I described the similar method in my article ‘Reverse translation’ one or two years ago.
If you are interested, here you can find the link:
This article is available also in Russian and in German.
Thank you for referring to your article. I agree with what you wrote there.
@kimojima
I notice that you are only referring to cases where you can command someone to do something you desperately need as a “student” or what you might call a “customer.” I don’t disagree with you unless you are talking in general terms about thinking in a foreign language. I think that you can speak in a foreign language while listening to someone speak to you in your native language. This does not mean that you are in your “L1 mode.”
P.S.
This issue is in no way related to the one concerning the usefulness of “reverse translation” or “original-text reconstruction.”
“But if you relax and lose your determination, you will definitely be answering me in Japanese.”
I feel that we are under the influence of what could be called the law of inertia. That is, we tend to speak as we have been speaking. (We don’t have to presuppose a different Ego for each language.)
Generally speaking, if you have been speaking in a language, you tend to speak in that language even if someone speaks to you in a different language. But you could speak in any language. I imagine that, in the long run, in some cases, your L1 might deteriorate to the extent that you could express yourself more properly in your second language. Of course, I should add that you set your goal as “thinking and producing straight from the L2 during L2 conversations” at your own risk.
(I think that reverse translation or original-text reconstruction is a way to enrich your languages by noticing the differences between your L1 and L2.)
“The beauty of the input approach is that listening and reading comprehension (without forced production) is seamless and automatic between languages.”
Do you want to say that comprehending what you hear and what you read is carried out “seamlessly” and “automatically” between languages?
I wonder what this means. I am afraid I am not smart enough to understand this “beauty-related” statement.
The Input Hypothesis: ‘humans acquire language in only one way - by understanding messages or by receiving “comprehensible input”’
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/Krashen.htm
If this is the hypothesis behind what you call “the input approach”, in what way are they related to each other?
“Bilingual programs succeed to the extent they provide comprehensible input.”–Krashen’s Comprehension Hypothesis Model of L2 learning by Vivian Cook
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/Krashen.htm
I wonder what “bilingual” means in this context cited above.
“For folks who favor the translation-to-production approach, that would be the little guy in your head who is originating thoughts in the L1 and translating into the L2 so you can speak.”
What you call the “translation-to-production” approach and your unique the-little-guy-in-your-head hypothesis have nothing to do with reverse translation or original-text reconstruction, which could be used for improving your writing, or style of writing. It goes without saying that you are not supposed to do this while you are speaking.
Do you happen to have read Benjamin Franklin’s Autobiography?
“Read the English classics and then try to paraphrase them on your own, while being influenced by the authors’ syles that you admire? Why are you bringing things back-and-forth from Japanese?”
When you “paraphrase” the original text, the memo you write should be minimal or written in a different style of writing. When you reconstruct the original text, you should rely only on your memo. When you have finished writing, compare the reconstructed text with the original one. This is the gist of original-text reconstruction. If you could write the memo in a different language, that would be killing two birds with one stone. Reverse translation can be considered as a way of original-text reconstruction. (The proof of the pudding is in the eating.)