Reading TL May Delay Fluency (General discussion) Language Learning Forum

Reading TL May Delay Fluency
Tags: Fluency \| Reading
Share with: Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
Language Learning Forum : General discussion

73 messages over 10 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 3 ... 9 10 Next >>

Serpent
Octoglot
Senior Member
Russian Federation
serpent-849.livejour
Joined 6598 days ago
9753 posts - 15779 votes

4 sounds
Speaks: Russian*, English, Finnish^C1, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese
Studies: Danish, Romanian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Slovenian, Catalan, Czech, Galician, Dutch, Swedish

Message 17 of 73

19 January 2012 at 7:08pm | IP Logged

I agree with the AJATT guy that to write better you need to read more, not (just) to write more. Around the same time as I started reading in Finnish, my friend who used to correct my journal stopped doing that as she had no time, but after reading LOTR and a couple of other books, I went back to the uncorrected posts and I could just see how to make them more natural. I also wrote far less during this time, only at forums etc.
This whole thing was essential in going from basic to advanced fluency.

Now this writing fluency is my aim for Portuguese and Italian. Speaking can wait till I actually need to speak.

Another thing about reading is people telling you what you're supposed to be reading. Too easy? Too difficult? Don't read translated literature? Don't read in the original in the early stages? The more people you ask the harder it'll be to find something that will be "just right". Ask only one person: yourself. If you're passionate about it, read it.
11 persons have voted this message useful

LaughingChimp
Senior Member
Czech Republic
Joined 4700 days ago
346 posts - 594 votes

Speaks: Czech*

Message 18 of 73

19 January 2012 at 8:19pm | IP Logged

I agree, reading is overrated.
Some people argue here that you have to read if you want to learn to read, but it's nonsense. If you already understand spoken language, you can learn to read in a week or two. However, if you can only read, it will take years to learn to speak and understand spoken language.
1 person has voted this message useful

numerodix
Trilingual Hexaglot
Senior Member
Netherlands
Joined 6784 days ago
856 posts - 1226 votes

Speaks: English^C2*, Norwegian*, Polish*, Italian, Dutch, French
Studies: Portuguese, Mandarin

Message 19 of 73

19 January 2012 at 8:22pm | IP Logged

LaughingChimp wrote:

I agree, reading is overrated.
Some people argue here that you have to read if you want to learn to read, but it's
nonsense. If you already understand spoken language, you can learn to read in a week
or two. However, if you can only read, it will take years to learn to speak and
understand spoken language.

Not comfortably, no. It takes a certain amount of reading in a new language until it
becomes comfortable, until it doesn't feel like making a special effort.
6 persons have voted this message useful

LaughingChimp
Senior Member
Czech Republic
Joined 4700 days ago
346 posts - 594 votes

Speaks: Czech*

Message 20 of 73

19 January 2012 at 8:28pm | IP Logged

Iversen wrote:

Actually reading has several advantages to listening, namely that written texts rarely disappear while you read them, and printed texts are generally not affected by the problems of speech: slurred speech, half finished sentences and background noise.

These are actually disadvantages. Speech is better exactly because you can't slow it down or read it again. It will force you to directly understand and "think in the language", otherwise you have no chance to understand. Reading allows you to cheat your way through it - you can read slowly, you can read it several times, you even have enough time to mechanically deconstruct the grammar or translate it into your L1. You will waste time learning skills which are not useful for fluency.
3 persons have voted this message useful

IronFist
Senior Member
United States
Joined 6438 days ago
663 posts - 941 votes

Speaks: English*
Studies: Japanese, Korean

Message 21 of 73

19 January 2012 at 9:29pm | IP Logged

LaughingChimp wrote:

I agree, reading is overrated.
Some people argue here that you have to read if you want to learn to read, but it's nonsense. If you already understand spoken language, you can learn to read in a week or two. However, if you can only read, it will take years to learn to speak and understand spoken language.

I assume you mean for languages that use an alphabet.
3 persons have voted this message useful

Arekkusu
Hexaglot
Senior Member
Canada
bit.ly/qc_10_lec
Joined 5382 days ago
3971 posts - 7747 votes

Speaks: English, French*, German^C1, Spanish, Japanese, Esperanto
Studies: Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Estonian

Message 22 of 73

19 January 2012 at 10:00pm | IP Logged

atama warui wrote:

You've been able to think in your target language after just one year? What kind of magic did you use? I'm learning Japanese, kind of far, far away from how German works, and having a hard time thinking in it. Do you have any advice?

Give self-talk a try. I was talking to myself in Japanese pretty early on. I have to say it was a bit harder than in other previous languages, but it might just be because I had stopped learning languages for a long time.

Otherwise, I generally agree that reading doesn't have to be the learner's priority, but if you like reading, by all means, go for it.

Edited by Arekkusu on 19 January 2012 at 10:02pm
1 person has voted this message useful

Bao
Diglot
Senior Member
Germany
tinyurl.com/pe4kqe5
Joined 5767 days ago
2256 posts - 4046 votes

Speaks: German*, English
Studies: French, Spanish, Japanese, Mandarin

Message 23 of 73

19 January 2012 at 11:27pm | IP Logged

LaughingChimp wrote:

You will waste time learning skills which are not useful for fluency.

See Ari.
Any level of a language deserving to be called proficiency does not only include practice and challenges, but also smart learning. Of course you can learn to parrot fluently, but meta-learning strategies are very important for the acquisition of any complex system, which is especially true for languages as you already know at least one so well that you inevitably will try to use it as your point of reference. Which often enough simply doesn't work.

Also, sock puppet?
1 person has voted this message useful

Serpent
Octoglot
Senior Member
Russian Federation
serpent-849.livejour
Joined 6598 days ago
9753 posts - 15779 votes

Message 24 of 73

19 January 2012 at 11:29pm | IP Logged

LaughingChimp wrote:

Not really, you need a lot more vocabulary for reading. and I agree about the special effort. Do you mean any sort of spoken language or specifically the colloquial one? the latter will sure require a separate effort as well, but if you've been learning informally and mostly chatting rather than listening to podcasts and audiobooks, learning to read won't be that easy. And really without reading it'll be difficult to learn to listen to audiobooks, though possible of course.

4 persons have voted this message useful

This discussion contains 73 messages over 10 pages: << Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next >>

Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum

This page was generated in 0.7656 seconds.