No, actually it does not. The phrase translated literally is “no one hears (with understanding)”. Got to use a bit of common sense here. The fact that no one understands the speaker, does not automatically assume the speaker himself doesn’t understand what he’s saying. If this phrase were taken completely out of a religious context and used in a general conversation, no one would even question whether the speaker knows what he’s saying or not.
For the modern tongues-speaker, the only way that this phrase can be used to ‘evidence’ the modern phenomenon is if the speaker himself doesn’t understand what he is saying. This is part of the Pentecostal redefinition of certain “tongues texts” in the early 1900’s to justify what it is they were producing, since the original supposition of xenoglossy certainly wasn’t it.
1 Cor 14:14
This one could easily take a few pages to explain properly, but I'll try and sum it up as briefly as possible.....
This passage hinges on the Greek word “akarpos” – which can be used in both in an active sense and in a passive sense.
Most people use it in this passage in the passive sense, i.e. my understanding is unfruitful (to me), or my understanding produces no fruit in/for me. In short, what I'm saying doesn't benefit me as I have no idea what I'm saying even though, as you point out, I am praying a good prayer.
To go off on a bit of a tangent - "Praying in the Spirit" does not refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. In Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the phase has come to be equated with modern “tongues”, i.e. when one “prays in the Spirit”, one is typically engaged in some form of tongues-speech.
Given that Paul, in his letter, calls for clarity and understanding at a public worship such that everyone there can benefit, I (as well as others) would argue for the active sense of ‘akarpos’: that is, my understanding is unfruitful for others, or my understanding produces no fruit for/in others.
In other words, the fact I understand what I’m saying does not benefit anyone else as they don’t speak my language.
Now, before you think using this passage with an active meaning is something far-fetched, or a new concept, or a recent ‘theory’, I would ask you to consider Luther’s Bible of 1534 - written almost 500 years ago, and some 30 years before King James VI and I was even born.
This same passage is rendered (in English) “...my understanding brings no one fruit”. Even almost 500 years ago, the idea of this passage having an active usage was nothing new. Indeed, an active understanding/reading fits better with Paul’s intent of clarity so all may benefit. Further, it's clear here the speaker is praying in a particular (known) language; his native language.
There’s just no evidence whatsoever of modern tongues-speech here. The speaker understands perfectly well what he’s saying; again, it’s the audience who doesn’t understand, and thus does not benefit.
Bottom line - the speaker of "tongues" in the Bible always understands what he is saying - it's the listeners who do not.