john555 Wrote: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.

I don't actually agree 100% with that example. I know what an electric staple gun is, but I have no idea how to say that in my own language. I'm not a handicraftsman and I've never used one, so I don't see why I would have to know how it's called.
On the other hand, it would be quite useful for me to know IT-related vocabulary in every language that I learn, because it's my field of expertise.

My point is, the meaning of fluency can be different for different people.

(btw, I just looked it up and it's "grampeador elétrico" or "pistola elétrica grampeadora")

fabriciocarraro Wrote:

john555 Wrote: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.

I don't actually agree 100% with that example. I know what an electric staple gun is, but I have no idea how to say that in my own language. I'm not a handicraftsman and I've never used one, so I don't see why I would have to know how it's called.
On the other hand, it would be quite useful for me to know IT-related vocabulary in every language that I learn, because it's my field of expertise.

My point is, the meaning of fluency can be different for different people.

(btw, I just looked it up and it's "grampeador elétrico" or "pistola elétrica grampeadora")

I don't care for that example either; by john555's definition of 'fluency' most customers of Walmart (or any other superstore) aren't fluent in their native tongue, since they don't really know anything about the stuff they're looking for; if they did, they'd probably shop elsewhere, but that's not the point. In other words, if you're asked to understand something of which you have no knowledge (I knew almost nothing of masonry when I was young, since all the work was done before I was old enough to help), you're only going to understand it if the conversation or passage contains enough context for you to learn the subject. If I tried talking to a computer-illiterate about programming in C++, it's highly unlikely that they'll understand unless I dumb it down and over-explain, despite the fact that I'm talking to them in English.

I think that 'fluency' isn't something that can be well defined nor is defining it something that we should waste much time on, as language learners. You can't just walk into a job interview and say that you're fluent in whatever language without expecting them to ask for proof of some kind and it's in your best interest to have that proof ready and that the proof you give is accepted; this is why we have standardized tests: it makes the production of proof easier on you and your potential employer.

So yes, I just said that 'fluency' is based entirely on the individual's ability to produce proof in one form or another. It's neither pretty nor precise, and I didn't think that hard about it (I have better things to do), but it's completely function in a real world scenario. You can claim fluency all you like but it'll only mean something to others if they believe you, and most people want proof. Going the other way, you can be terrible at a language, but so long as others believe that you are fluent (if you've shown no sign of being bad that they can detect, or you passed whatever examination), then you are fluent.

Good points. It's like when someone asks me if I'm a good skier, I have no Idea what to say to him besides "what's your idea of good skier?". For all I know I could be speaking to a downhill champion. Even double black diamond has a range of meanings depending on where you are skiing. Same goes for ordering thai food and they ask "how spicy?". I never know what to say because I love spicy food at most restaurants, but sometimes you get the authentic thai place where "spicy" will burn your face off. Well at least there's no ambiguity when someone asks if I'm fluent in Japanese - "hell no"

The way I would go about defining fluency would be to be able to more or less do what you do in your native language. So if you like to read novels, then reading novels would be in there. If you hate politics and avoid talking about it, then i would worry too much other than to recognize that those words are political.

Stansfield123 Wrote:

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.

I agree with your post. And what you mentioned towards the end is what I think this thread has done with Benny Lewis and his misuse of fluency. People were more or less calling him out on his misuse. Some people to more extremes and exaggerations than others.

Let's call a spade a spade.
Penny Lewis is not after fluency, he's after your money.
He's fluent enough in English to get enough in-fluents that flow into his MUDDY RIVER he calls Fluent in Three Pennies.

At first I think he was more about providing helpful instructions and information on how to learn languages (I still think he is to some extent because a large portion of his site is free, and he's very transparent in his language videos).

But over time when he discovered that he could make a living off of this, it looks like it became more of a business. Then I just went to his site more recently in the last 2 days or so, and it seems to have made the final transition to appearing more business-oriented.

In reality, rather than being a skilled linguist, Benny is more like someone who has dedicated his time to learning about how to learn languages more so than learning any single language to advanced proficiency.

Although he essentially does what he claims to do, which is become a form of conversational in a short amount of time for leisurely travel purposes, and the product he sales mirrors that. The only issue I can see is how he brands himself as a polyglot and his product as fluency. And unfortunately that's the aspect that is going to draw people in to buy his stuff.

He's like an Anglerfish.

TsugiAshi Wrote:Although he essentially does what he claims to do, which is become a form of conversational in a short amount of time for leisurely travel purposes, and the product he sales mirrors that. The only issue I can see is how he brands himself as a polyglot and his product as fluency. And unfortunately that's the aspect that is going to draw people in to buy his stuff.

He's like an Anglerfish.

Well, he is a polyglot, and a very good one for what matters... but I see your point.

[Zgarbas]

Yesterday I got sort of drunk in this noisy bar and drunken-me decided to abandon my usual restraint and talk to people in their native language, and because they were happy to see someone use it and the bar was really noisy they just filled in the gaps. It was amazing. Somehow my 5ish known sentences in Swedish turned into a basic 10 minute small talk conversation. I recognised a bloke from Cologne's accent in German, and somehow not because I wasn't getting a word he was saying. I'm fairly sure I got about 25% of a conversation in Portuguese. I felt pretty damned cool, is what I'm saying.
Then I went home and sober me was like "Did I just tell that guy that "my name is Swedish? Ah well, he didn't seem to notice" and vowed to never speak Swedish again.

If you use enough gestures and find someone who is patient enough you can have a conversation in any language, but that doesn't make you much of a polyglot. (Also man, crowded rooms where you can't hear the other person speak are *amazing* for this. It should be a main 'how to have conversations in a foreign language' technique).

fabriciocarraro Wrote:

TsugiAshi Wrote:Although he essentially does what he claims to do, which is become a form of conversational in a short amount of time for leisurely travel purposes, and the product he sales mirrors that. The only issue I can see is how he brands himself as a polyglot and his product as fluency. And unfortunately that's the aspect that is going to draw people in to buy his stuff.

He's like an Anglerfish.

Well, he is a polyglot, and a very good one for what matters... but I see your point.

He's a polyglot in a technicality sense of the definition. He's a language learner who is familiar with more than two languages. By definition, that's technically a polyglot. And it would technically make me a polyglot too, because I'm familiar with 3 languages.

It's like his claim of fluency. He claims to be fluent in several different languages, ones that he's achieved fluency in in three months. However, it's more realistic that he's fluent in at least two, if that. Because I know he's already fluent in one, English, which is his native language. And I believe he's spent at least 8 years or so learning another, which I'm just assuming he'd be fluent in at this point.

Although that doesn't make him a polyglot who's fluent in several languages. At best, it makes him a bilingual language learner who has light conversational knowledge in a series of other languages.

That said, I don't doubt that his language learning method could help achieve speaking fluency. But not in three months. And that's one of the selling points of it.

I sort of bought into the concept a bit as well, and I think that I even defended his usage of fluency in a devil's advocate form earlier on in the thread. But then I continued learning Japanese for more than 4 months and realized how silly it all was.

http://www.mlcjapanese.co.jp/Download.htm
N1
900 learing hours, about 2,000 Kanji characters, 10,000 words

Do I believe you can become fluent in THREE months?
Of course, I do.
But.... you must be both intelligent and beautiful. And have all the necessary materials and time. And health. And quiet neighbours.
AND... KNOW how to do it.

Penny Lewis doesn't know.

buonaparte Wrote:http://www.mlcjapanese.co.jp/Download.htm
N1
900 learing hours, about 2,000 Kanji characters, 10,000 words

Do I believe you can become fluent in THREE months?
Of course, I do.
But.... you must be both intelligent and beautiful. And have all the necessary materials and time. And health. And quiet neighbours.
AND... KNOW how to do it.

Penny Lewis doesn't know.

I've read things where people who took the N1 and weren't even necessarily fluent in Japanese afterwards.

There was a case where someone took Japanese in college for 4 years, passed the N1, and then went to Japan with the expectation of being able to understand everything and be spontaneously conversational, etc.

Then the person got there and everyone spoke in a more casual form than what the person learned in school, so they mentioned how they couldn't really understand anyone.

Afterwards, when confronting the teacher about this experience, the teacher said that it was just his/her duty to get the person to pass the N1 and didn't really say anything about achieving "practical" fluency.

It doesn't matter if they were fluent or not fluent.
It is theoretically possible to become fluent in three months. Listening, speakings and writing included.
Not in a school, of course.
You must do it on your own. If you have a clever/professional one-to-one teacher to help you, all the better. But it is not necessary if you yourself are THE teacher - you must be your own KHAN yourself, that's impossible for the majority, people are usually just slaves not khans.
They were made slaves by education, poor bastards, unable to think for themselves. Not to mention LOVE. They do love their neighbours money (Penny Lewis), though.

buonaparte Wrote:It doesn't matter if they were fluent or not fluent.
It is theoretically possible to become fluent in three months. Listening, speakings and writing included.

Edit: Before re-reading your elaborated post, I took what you initially said to possibly mean dedicating an additional three months in Japan listening, speaking, and writing the language with the inclusion of the 4 years of Japanese study beforehand.

The proof of the pu... is in the eating. You cannot of course say to a language, 'Let me eat you' - languages have deaf ears. I'm getting hard of hearing, too.

[Zgarbas]

buonaparte Wrote:Not in a school, of course..

A contrast to failed Japanese stories or magic 3 month learners...
I think the most balanced and quickest to reach fluency learners of japanese people I've met are the ones who took the language program course for the MEXT undergrad program. It's a one-year program specially catered to them (and they supplement it with living in Japan, living in a homestay, and being highly intelligent students dedicated to their studies who spend another few hours a day self-studying aside from the 4 hours a day of classes), and they go from zero to advanced in a year. It's absolutely amazing, and I admire anyone who at 18-19years of age can dedicate themselves to a language like that. I probably would have failed in my first week and shamefully gone back to my country. However, a good program is what turned these dedicated individuals into *efficient* learners. It's like a magic formula of sorts. dedication+good program+time management+amount of free time+stress management+enjoyment+high stakes= fluency.

@TsugiAshi, no one can pass the N1 without knowing casual Japanese, and most Japanese people don't talk full-dialect towards foreigners. I think he was really forcing his experience to prove a point. You can easily understand casual Japanese, though dialect will dictate what casual means and, well, there's really only one place where you can properly learn local dialects unfortunately. Also mumbling. It's unfortunate, but people mumble in all languages, along with other speech impediments and lack of clarity, and no amount of language preparation can fully prepare you for how people butcher their own language sometimes.

In regards to the N1, from experience, I wouldn't know one way or the other tbh. But I'll take your word for it.

My initial thought when I read about that individual's experience was that even if he/she couldn't understand what they wanted to, it probably wouldn't have taken real long for the casual elements of everyday Japanese to seep into what that person already learned and knew.

I'm sure that hearing mumbling would be the bane of someone who was confident in their foreign language skills.

TsugiAshi Wrote:He's a polyglot in a technicality sense of the definition. He's a language learner who is familiar with more than two languages. By definition, that's technically a polyglot. And it would technically make me a polyglot too, because I'm familiar with 3 languages.

It's like his claim of fluency. He claims to be fluent in several different languages, ones that he's achieved fluency in in three months. However, it's more realistic that he's fluent in at least two, if that. Because I know he's already fluent in one, English, which is his native language. And I believe he's spent at least 8 years or so learning another, which I'm just assuming he'd be fluent in at this point.

Although that doesn't make him a polyglot who's fluent in several languages. At best, it makes him a bilingual language learner who has light conversational knowledge in a series of other languages.

I completely disagree with your last statement. I'm Brazilian and I'd say that he's quite fluent in Brazilian Portuguese (my native language). He has a strange accent, but his level is high and he can speak and write in Portuguese very well. He might not know native expression and mix up some prepositions, but that's not a problem at all, since it's not his native tongue. Also, he has a C2 level diploma for both French and Spanish, so that's gotta count for something, at least he was able to trick native speakers into believing he had a C2 level both in speaking and writing, which is quite a big deal.

TsugiAshi Wrote:That said, I don't doubt that his language learning method could help achieve speaking fluency. But not in three months. And that's one of the selling points of it.

Agreed, but it really depends. Speaking of closely related languages like Portuguese-Spanish, Scandinavian ones, Slavic ones, learning a language intensively for 3 months is quite a lot!
If that doesn't convince you, maybe try reading this interview with an American diplomat: http://www.fluentin3months.com/diplomat/
Basically, he says that American diplomats are given 4 months to learn languages like French or Spanish, which are not as closely related as, say, Portuguese and Spanish or Italian. Or don't you consider the requirement level of an American diplomat to be at least "fluent"?

fabriciocarraro Wrote:Or don't you consider the requirement level of an American diplomat to be at least "fluent"?

I actually agree with your overall point (one can become fluent in Spanish in 4 months), but no, I don't consider American diplomats fluent in the languages of countries they're posted in.

Sorry in advance for the long post, but I can't really fit everything into a few sentences.

I can't say that your observation of his Brazilian Portuguese is wrong, as I really don't know anything about the language. But like I said, I believe that he's at least fluent in two languages.

Then again, possessing something that appears to be an advanced-beginner to beginner-intermediate level in a language actually can give the illusion of being fluent. But it still doesn't mean that the person is necessarily fluent. Someone can be intermediate/advanced without being fluent.

It could simply be that he took two elements of a language -- basic written/pronunciation and basic conversation and focused on those two elements in order to get them to a decent level. Although at the same time an aspect of fluency involves retention and recall. So even if he could reproduce some sentences and write them out, he may not be able to do so at a pace which I would consider fluid enough to be fluent. 3 months is light in the long term memory retention department.

I personally know because I've studied kana everyday for a year straight and I still have difficulty reproducing them from nothing when I write them. Granted, certain aspects of Brazilian Portuguese might be easier to remember, but I still think 3 months is way too light for it to be retained into long-term memory, and too light to have been studied masterfully enough to reproduce much of the language in an instant, which would be related to a recognition-recall speed.

There's also the issue of neglecting study in a language, which can cause one's exposure to it to deteriorate drastically. Benny even talks about this in an article or two that I've read, because he jumps from one thing to another, and really seems to only focus on languages for 3 month intervals before going onto something new entirely and neglecting for years the other languages that he's learned. Stop learning a language for two years that you've studied for three months and tell me how much of it you remember.

And that right there is the primary reason for why I'm hesitant to say that he's fluent in anything other than English, because how fluent can you be when you don't even brush up on your languages in a dedicated manner? Retaining two or three languages can be a pain, let alone dedicating enough time and focus to 12 or more, which he doesn't seem to do.

Although It truly depends on how someone wants to throw around fluency as a concept/definition, tbh, which I said earlier in the thread. And no, I don't consider diplomats who've studied a foreign language intensively for four months to necessarily be fluent.

Fluency to me is simple and strict. It's a step below native-level fluency, and is basically possessing knowledge in a foreign language that can be likened to your knowledge in and how you're able to employ your own native language, only you don't quite understand that knowledge/use quite like a native would. And that element, the aspect of truly understanding the language like a native, is what seperates fluency from native level fluency, imo.

Basically: native level fluency is understanding a language like a native would, and regular fluency is being able to use most aspects of a language like a native would, with the exception of not understanding the language like a native.

There's just not enough time and exposure to get everything one needs for legit fluency to be retained long-term in 3 or 4 months. I just don't see the spontaneous rate of recall of the learned language being there to an advanced and meaningful level/degree.

I think I'm basically calling a Zebra a Zebra, while others might look at a white horse with black stripes and say "Meh, close enough." Or look at a giraffe and say, "A giraffe is basically a zebra."

Sorry if I'm being rude, but I have to say. This discussion will never end because you guys are using different definitions of "fluency" and are using different ways to measure it.

And about how fast you can learn to talk relatively well in a language close related. I'm Brazilian too and I know several people from other countries of Latin America and Europe. Some of my friends from Bolivia learned to speak Brazilian Portuguese extremely well in about 4 months. I know an Italian who learned to speak almost without accent in about two months, but with some grammatical inaccuracies. Now this Italian guy just seems to be a common Brazilian.

Their story is almost the same, they are living in Brazil, they speak Brazilian Portuguese every day without fear and they have a lot of fun in Portuguese. This is just what Benny tries to encourage people to do. If you read his blog you will see that he never speaks about native level fluency and literacy, but about living and enjoining the language from day one.

TsugiAshi Wrote:Fluency to me is simple and strict. It's a step below native-level fluency, and is basically possessing knowledge in a foreign language that can be likened to your knowledge in and how you're able to employ your own native language, only you don't quite understand that knowledge/use quite like a native would. And that element, the aspect of truly understanding the language like a native, is what seperates fluency from native level fluency, imo.

Basically: native level fluency is understanding a language like a native would, and regular fluency is being able to use most aspects of a language like a native would, with the exception of not understanding the language like a native.

There's just not enough time and exposure to get everything one needs for legit fluency to be retained long-term in 3 or 4 months. I just don't see the spontaneous rate of recall of the learned language being there to an advanced and meaningful level/degree.

I think I'm basically calling a Zebra a Zebra, while others might look at a white horse with black stripes and say "Meh, close enough." Or look at a giraffe and say, "A giraffe is basically a zebra."

Sorry, but your definition of fluency seems to match the dictionary definition about as well as Benny's usage.

Quote:-- the ability to speak or write a foreign language easily and accurately.
-- the ability to express oneself easily and articulately.

Wikipedia:

Quote:fluent language users (particularly uneducated native speakers) may have narrow vocabularies, limited discourse strategies, and inaccurate word use. They may be illiterate, as well. Native language speakers are often incorrectly referred to as fluent.

Fluency is basically one’s ability to be understood by both native and non-native listeners.

TsugiAshi,

Sorry, but to me, it seems that if you can't write the kana from memory after studying them every day for a year, there is something very wrong with your study methods. At my high school, we were expected to have mastered them after 2 weeks. And this was with classes once a week.

I think that you're projecting your own frustrations about learning a language onto others. Namely, because you have so much trouble with learning Japanese, you feel that everyone who picks up a language sooner is a charlatan, fooling those around them into believing they are fluent with a few basic tricks.

I don't think anyone here would agree that Benny was able to become fluent in Japanese in 3 months. But he is certainly fluent in B. Portuguese according to another poster here, and he is certainly fluent in Spanish and English, and has obtained certificates to C2 in several other languages.

Different people pick up different languages at different rates and that's fine. But just because you have trouble with Japanese, doesn't mean that others' progress with different languages is a trick.

ktcgx Wrote:has obtained certificates to C2 in several other languages.

Just curious, in which languages did he pass a C2?

Feel free to correct me on this, but off the top of my head I believe it was German and French.

EDIT: maybe I got C1 and 2 mixed up, I thought the highest level was C2.