee Japanese and Spanish have 5 vowel sounds each. That's a fact. I'm not sure why you think it sounds or feels like more... but it's still 5.

Is it kekko desu? Or Kaykkoh daysuu?

Could you explain more on exactly why there are only 5 vowels.

Only 5 vowels are relevant phonologically -- only 5 vowel phonemes produce meaning when permutated with their minimal pair.
While the realisation of the 5 phonemes is phonetics, and can take the shape of maybe dozens different sounds in various context/cotext.

EratiK Wrote:

kazelee Wrote:

AlexandreC Wrote:@kazalee Japanese and Spanish have 5 vowel sounds each. That's a fact. I'm not sure why you think it sounds or feels like more... but it's still 5.

Is it kekko desu? Or Kaykkoh daysuu?

Could you explain more on exactly why there are only 5 vowels.

Only 5 vowels are relevant phonologically -- only 5 vowel phonemes produce meaning when permutated with their minimal pair.
While the realisation of the 5 phonemes is phonetics, and can take the shape of maybe dozens different sounds in various context/cotext.

Ow. That's not very clear, it causes me to search the web to resolve phonological jargon (that means 'find definitions for professional slang terms for people that work on language pronunciation', to clarify for those who think 'resolve phonological jargon' is a pretty obscure phrase in itself.)

Throwing aside some relatively useless examples for the English language and finally arrived at wikipedia (I should've gone straight there, huh?) I find,

Quote:In phonology, minimal pairs are pairs of words or phrases in a particular language, which differ in only one phonological element, such as a phone, phoneme, toneme or chroneme and have distinct meanings. They are used to demonstrate that two phones constitute two separate phonemes in the language.

Really? I feel like I need postgraduate studies in linguistics or phonology or both to understand this clarification of why there are exactly 5 vowels. However, skimming the latin-derived words that I can't be bothered to look up and trying to roughly understand what's left and look at the charts, it seems that it's saying that when you have two words that differ by just one vowel or one consonant, that's a minimal pair.

So, です and だす prove that there are at least two vowels in Japanese to differentiate the 'e' and the 'a', and (we are assured) if we keep doing this for all the words in the Japanese language, we find that only 5 vowels are required?

Which doesn't remotely mean that there are only 5 vowels produced even by the same speaker, only that nobody can hope to be intelligible with less than 5 vowels. If I understood correctly, that is.

Think of it this way. There are a ton of sounds that come out of your mouth, and it's not as if we say [p] exactly the same way every time. But for convenience and mutual intelligibility, your brain creates baskets for these sounds. Take "pun" and "spun." In the first, the "p" is aspirated (said with a small puff of air.) In "spun," the "p" doesn't have that puff of air. (Say them both with your hand in front of your mouth if you want to demonstrate this.) In English, those two sounds go into the same basket -- so native speakers hear them as the same thing and often don't even realize that they're slightly different. In some other languages, you could have two different words -- pun with unaspirated p and pun with aspirated p -- and people would consistently hear them and pronounce them differently.

Japanese has five baskets for vowels. And because there are only five baskets for vowels, each of those vowels gets more room in your mouth before it switches over to being heard as something else. (If you only divided colors into red, blue, yellow, black, and white, then you would lump a lot of other colors -- pink and green and brown -- into one of those baskets or another). I don't know anything about Japanese phonemics, but I would suspect there are situations where the exact pronunciation of the vowel varies depending on what sounds are before and after it -- but they still get lumped into the same basket and heard as the same sound.

SomeCallMeChris Wrote:So, です and だす prove that there are at least two vowels in Japanese to differentiate the 'e' and the 'a', and (we are assured) if we keep doing this for all the words in the Japanese language, we find that only 5 vowels are required?

Exactly.

Let's say you asked 100 people to say the a in だす and you had VERY precise instruments to measure the results (probably in the form of a sound wave). You'd probably find 100 different results. In fact, you'd probably find 100 different results if you, yourself, said the same vowel 100 times. However, you'd also find that all of those sounds meet certain criteria which, to the ears of native speakers of the language, qualify them as the same vowel. The sounds of human languages are such that a certain degree of variation is allowed to ensure comprehension between individuals.

In the case of vowels, it's a bit as if they each occupied a small space in the mouth, like a bubble. The sound can move around that space and keep its identity, but once the boundaries are crossed, the sounds become ambiguous. In languages with more vowels, an error often means you've said a different vowel as the space between them is much smaller. The space given to the vowels of each language differs, and so the space of one vowel in language A may partly cover the space of 2 vowels in language B. In the case of dialects within the same language, the spaces have often shifted a bit, but their relationship to one another remains consistent. It's also natural that over time, say over centuries, these spaces inevitably move, shift and vary in every language.

Apart from space, vowels also vary in several features such as length, nasality, tension, etc., and again, whether these features are distinctive or not will depend on the language. For instance, vowels can become nasal in English and Japanese when a nasal consonant follows (cf. bank, shinbun), but not in French or Portuguese because nasal vowels are a distinct set of vowels.

This is roughly how phonetics (which measures the exact sounds made) can indeed reveal that speakers make a lot of different vowel sounds, while phonology (which groups all these sounds' features to identity the few units that we call vowels) will conclude that languages like Japanese and Spanish only have 5 distinct vowels.

Edit: Fillanzea explained mostly the same thing, but using the basket image. Neat!

AlexandreC Wrote:The space given to the vowels of each language differs, and so the space of one vowel in language A may partly cover the space of 2 vowels in language B.

And it's this that often confuses people. Just because something is considered two distinct sounds in your native language B, that doesn't necessarily mean that the native speakers of A can hear a difference. You'll search high and low for rules as to when you should be saying the first form vs the second form only to find it is highly variable with each individual speaker.

Sometimes. Other times, there are rules, lol.

So... there are more vowels, the speakers of the the language just don't classify it as so?

Interesting.

kazelee Wrote:So... there are more vowels, the speakers of the the language just don't classify it as so?

Interesting.

Every vowel of every language allows for some variation in its pronunciation; it doesn't mean there are more vowels since the language classifies this as a single vowel.

About the songs thing. On purpose I didn't generalize my experience acquiring English on Japanese because they sound different and so I might be wrong.

But the thing with songs that made me mention them here is, they're totally out of the studying area! I walk a lot, and if the songs are already playing, why not make good use of them?
So, I got something from nothing! That indeed is worth mentioning.