|
 |
"Thinking" in L2? | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| Cavesa Triglot Senior Member Czech Republic Joined 5007 days ago 3277 posts - 6779 votes  Speaks: Czech*, FrenchC2, EnglishC1 Studies: Spanish, German, Italian | Message 9 of 15 19 June 2015 at 12:42pm | IP Logged | ||
|
I agree here.
Thinking in the language is a necessary prerequisite for any active skill. In many ways, it is the next step after translating everything. If you just know what is being said without disecting the sentences, it is a huge step forward and you are now more likely to get speaking in the language without the need to slowly construct your own sentences. However, it surely doesn't hurt to always learn more vocabulary explicitely. There are basically two ways to continue from where you are and they can be combined any way you see fit: 1.intensive reading/listening Take a book and translate every word you feel insecure about. Watch the amount of such words decline and look forward to the days you won't feel bad about not knowing translation of a word because such a word will be just one on a page. The progress should initially be quite fast. Some learners, if I remember correctly, have reported huuuuuge progress just after six or seven books. 2.extensive reading/listening Get used to not knowing a perfect translation right away, learn from the context. Get exposed to words in their natural setting, learn their meanings as they come up. Don't look up words you don't exactly know, just more or less, devour more content instead and the words will stick. The progress may appear slower at first, the approach appears lazy. But it is not. The amount of input is the key, that's why we've got the Super Challenge. From my experience, the extensive approach leads more directly to thinking in the language. However, the intensive approach, if you are the type of learner who won't find it boring and tiring, can lead to faster growth of vocabulary and you can probably jump over the gap to thinking in the language quite fast later on. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
 Iversen Super Polyglot Moderator Denmark berejst.dk Joined 6701 days ago 9078 posts - 16473 votes Speaks: Danish*, French, English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedish, Esperanto, Romanian, Catalan Studies: Afrikaans, Greek, Norwegian, Russian, Serbian, Icelandic, Latin, Irish, Lowland Scots, Indonesian, Polish, Croatian Personal Language Map | Message 10 of 15 19 June 2015 at 1:06pm | IP Logged | ||
This is also my position. If you can recall a few words then try to use them in simple constructions in your mind - not necessarily in full sentences. It is easier to do this right after you have heard or read something in the language in question, but if you are sitting in for instance in a car or train and see a tree then try to think "green tree to the left" or "there was a tree there" or whatever. The important thing is to establish the habit, and you can think more elaborate thoughts later. Luckily no one can hear or see what you think. 5 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| chaotic_thought Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 3540 days ago 129 posts - 274 votes Speaks: English*, German Studies: Dutch, French | Message 11 of 15 19 June 2015 at 1:11pm | IP Logged | ||
|
To promote thinking in the language you're learning, write a simple journal each day. Since it's just for your own use, you don't have to worry too much about grammar, spelling, or word choice, etc. For example, if you don't know the word for something, you just invent a new word or use a different word that you do know:
ik heb sinaasappelzap, Jupiler's en peanuts gekocht This entry demonstrates a few things: 1. Spelling doesn't matter for thinking. I thought of the word 'sinaasappelsap' but instead I wrote 'zap'. It's a mistake I probably made because of the sounds in this language vs. the sounds I was expecting. Anyway, with practice it will get better. 2. Knowing how to say a word in another language is not the same as familiarity with the thing. For example, what's a Jupiler? It's the sort of thing that you either know or you don't. 3. If I forgot a word in the target language I just write a different word that I know. ik heb peanuts gekocht makes perfect sense to me, even if my Dutch teacher complains. Edited by chaotic_thought on 19 June 2015 at 1:12pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| tarvos Super Polyglot Winner TAC 2012 Senior Member China likeapolyglot.wordpr Joined 4705 days ago 5310 posts - 9399 votes Speaks: Dutch*, English, Swedish, French, Russian, German, Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Afrikaans Studies: Greek, Modern Hebrew, Spanish, Portuguese, Czech, Korean, Esperanto, Finnish | Message 12 of 15 19 June 2015 at 1:56pm | IP Logged | ||
|
If you are French you can even substitute jus d'orange for sinaasappelsap and actually
get away with it since it's a colloquial synonym in Dutch. Pronounced almost as ju-de- rans. :D 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| 1e4e6 Octoglot Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 4288 days ago 1013 posts - 1588 votes Speaks: English*, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Norwegian, Dutch, Swedish, Italian Studies: German, Danish, Russian, Catalan | Message 13 of 15 20 June 2015 at 8:52pm | IP Logged | ||
|
Translating L2->-L1 in a conversation and then having to respond translating by L1->L2
is not only highly inefficient but unnatural. Thinking in L2 is definitely a requisite, it must become the primary language. You cannot think in English over and over, you have to block English. Two ways is to form a mental image of thoughts in the L2 so that the mental picture corresponds to L2 instead of L1. Experiences in real life with L2 also help to tie it into the L2 instead of L1. If I say, "I eat a sandwich" and try to translate this in English to L2 this is useless to me. If I form a mental image of the sandwich and see myself sitting down I would do it in L2 and I can see that this experience ties with L2. Using English to translate is voluntary, and it cannot be allowed to be like some addiction. One must think in the L2 even if blank spots appear, fill in the spots even if it takes seconds and eventually the time gap decreases. No native speaker of another language grows up trying to fill in the gaps in their thoughts by thinking, "Damn I need English to express what I want to say properly", so neither should an L2 learner. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| Serpent Octoglot Senior Member Russian Federation serpent-849.livejour Joined 6595 days ago 9753 posts - 15779 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Russian*, English, FinnishC1, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese Studies: Danish, Romanian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Slovenian, Catalan, Czech, Galician, Dutch, Swedish | Message 14 of 15 20 June 2015 at 10:03pm | IP Logged | ||
Actually that's pretty common among those who use English a lot, especially in various technical areas. But of course the conclusion is not that it's okay. If anything, you should aim to think so easily in L2 that sometimes L2 expressions come up while thinking in L1 because they happen to be more precise. And arguably you should aim to use English words/expressions less than native speakers do. I don't necessarily agree that you should aim to think in the language as early as possible. When it's thinking as opposed to translating, yes, but if you focus on passive skills, it's fine not to pressure thinking until it comes naturally with enough input. I tend to think there are (at least) two types of learners, those who (can) create a mental reflection/system while having input and those who need to try out everything immediately. Edited by Serpent on 20 June 2015 at 10:13pm 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| tarvos Super Polyglot Winner TAC 2012 Senior Member China likeapolyglot.wordpr Joined 4705 days ago 5310 posts - 9399 votes Speaks: Dutch*, English, Swedish, French, Russian, German, Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Afrikaans Studies: Greek, Modern Hebrew, Spanish, Portuguese, Czech, Korean, Esperanto, Finnish | Message 15 of 15 24 June 2015 at 5:24am | IP Logged | ||
|
I think you simplify the theory to an input/output system too much. There's much more
complex things going on involving all kinds of strange feedback loops. Thinking in L2 means that you have part of the internal machinery working, but whether it comes out right is another story. But for it to come out right you certainly need working machinery, so it's a good sign. 3 persons have voted this message useful |
If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login. If you are not already registered you must first register
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
