Nukemarine Wrote:Burritolingus called it first (though many of us could see it by the first post): 7 pages of arguing fluency, one post talking about his fluency.

I lol'd. Literally.

We all know it only takes 3 months to complete fluency anyways.

bflatnine Wrote:"Ease" does not mean native-like.

That's good. I never claimed otherwise.

bflatnine Wrote:Same thing goes for "flowing," so I believe we can agree that "fluent" means that the language flows, not necessarily that the person has any particular level of ability in the language.

That is obviously a matter of interpretation, but it is undeniable, at least in the US, that the term "fluency" generally has an extremely positive connotation, which conveys adeptness.

bflatnine Wrote:That has to be further defined, hence the reason for the existence of terms like "basic fluency," "advanced fluency," and "native-like fluency."

As redundant as having terms like "novice-master", "intermediate-master", and "super-master", but without knowing the intended connotation when the word was originally created it's just a discussion of opinions.

bflatnine Wrote:I'm arguing that we need to define our terms from a cognitive perspective. There is a difference between "native ability" and "native-like ability.

I know what you're arguing. It's the same as your last post. A difference, but it's a difference that makes no difference.

bflatnine Wrote:Linguistics is a cognitive science, so I think it is more appropriate to define linguistic ability from a cognitive perspective rather than a performance perspective.

The cognitive application of a language is no indication of actual linguistic ability.

bflatnine Wrote:The point is not that I'm "attributing nativity to language ability;"

You said it better than I can (below).

bflatnine Wrote:so I think it is more appropriate to define linguistic ability from a cognitive perspective

The cognitive perspective you love values nativity (generally).

bflatnine Wrote:I'm not arguing that a person can't demonstrate fluency and literacy equivalent to an educated native speaker.

Good. Now it's clear that you understand the cognitive attributes of using/knowing a language have nothing to do with actual linguistic ability (which is all anyone cares about, I might add).

bflatnine Wrote:That was pointless

If we're going to talk about pointless...

bflatnine Wrote:First, sorry I've been away. I've been busy moving but I'm done with all that now. OK, back to the discussion.

.

bflatnine Wrote:

ryuudou Wrote:tl;dr: Performance > Cognitive

..arrogant, and a little irritating.

Irritating? You lost me. Arrogant? Perhaps your irritation is clouding your judgement.

Ironically enough you proved what you're needlessly criticizing in the same post.

bflatnine Wrote:Anyway, I think that maybe this thread has been derailed enough. Maybe some of this side-discussion could be split into its own thread so this one could get back to the original question of "Is anyone here Fluent? How long did it take, and what was your method?"

I find it very amusing that you say this at the conclusion of your long, essay-like, off-topic post.

Congratulations, I think this is now the forum's longest ineffectual 'define fluency' thread! Glad to see the next gen carrying the torch.

OK, I believe I'll step out of this discussion. It isn't going anywhere or benefiting anyone, and it has kind of devolved into arguing for the sake of it, so I'd rather devote my time elsewhere.

Xbox is better than Wii

See I can post off topic too!

I find the categorizing and the self assessment on this site is somewhat objective.

http://www.govtilr.org/

I really like the ILR scale, it's very detailed and specific.

It is estimated will take 2200 hours (with 1 year of in country study) to reach level 3 in Category III language such as Japanese for a English speaker.

Speaking 3
Able to speak the language with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabulary to participate effectively in most formal and informal conversations in practical, social and professional topics.

Reading 3
Able to read within a normal range of speed and with almost complete comprehension a variety of authentic prose material on unfamiliar subjects.

Writing 3
Able to use the language effectively in most formal and informal written exchanges on practical, social and professional topics.

Listening 3
Able to understand the essentials of all speech in a standard dialect including technical discussions within a special field.

Anyways, that's my goal by the end of 2010. btw, 2200 hours =
4 hours everyday for 2 years
3 hours everyday for 3 years

Hmm, seems to mesh with that 4/6/10 rule for world class level expertise. Diligent study four hours a day, six days a week for 10 years will likely put you at the top 1% of 1% of what skill set you seek. But you don't need that for Japanese unless you're going to be teaching Japanese to Japanese people. So 2000 hours of diligent study should be enough to make one a functioning adult in Japanese society.

It's the diligent study bit that's going to trip people up. It ain't listening/watching Japanese 24/7. That's important, but the learning part needs to happen.

oregum Wrote:Anyways, that's my goal by the end of 2010. btw, 2200 hours =
4 hours everyday for 2 years
3 hours everyday for 3 years

Isn't it 3 hours for 2 years or 2 hours for 3 years?

Anyway, plenty of work to do.

Nukemarine Wrote:Hmm, seems to mesh with that 4/6/10 rule for world class level expertise. Diligent study four hours a day, six days a week for 10 years will likely put you at the top 1% of 1% of what skill set you seek. But you don't need that for Japanese unless you're going to be teaching Japanese to Japanese people. So 2000 hours of diligent study should be enough to make one a functioning adult in Japanese society.

I don't know what the 4/6/10 rule is, but doesn't it mean that that amount of study will put you at the top 1% among learners? Probably the estimated amount isn't off base if you're talking about pianists, tennis players, etc. because everyone is a learner in a sense. But when it comes to a language, there are people who are using it 24/7, namely native speakers. If you want to be an excellent novelist in your mother tongue, the rule might be applicable. But obviously 2,000 hours, or even 10,000 hours of diligent study is too little to be a great novelist if you're to write in a foreign language. And "the top 1% of learners" doesn't sound that great to me when 99.9% of learners sound like a machine translator.

magamo Wrote:

Nukemarine Wrote:Hmm, seems to mesh with that 4/6/10 rule for world class level expertise. Diligent study four hours a day, six days a week for 10 years will likely put you at the top 1% of 1% of what skill set you seek. But you don't need that for Japanese unless you're going to be teaching Japanese to Japanese people. So 2000 hours of diligent study should be enough to make one a functioning adult in Japanese society.

I don't know what the 4/6/10 rule is, but doesn't it mean that that amount of study will put you at the top 1% among learners? Probably the estimated amount isn't off base if you're talking about pianists, tennis players, etc. because everyone is a learner in a sense. But when it comes to a language, there are people who are using it 24/7, namely native speakers. If you want to be an excellent novelist in your mother tongue, the rule might be applicable. But obviously 2,000 hours, or even 10,000 hours of diligent study is too little to be a great novelist if you're to write in a foreign language. And "the top 1% of learners" doesn't sound that great to me when 99.9% of learners sound like a machine translator.

The number of Japanese learners that reach 2000 hours of diligent study is probably very low. Likely it's 1% of all that approach the language, but I'm completely pulling that number out of my ass.

Remember though, I'm saying diligent study. That means looking for new information or new ways to use old information. Just watching TV or going to work or chatting at the bar is the passive approach (the coasting as mentioned in QRG review recently).

Let's look at you though. You're writing pages of material in a foreign language in a lucid manner, but I doubt you've approached 3000 hours of diligent study. You have passive input down (reading books, watching TV), but that active part where you broke down the sentences for complete understanding was not happening the entire time. But at that 10,000 hour mark, you probably approach the level of the foriegn Japanese professor Aijin was talking about that knew thousands of kanji and tens of thousands of words and could write extensively about such things in an academic manner.

This is all conjecture on my part though. But a large part of it is based on reports by you, Khatzumoto, Tobberoth, others and myself on how we're doing at the foreign language of choice. There is a difference between active, leisurely and passive study. There is a difference between active, leisurely and passive listening. There's a difference between active, leisurely and passive reading. Those active efforts are probably what goes into the diligent studying that counts toward the 4/6/10 rule.

For the bit about a great novelist, I'll offer up advice by the great J. Michael Strazynski (creator of Babylon 5 and script writer for a lot of cool cartoons in the 1980's) - If you want to be a great writer, write every day. Write at least 2 pages a day, ever day. He has written, since the age of 18, at least ten pages a day every day. A lot of it was junk, a lot of it was art, a lot of it was filler, a lot of it was on the newsgroup talking to fans. But the man is 50 and was a professional writer by the time he was 30 with 30,000 pages under his belt.

Something tells me if you wrote 2 to 10 pages of English a day for 10 years, you'll also approach that level of success as an English writer. Assuming the pages you write are not carbon copies of each other. But at your current level, you appear to write at or above a functioning member of English speaking society.

@Nukemarine

I see your point. I just thought language was very different from other disciplines. It's not like everyone plays/listens to piano music 24 hours a day. The majority of people doesn't play the piano at all. But when it comes to language, you almost always use it while you're awake. You use it while you're having a dream.

Being a novelist in a foreign language is like being a professional pianist in a country where a random guy on the street plays better than your average professional pianist in your country because every citizen plays the piano 24/7. The random guy may not have been diligently practicing the piano, but he has been playing it for decades everyday every hour.

I think standards are incredibly high when it comes to language. I think that being great among language learners and being great among all the speakers are totally different and that the standards of the latter is extremely higher than that of the former. If you're talking about a foreign language, I guess the 4/6/10 rule can only be applicable to the standards of the former case.

Can't believe I never noticed such a delightful topic. 　L(ﾟ□ﾟ)」

magamo Wrote:But obviously 2,000 hours, or even 10,000 hours of diligent study is too little to be a great novelist if you're to write in a foreign language.

Writing a novel is about telling a story. The story need not be highly complex in word use or grammar. Reading and copying the works of master in the language you intend to write should be all that's necessary. I noticed you put great though, so just ignore what I said.

Quote:Being a novelist in a foreign language is like being a professional pianist in a country where a random guy on the street plays better than your average professional pianist in your country because every citizen plays the piano 24/7.

The random guy's playing his whole life is no indication of his actual skill, knowledge or ability. With the right methods and work ethic it is very possible to meet and/or surpass this random guy. What he learned naturally you learned systematically and thus you are capable of examining and perfecting it on a level he could only imagine. He now relies almost totally on feel and is unfamiliar with the underworkings.

However, passing a person in that country who is familiar with the underworkings (high skill, ability, and knowledge) will be hard if not impossible.

Quote:I think standards are incredibly high when it comes to language. I think that being great among language learners and being great among all the speakers are totally different and that the standards of the latter is extremely higher than that of the former.

In writing yes... sometimes. I've heard so much broken English spoken by people from other countries and natives alike that I've gotten used to it. There is a certain about of broken we all accept in written language. I've violated god knows how many rule in this post alone.

@magamo,

Your posts verbiage, punctuation and quality contradict your theory. At least at a writing level, you're at native level fluency for all intents and purposes. Actually, compared to quality of the average internet post, I'd place you above average. Based on your statements, this happened with 8 months of dedicated study via sentence mining, and lots and lots of reading.

Even counting all the English training prior, which didn't amount to much as far as productive fluency goes, that's impressive. It's also comforting that a thousand hours or so of dedicated study on top of whatever baseline you came into AEATT with produces some quality results.

8 months, of likely 4 hours of active studying per day with 16 hours of passive input per day (1000 hours and 4000 hours, right?) creating some mighty fine posts on this forum. 1000 hours to put you on or above par with the average internet user that has been using the language 24/7.

To be fair, I am discussing your writing ability. Even you said your speaking and listening are not at the level of your writing/reading. It feels like even that feeds into a discussion I had with Ghinzdra over e-mail and some posts I'm making about what's happening with me and subs2srs mining. Writing/reading is a skill which is easily trained and enforced via SRS and reading. The subs2srs variant will be a more efficient manner of training listening/speaking skill.

Maybe I'm over-thinking this, but you and Khatzumoto are from totally different languages that approached fluency in the other's language in the same manner. It happened, it's a fact. Now, this is anecdotal evidence at it's best. So, which had the biggest impact for both of you: The 24/7 immersion or the studying via SRS which then made the 24/7 immersion more efficient or just the studying via SRS? I'm leaning to the middle based on my experience and some others on the forum.

Sorry for using you as an internet forum research test case. But it feels we're hitting on something big that can convince a larger audience the viability of this method.

I think you're overestimating my English...

As for SRS and subs2srs, obviously they're really good tools to learn languages, though they're still in their infancy. Of course immersion is crucial and the most important. But I can't wait to see academia create sophisticated software like them. Learners would benefit greatly from them. I don't need a sophisticated tool to hone my listening skills anymore, but if I could have taken advantage of subs2srs or similar software, it'd have greatly helped my study.

By the way, Nukemarine, I admire your deep interest in language learning. If I were you, I might go to grad school in Japan and do research on second language acquisition. That way you can enjoy the best of both worlds.

I don't know if studying a book in a class is more effective or picking up a chick in an ale house is. I don't include "turning on the TV in the background while I'm cooking" into the "hours", but in-class simulations of job interviews are nothing compared to the real ones. Of course, classes help, a lot, especially beginners, but I don't see why watching TV can be considerably less effective than taking a class in terms of listening comprehension when they are done with the same level of diligence, granted, the contents and the level of viewed programs are appropriate.

I think it boils down to sheer number and level of attention. When you think about it, a lot of people don't speak that much at work. I'm an engineer, so sometimes I only talk less than 5 minutes in 8 hours. Obviously I can't even compare that to a day in a class, but if I have a conversation in a meeting for 30 minutes, I think that 30 minutes will be as effective as a 30 min. speaking session in a class. Inversely, if I took a class but didn't pay much attention to it, like when I was a high school kid, it might be less effective than turning on the TV in the background.

I agree that some degree of "studying" needs to happen, after all, natives study in schools too. Grammar is one area that can benefit from it greatly, and it is probably more effective for beginners to practice their skills in controlled environment because they wouldn't have moms and dads talking to them in baby language and most real-life adult things are way too difficult for them to make anything out of. But I don't think all 3700 hours (they expect 1500 hours of self-study as well) need to be in-class and/or with textbooks. For instance, I took several hundred hours of English classes in Japan, but I was not really listening and my level of English was among the lowest 3% of all students at my age in Japan, so I say that was about 200 hours worth. After that, I took around 500 hours of ESL (English as Second Language) classes, moved to the states, spent another 1000 to 2000 hours reading and writing e-mails, being in classes for some tech stuffs, attending meetings, reading magazines, watching TV, before I became, I think, R2+ and L2+, so it seems these things were as effective as in-class trainings.

I count hours strictly and precisely though. A working day in completely foreign environment doesn't automatically translate to 8 hours, it is more like 1 or less for me. Music doesn't count as I feel little improvement from listening to it, but if I watched a sitcom with complete attention for 1 hour, I'd count that as 1.