john555 Wrote:*someone on this forum once referred to "native speakers of English". This irritated me but I said nothing. No real native English speaker would use the term "native speaker of English". We prefer to use the term "native English speaker". There. That's my rant for the day ).

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ve-speaker

john555 Wrote:*someone on this forum once referred to "native speakers of English". This irritated me but I said nothing. No real native English speaker would use the term "native speaker of English". We prefer to use the term "native English speaker". There. That's my rant for the day ).

What??? I was born and raised in the UK and I definitely use "native speakers of English".
I quite like your "test" of fluency. Funny what it says about Japanese uni students though. Half the Japanese people in my classes in Japan were asleep and nobody was taking notes wwww

john555 Wrote:No real native English speaker would use the term "native speaker of English".

No real native speaker of English would say this.

Tzadeck Wrote:

john555 Wrote:No real native English speaker would use the term "native speaker of English".

No real native speaker of English would say this.

Oh yes they would. I'm a real native English speaker and I just said it.

john555 Wrote:Here's a simple test of whether you're fluent in the language you're learning:

Sit in on a university lecture (a not too technical subject) and see if you can simultaneously follow along with and understand what the professor yapping about and at the same time write down notes summarizing the main points he is making, as he makes them.

Why does everyone always insist on these arbitrary, highly specific definitions of "fluent" that focus on doing things that most people aren't interested in doing?

Quote:*someone on this forum once referred to "native speakers of English". This irritated me but I said nothing. No real native English speaker would use the term "native speaker of English". We prefer to use the term "native English speaker". There. That's my rant for the day ).

Man, I thought being born and growing up in the US in an English speaking family meant I was a native speaker of English, but apparently not.

john555 Wrote:Oh yes they would. I'm a real native English speaker and I just said it.

Exactly my point.

john555 Wrote:Here's a simple test of whether you're fluent in the language you're learning:

Sit in on a university lecture (a not too technical subject) and see if you can simultaneously follow along with and understand what the professor yapping about and at the same time write down notes summarizing the main points he is making, as he makes them.

95% NATIVE speakers of ANY language wouldn't pass the test.

How you define 'flunency' doesn't really matter. Learning a language is not rocket science, anything goes as long as you think it's good enough for you.


I've been visiting language learning sites for some fifteen years now and always been puzzled by one thing:
so many people OVERestimate their language skills.

yudantaiteki Wrote:

john555 Wrote:Here's a simple test of whether you're fluent in the language you're learning:

Sit in on a university lecture (a not too technical subject) and see if you can simultaneously follow along with and understand what the professor yapping about and at the same time write down notes summarizing the main points he is making, as he makes them.

Why does everyone always insist on these arbitrary, highly specific definitions of "fluent" that focus on doing things that most people aren't interested in doing?

I didn't say it was the only test of "fluency"...I just think it's a good indicator of whether you can "hold your own" and "swim with the native[speaker]s."

Another test is to attend a meeting in a business environment, in which some of the participants are calling in via conference call. (Of course, assume the meeting is held in the country whose language you are learning, and is conducted in that language. Assume that most of the participants are native speakers). Can you follow the discussion, understand what everyone is saying, take notes, and contribute? Can you understand the people yelling over the speaker phone? (I attend meetings like this often; the voices on the phone are sometimes obscured by static, people keep saying, speak up please).

Here's another indication of fluency: can you hold your own in a conversation with native speakers in which a wide variety of material is covered, at normal native speed? And no dumbing down of the material for your benefit is permitted? Where the material could range from "how is your father doing" to "my company just announced that it's going to do a share buyback" to "I was trying to install drywall in my basement by myself but I might give up and get a contractor to finish it...I did do all the subflooring on my own, though."

You can give as many highly specific examples of possible language usages as you want, they still don't really mean anything. I am in a career that depends on Japanese language ability, and I can't attend business meetings or have conversations about business financial topics. And I honestly don't care that I can't do those things.

To me, there is one meaningful way to measure your language ability -- can you use the language to do what you want with it? If the answer is "yes", there's no need for arbitrary standards or definitions of your ability or "fluency".

yudantaiteki Wrote:You can give as many highly specific examples of possible language usages as you want, they still don't really mean anything. I am in a career that depends on Japanese language ability, and I can't attend business meetings or have conversations about business financial topics. And I honestly don't care that I can't do those things.

To me, there is one meaningful way to measure your language ability -- can you use the language to do what you want with it? If the answer is "yes", there's no need for arbitrary standards or definitions of your ability or "fluency".

I thought the discussion was about "fluency" in the target language. I just think if you're "fluent" you can talk about whatever most native speakers can talk about on an everyday basis, both technical and non-technical subjects.

For instance, I could be talking with my brother-in-law (over a beer in his backyard) about what kind of electric staple gun he recommends and what specific features are good vs. bad or the best type of premixed mortar to use to repair the joints between the bricks of my chimney ("what percentage of sand vs. gravel do you recommend?") or what his favorite movie is...my niece and nephew who are teenagers would be able to follow these discussions and even interject with their opinions.

The fact is, these kinds of topics come up all the time in real life. Talking about share buybacks or dividend entitlements isn't way out there...I hear people from different walks of life talk about this stuff often.

john555 Wrote:Talking about share buybacks or dividend entitlements isn't way out there...I hear people from different walks of life talk about this stuff often.

I don't know what either of those terms mean, and I'm a native English speaker.

yudantaiteki Wrote:

john555 Wrote:Talking about share buybacks or dividend entitlements isn't way out there...I hear people from different walks of life talk about this stuff often.

I don't know what either of those terms mean, and I'm a native English speaker.

I second that. But I don't see why everyone's ridiculing this guy for trying to roughly define fluency - he's not far off a decent idea. Fluency can't be defined perfectly, so let's allow everyone their own slightly flawed opinion of it.

john555 Wrote:I thought the discussion was about "fluency" in the target language. I just think if you're "fluent" you can talk about whatever most native speakers can talk about on an everyday basis, both technical and non-technical subjects.

The point folks are making here is that what you can talk about in your natgive tongue is relative. Get me talking with a fellow geek about Python or Amazon Web Services, and you'll be able to see the eyes of all of the non-geeks around us glaze over. They can't talk about what we're talking about, because it's outside of their experience. Most times, they can't even follow the jargon-packed conversation. What counts as "everyday conversation" for me and my friend is anything but to other people.

I just read an essay with a similar sentiment by 角田光代 called "お得なんです", in which she recounts going to a cell phone store and talking as cross-purposes with a young sales associate who was trying to get her to sign a 24-month installment plan for her phone, when she was wanting to pay for it outright.

「じゃクレジットカードで一回払いで払います」と私は言った。すると男の子、じつに困った顔をして、私にはまったくわからない言葉をとうとう話し出したのである。
日本語であることはわかる。わかるが、彼が何を言っているのかさっぱりわからない。

Which pretty much summarizes how I feel when I watch a Japanese legal drama.

Helena4 Wrote:

yudantaiteki Wrote:

john555 Wrote:Talking about share buybacks or dividend entitlements isn't way out there...I hear people from different walks of life talk about this stuff often.

I don't know what either of those terms mean, and I'm a native English speaker.

I second that. But I don't see why everyone's ridiculing this guy for trying to roughly define fluency - he's not far off a decent idea. Fluency can't be defined perfectly, so let's allow everyone their own slightly flawed opinion of it.

I think artificial definitions of fluency muddy the discussion when you're talking about how to study or what your goals are. It's not necessarily that I think this or that definition of "fluency" is wrong, it's the whole exercise of trying to define arbitrary goals that I don't like.

I don't care if I can ever talk about complicated financial stuff in Japanese -- I don't plan on ever living in Japan for more than a year or so at a time, and I probably won't even do that very often. Being able to have a conversation about it just isn't important. On the other hand, being able to read classical Japanese is essential to my career, even though 99% of people learning Japanese, and probably 99% of native Japanese speakers, have no use for that whatsoever.

A good thing about cyber space: you can say something stupid and feel happy about it.
That's exactly my idea of fun.

I don't mind any definition of fluency, I find it somewhat reassuring that even digital natives try to learn something.

As to Penny Lewis, according to Wikipedia he's one of the greatest polyglots ever.
I admire him through and through, he can sell nothing for something. That's something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_polyglots

That's a very light and "dangerous" definition of fluency, to be honest. It can be misleading, too. If someone got a job on the premise that they considered themselves to be a polyglot who's fluent in several language, yet their language skills were less than basic and very limited conversation, but more advanced than being able to ask for simple, memorized directions, then that isn't fluency.

But then again, according to the definition that you provided, it would technically be fluency, because the individual in question decided to casually learn some languages beforehand (then decided to call himself/herself fluent and a polyglot) prior to seeking employment that just happened to orient around knowing several languages to an advanced level.

Definitions that allow for leisurely language learning to equal fluency like that cheapens what fluency and polyglotism should be.

I studied Japanese kana intensely for a year alongside watching a lot of anime and Japanese dramas. My vocabulary is very, very poor, and I couldn't hold a Japanese conversation to save my life. I have almost nothing of kanji and spoken language. However, I have a decent mastery of kana, and my listening comprehension is pretty good.

On that same note, I am fluent in English, which is my native language. I also took 4 years of Spanish in school which amounts to nothing except knowing what a gato is.

Can I consider myself fluent and a polyglot in your eyes and come off as a respected linguist and Japanese learner to you? I met the criteria. I'm technically fluent in 3 languages, and literally native level in one of them.

And btw, that actually is a serious question.

buonaparte Wrote:A good thing about cyber space: you can say something stupid and feel happy about it.
That's exactly my idea of fun.

I don't mind any definition of fluency, I find it somewhat reassuring that even digital natives try to learn something.

As to Penny Lewis, according to Wikipedia he's one of the greatest polyglots ever.
I admire him through and through, he can sell nothing for something. That's something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_polyglots

I know right? It's a bit silly that someone would take what amounts to light conversational knowledge of a language and stamp a label of fluency on it. It's also bad that people will back it up and try to justify it.

When people do that I think that they either just like the guy (I do too btw), or they actually, legitimately think that fluency can be whatever the heck someone wants to call it as long as there was some sort of exposure to a language. Which is far worse.

I really don't get how people can justify some of these definitions for fluency. If you couldn't take on a position as a basic interpreter, then why would you say that you're fluent?

Edit: I'm going to add myself to that list, as I feel that I deserve recognition as a notable polyglot.

Penny Lewis is almost as fascinating as
Ziad Fazah - does he exist?
http://how-to-learn-any-language.com/for...PN=0&TPN=1
I stumbled upon that thread some years ago and it triggered my interest in polyglots.
In OLDEN times they would have been religious leaders, no doubt.
Harken ye faithful.
Damn it!
Cyber space police should arrest them.

TsugiAshi Wrote:

yudantaiteki Wrote:

That's a very light and "dangerous" definition of fluency, to be honest.

I didn't intend for it to be a definition of fluency -- as I said, I don't like trying to define "fluency" at all.

As a non-polyglot, I don't much care about defining "fluency" either. I plan to keep studying and make my Japanese as good as it can be.

I do find it a little silly to define "fluency" as something that can be attained in three months. It cheapens the years of effort that it actually takes to gain anything close to what a reasonable person would call "fluency". (Fluency is like pornography: I know it when I see it.) OTOH, I've found that it's a good rule of life not to get too hung up on the proclamations of some random stranger on the Internet.

gaiaslastlaugh Wrote:(Fluency is like pornography: I know it when I see it.)

So fluency is a never ending fake linguistic orgasm. And Hell is Paradise for a masochist.
Sounds like Penny Lewis.

buonaparte Wrote:

gaiaslastlaugh Wrote:(Fluency is like pornography: I know it when I see it.)

So fluency is a never ending fake linguistic orgasm. And Hell is Paradise for a masochist.
Sounds like Penny Lewis.

That's a low blow. ;-)

yudantaiteki Wrote:

TsugiAshi Wrote:

yudantaiteki Wrote:

That's a very light and "dangerous" definition of fluency, to be honest.

I didn't intend for it to be a definition of fluency -- as I said, I don't like trying to define "fluency" at all.

I think I'll join you. Not spending so much time defining fluency leaves me with so much more time for other things..

yudantaiteki Wrote:

TsugiAshi Wrote:

yudantaiteki Wrote:

That's a very light and "dangerous" definition of fluency, to be honest.

I didn't intend for it to be a definition of fluency -- as I said, I don't like trying to define "fluency" at all.

That's cool. My post was mostly a generic reply to the notion that someone can become fluent in only three months, and how silly and unrealistic of a claim it is.

Choosing not to define fluency is fine, but my posts were mostly aimed at the stream of disccusion pertaining to what fluency is and isn't/should be and shouldn't be.

If I realistically thought that people could become fluent in a language in 3 months, I would literally dedicate the next decade of my life to becoming fluent in 40+ languages. I would be the most in-demand polyglot and leading language expert in the world.

TsugiAshi Wrote:That's the issue, though. The concept of "being fluent is being able to use the language" is a very vague one.

I said it's a little vague, but it's not THAT vague. "Being able to use the language" means being able to use it in most situations (most situations in which the language gets used).

It's like saying "I have a full grown beard" is very vague. Well, it's vague, because "full grown beard" doesn't state an exact cutoff point on where it starts. But it's not THAT vague. It paints a fairly good picture of how much hair I have on my face. We know for instance that it doesn't mean that I just stopped shaving two weeks ago. If I stopped shaving two weeks ago, and go around telling people that I have a full grown beard, that's a lie.

This is how a lot of concepts work. Doesn't mean concepts like tall, fluent, smart etc. are not useful concepts. Fluency is a very useful concept, even without having a numerical standard (like a score on a specific test) attached to it, and people who misuse it should get called out on it.