Dear Huong, Ana and Mike
My point was that we don't really "think" in a foreign language; we use L1 or L2 subvocally, at times, which we equate with thinking in that language.We think in condensed meanings which we expand into fully formed utterances in a particular situation. As Ana's example about sneezing illustrated-she is aware that one is supposed to say something after a person sneezes. What she actually says is a realized meaning in a particular situation. Language and thought are not identical, it is
communicative intent and meanings that are realized in words. Once a semantic system is expanded with new shades of meaning as a result of learning a new language, that system becomes more complex nuanced, etc. But, I believe that in fluent speakers of two or more languages the meaning system is unified while the production system is what is more and more differentiated.
These thoughts may not communicate well I will have to get off the conversation for a while because of AERA.
Thanks for raising the topic, Vera
----- Original Message -----
From: Ana Marjanovic-Shane
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2003 12:51 PM
Subject: RE: Thinking in a foreign language
Hi Mike, Huong, Vera,
These are difficult topics, for a letter format, but I'll try to add some of my views: both as a "foreign" languages speaker and as someone who studies language and construction and creation of meaning.
First I somewhat agree with Mike that a better way to learn L2 is through immersion in a meaningful, goal oriented activity, face-to-face. This is probably true for every L2 learner. But some will also benefit from the written materials and explicit teaching of grammar and vocabulary. It is also possible to learn just the written language and be able to read better than to speak. (A friend of mine who is deaf can read English -- as a foreign language -- but cannot speak it; she speaks Serbo-Croatian and "hears" it through lip-reading as a native speaker)
As a foreign language student I have been exposed to many different methods:
a.. I learned several foreign languages in school from textbooks: they were usually organized so that each chapter (lecture) contained a simple event based short story with a lot of dialogues; then a vocabulary list of new words, then new grammar rules, and a little test at the end.
b.. I learned in an audio-visual lab, where instead of written lectures, we viewed short films, then played out the same situations through casting ourselves and trying to repeat the dialogue in a reenactment of the same event; and finally getting all in a text form to take home and practice. There were very little grammar drills or other "meta" language exercises.
c.. I learned through total immersion in a foreign language country with and without structured coaching.
d.. Finally I watched my children learn foreign languages at different age levels, and through different methods.
As a student, I know that nothing can replace the total immersion in the L2 culture and communication. But I also know that for some people, learning can be speeded up when supplemented with appropriate structured coaching using written materials. However, that does not depend only on age and education of the L2 student but also on many other things. Some people like to get a grammar rule and some feel intimidated by grammar. Some people are afraid to use L2 in live situations, for a long time, because they feel embarrassed to be so "ignorant, and "deficient" -- they can "concentrate" better on written materials and reading... Other people don't mind making mistakes as long as they get their meaning across.
As a researcher of language development I would try to conceptualize learning L2 in the following ways: L2 skills range from alternative ways to do the same as in L1, (like knowing synonyms in your first language) to completely new skills and relationships which do not exist in L1. Learning a foreign language is a combination of these two types of learning. These cover not just the vocabulary, but also grammar and pragmatic rules (rules of appropriate use in actual situations). Language, according to Vygotsky, originated as a communicative device, but at some point in development (both individual and species development), started to play a major role in shaping cognition. What does that mean? As a communicative device, language is a means of creating relationships between co-locutors and the topic they communicate about. Every utterance is an action in which a speaker does something to the listener(s) regarding some topic. These three: speaker, listener(s) and the topic, are three functional elements of every meaning. In every culture, the relationships between the three elements become coded and rule governed specific to that culture. Because of that, once language starts playing a cognitive function, cognition (understanding the world around us) becomes culturally mediated by these three intertwined elements of every meaning. Learning the first language means at the same time developing a specific, culturally dependent cognitive skills. These include not just the creation of a very developed conceptual system, but also a very developed and built in cultural norms and values and ways to create relationships.
Learning L2, obviously means on one hand learning new codes for the existing conceptual/cultural system, but, on the other hand, it also means learning new concepts and cultural norms. The difference between L1 and L2 will probably determine how the types of leaning that will occur more often and be more important in the beginning.
For instance: I think that the pragmatic rules of language are very important: what relationships and actions are appropriate at what time, for which situations and between which participants. They will determine the "entry point" into the foreign language and they would be the "tacit" boundary rules at every point of learning. Especially the differences in pragmatic rules between L1 and L2.
Becoming a fluent speaker of a foreign language is as much becoming a member of the "foreign" culture as it is developing certain conceptual/cultural cognitive tools. We will probably tend to use those tool which do the task better, or in case of "synonyms" those that are more in use in the "current" culture we inhabit. And sometimes, a gesture is more in uttering something than in what exactly is being uttered.
Here is a personal example: For a long time, I felt totally inadequate when trying to say something to a person who had just sneezed. I would just freeze. I could never remember which utterance to use from the four I could use: "god bless you", "tzum gesund", "gesundheit", "nazdravlje". Until one day I realized that the situation is so structured (here in the USA) that it really does not matter which actual words I use -- When someone sneezes, and then someone else exclaims something, everyone immediately understands the meaning regardless of their particular language and culture. So now I just utter the one that comes first in my L1 -- "nazdravlje". I would call this a total situational synonym between several languages/cultures.
But there are many more situations when the part that is synonymous between L1 and L2 is smaller and smaller and the differences between the languages/cultures are greater and greater. In all those situations, there are many facets or aspects that a learner of a foreign language has to grasp. And that takes time and engagement in the meaningful activities both face-to-face and through all kinds of written and other materials.
Finally, one of the media that is hugely underrepresented in the foreign language teaching and learning is play. Play is a "natural" mode for children's learning, a true Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Play is also one of the main places where children learn a foreign language. Observing my children I became aware that it was their play that FIRST became spoken in a foreign language -- long before they started using L2 with the same proficiency in "real" activities.
For instance, when we came to the USA, my older son was 5 and a very prolific speaker of his L1 (Serbo-Croatian). On the first day we came, there was a party we went to, with a lot of children. He asked me how to say "freeze" in English, and the next two hours he spent playing "Freeze tag" with the rest of the children and learning to say other things about this play, and everything else, in English. The point is: he could organize the whole play just with the knowledge of one word. This was a great natural entry into the new language/culture.
The closest I came to using play in learning a foreign language were those "audio-visual" labs when we re-enacted a short situations observed in a movie. Play is a great way of learning even for adults, and I think that it is grossly underrated as mode of learning language.
What do you think? (as Eugene would say)
Ana
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Cole [mailto:mcole@weber.ucsd.edu]
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2003 6:21 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: Thinking in a foreign language
Huong-- Seems like an empirical question about how to arrange for
L2 learning in an optimal way. You think that reading will engender
more and different kinds of talk and have a positive effect? Could
be, depending upon lots of factors. My guess is that reading textbooks
about a language as less efficacious than being immersed in face to
face, goal-oriented, joint activty were the oral mode is dominant.
Perhaps I am wrong.
Lets see if others have any opinion on the issue.
mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 01 2003 - 01:00:09 PDT