Ah crap, nobody can speak English then because someone from Southern Texas versus someone from Australia versus someone from the UK versus someone from Newfoundland, Canada, all different accents. Nobody could possibly be fluent cause it's impossible to match all the accents.


Fluency: Able to express oneself readily and effortlessly

The definition has it's limitations. As long as you can for the most part freely communicate without pausing, analyzing, just speak away, for most topics, I say fluent.

My head hurts, I am going to take some tylenol

mafried Wrote:I can speak Python with a severe Lisp.

If it's anything like Java with a thick C accent, somebody is trying to kill you

I'm not a programmer, I only read some Java and an ancient assembler, but it would be nice if I could code in Python. I took a look at Anki source code 'cause I wanted to see the "total" review time in the Graph panel, but the only thing I got was that it's probably Object Oriented stuff...

Dustin_Calgary Wrote:Ah crap, nobody can speak English then because someone from Southern Texas versus someone from Australia versus someone from the UK versus someone from Newfoundland, Canada, all different accents. Nobody could possibly be fluent cause it's impossible to match all the accents.


Fluency: Able to express oneself readily and effortlessly

The definition has it's limitations. As long as you can for the most part freely communicate without pausing, analyzing, just speak away, for most topics, I say fluent.

My head hurts, I am going to take some tylenol

Can I stick a flag in this and claim English for England? The nouns are similar enough

Dustin_Calgary Wrote:Ah crap, nobody can speak English then because someone from Southern Texas versus someone from Australia versus someone from the UK versus someone from Newfoundland, Canada, all different accents.

Native speakers from Texas, Australia, UK, etc would all be able to pass the test, because they are all native speakers of English; if they are not able to, that means the judges are being too restrictive, and that would be enough reason to invalidate the whole test.

masaman Wrote:On the side note, people from Tokyo area can't even communicate very well with old folks from 東北 or 沖縄 who speak hardcore dialects, but they are still native Japanese speakers.

Both people from Tokyo and old folks from Okinawa would be able to pass the test. The test is made so that all native speakers can pass, no matter how many dialects, registers and accents are there in the language. [unless we're talking about something more specific than a 'Japanese Language Test', like a 'Kansai-ben Test' or a 'Standard Japanese Test']

Asriel Wrote:People from England don't speak English. [...] We speak English here. Come back when you learn to speak something other than "a language resembling English."

Funny. But you should have said:

Quote:People from England don't speak US English. [...] We speak US English here. Come back when you learn to speak something other than "a language resembling US English."

Which is a trivial claim.

masaman Wrote:

mafried Wrote:I can speak Python with a severe Lisp.

If it's anything like Java with a thick C accent, somebody is trying to kill you

I'm not a programmer, I only read some Java and an ancient assembler, but it would be nice if I could code in Python. I took a look at Anki source code 'cause I wanted to see the "total" review time in the Graph panel, but the only thing I got was that it's probably Object Oriented stuff...

Python is really simple stuff, you can find lots of decent tutorials online or good books. If you want to program for the programming, just making small scripts and such, python is definitely worth your time.

iSoron Wrote:Funny. But you should have said:

Quote:People from England don't speak US English. [...] We speak US English here. Come back when you learn to speak something other than "a language resembling US English."

Which is a trivial claim.

I knew this was going to be brought up, but I posted it anyway.

The fact of the matter is, in my point of view, fluency is about the transfer of ideas and communication without any interference due to a language gap. It has very little to do with how indistinguishable you are from a native speaker.

My dad is Swiss, came to the US about 25 years ago. He still pronounces "Lincoln" with the 2nd L, he says "CON-tainer" instead of "con-TAIN-er," and on rare occasions his "the" sounds like "duh." (as well as other things)
Even so, he's still way more eloquent than I am, who was raised speaking English.

You're not going to convince me that he's not fluent in English because a few people say he has an accent.

Quote:You're not going to convince me that he's not fluent in English because a few people say he has an accent.

Sorry, your dad doesn't speak English. He has failed if his goal was to speak English.

Quote:The fact of the matter is, in my point of view, fluency is about the transfer of ideas and communication without any interference due to a language gap.

See, the problem with this view is that it makes the definition of fluency actually relevant to language use and study. iSoron is apparently looking for the definition that is as useless as possible.

yudantaiteki Wrote:See, the problem with this view is that it makes the definition of fluency actually relevant to language use and study. iSoron is apparently looking for the definition that is as useless as possible.

ちぇっ。バレたか…

Tobberoth Wrote:

masaman Wrote:

mafried Wrote:I can speak Python with a severe Lisp.

If it's anything like Java with a thick C accent, somebody is trying to kill you

I'm not a programmer, I only read some Java and an ancient assembler, but it would be nice if I could code in Python. I took a look at Anki source code 'cause I wanted to see the "total" review time in the Graph panel, but the only thing I got was that it's probably Object Oriented stuff...

Python is really simple stuff, you can find lots of decent tutorials online or good books. If you want to program for the programming, just making small scripts and such, python is definitely worth your time.

That's what people say too. I'll see if I can move my lazy arse and start doing tutorials. At least I got things like PyQT setup on my machine.

How do you factor in idiolects to this 'must have native accent' theory? Even if you can make amass all the various mainstream accents for any given language in order for them to pass, you're still left with individual accents.

One of my good friends here is constantly asked, "...what is your accent" or "where are you from" with people thinking her a foreigner. She's never left America in her life, her parents have basic California accents, but through all her traveling around the country during her youth she picked up on so many different speech styles and accents that she developed a very specific idiolect that doesn't match any accent. By your definition she wouldn't pass a test for a native English speaker, despite the fact that it's her native tongue?

Really, accents are trivial. Let's remember the entire purpose of language to begin with: simply the ability to express information, and receive information. If someone can flawlessly convey themselves, why does it matter that they have an accent? As long as an accent does not hinder the abilities of other to understand them, all it is is a bit of individuality and uniqueness. I don't know about you, but if everyone had the same exact voice, our species would be stripped of a lot of its individuality. Accents add color to our linguistic world.

My social interactions and developments are in English. I express my emotions, thoughts, as well as creating mental abstractions, all in English. I can read any piece of English literature you throw at me, and understand every bit of the language's vernacular. I function in English-speaking society just as those born here do.
...yet I don't have native skills? That's nonsense -_-

Almost as ridiculous as a couple of years ago when people were questioning the "Japaneseness" of Yang Yi, and whether she had native-level skills. She won the Akutagawa prize for Christ's sake, a feat 99.999999% of Japanese people will never accomplish, yet she doesn't have native-level skills just because she wasn't born here? Nonsense.

Aijin Wrote:My social interactions and developments are in English. I express my emotions, thoughts, as well as creating mental abstractions, all in English. I can read any piece of English literature you throw at me, and understand every bit of the language's vernacular. I function in English-speaking society just as those born here do.
...yet I don't have native skills? That's nonsense -_-

Not even that -- you don't speak English, according to iSoron. If your goal was to learn English, you have failed.

iSoron Wrote:ちぇっ。バレたか…

I took this to mean he was making an elaborate point...which others helped him emphasize.

Aijin Wrote:How do you factor in idiolects to this 'must have native accent' theory? Even if you can make amass all the various mainstream accents for any given language in order for them to pass, you're still left with individual accents.

One of my good friends here is constantly asked, "...what is your accent" or "where are you from" with people thinking her a foreigner. She's never left America in her life, her parents have basic California accents, but through all her traveling around the country during her youth she picked up on so many different speech styles and accents that she developed a very specific idiolect that doesn't match any accent. By your definition she wouldn't pass a test for a native English speaker, despite the fact that it's her native tongue?

Really, accents are trivial. Let's remember the entire purpose of language to begin with: simply the ability to express information, and receive information. If someone can flawlessly convey themselves, why does it matter that they have an accent? As long as an accent does not hinder the abilities of other to understand them, all it is is a bit of individuality and uniqueness. I don't know about you, but if everyone had the same exact voice, our species would be stripped of a lot of its individuality. Accents add color to our linguistic world.

My social interactions and developments are in English. I express my emotions, thoughts, as well as creating mental abstractions, all in English. I can read any piece of English literature you throw at me, and understand every bit of the language's vernacular. I function in English-speaking society just as those born here do.
...yet I don't have native skills? That's nonsense -_-

Almost as ridiculous as a couple of years ago when people were questioning the "Japaneseness" of Yang Yi, and whether she had native-level skills. She won the Akutagawa prize for Christ's sake, a feat 99.999999% of Japanese people will never accomplish, yet she doesn't have native-level skills just because she wasn't born here? Nonsense.

I agree with this completely. Why does it matter to have an accent? My bio lab. teacher had a Chinese accent but her English was flawless. Fluently,etc.
I'm not sure why fluency is such a hard question to answer. In the end it all goes down to you. What do YOU want in the language. What type of skills? Do you want to write it fluently as a native would? speak it? read it? understand if fully? Of course everyone wants this. At least I do.

I have a feeling when someone get's fluent from whatever method. People will still consider the person not to be fluent. Or at least not to there standards. There are people who live in japan that can speak the language fluently/understand it. But when it comes to reading/writing they can't do it. Yet people still consider them fluent. It's strange but I think it all comes down to the individual.

Aijin Wrote:How do you factor in idiolects to this 'must have native accent' theory? Even if you can make amass all the various mainstream accents for any given language in order for them to pass, you're still left with individual accents.

If there are native speakers with very strange individual accents, then the judges have to take that into account, so as to not fail them.

By the way, it's not a 'must have native accent' theory; it's a 'must pass as a native speaker' theory. Needing a native accent is just a mere consequence. If you are a native speaker, then you can pass as a native speaker, by definition.

yudantaiteki Wrote:Not even that -- you don't speak English, according to iSoron. If your goal was to learn English, you have failed.

Being more precise, if you can't pass such a test, you can't speak the language; but you may be able to speak an interlanguage that is close enough to the target language. If you have fossilized in this interlanguage when your goal was to reach the target language, then yes, you have failed.

IceCream Wrote:i guess one problem with that is multiple generations of immigration. Suppose we fail all first generation immigrants on english fluency based on this test, what about the second generation? We can't say they aren't native speakers, because they are. But in lots of cases, various parts of the accent of their parents are picked up, and gradually become part of the native accent of that area itself.

But, you see, that's not a problem with the test; that's a problem with our definition of native speaker. Been born in the country is not enough, it seems. I think we should now try to define precisely what a native speaker is. [note that this is also a problem for the "i'm fluent when I can talk fluently with the native speakers" crowd]

Quote:cases in which a native speaker might not pass for having a native accent on such strict rules

All native speakers can pass the test.

Quote:it leaves the question as to why someone with the same language ability AND the same accent 20 years before wasn't fluent.

The definition was flawed back then.

This thread is hurting my head, in my eyes fluency is pretty damn simple, I could talk to someone for 5 minutes and have a good grasp on whether I think they're fluent or not. Although a group discussion / drinking session would be better...

But accent and fluency are completely different. I mean if you go to somewhere multicultural like London you will hear thousands and thousands of accents speaking fluent English as both native and non native.

IceCream Wrote:i guess one problem with that is multiple generations of immigration. Suppose we fail all first generation immigrants on english fluency based on this test, what about the second generation? We can't say they aren't native speakers, because they are.

So true.

I think the clever linguists have defined that you can only be a native speaker if you learn your 'mother tongue' when you are a child. In fact, there's even research on 'second level acquisition in kindergarten' which to me sounds like a load of bs because it assumes that native language == first language you learn.

What nobody has ever explained to me is how you can become a native speaker if you learn your mother tongue from your parents who speak it very poorly themselves, or with a heavy accent. But then there are virtually no native speakers in the US, because only a minority are descendants of English and Irish, and not all that many in Canada either. Now that I think of it, none of my Canadian-born friends are 'native speakers' by that definition. Though I would say they're all pretty fluent.

By the way, not only accents but even idiomatic expressions get mixed into the pot of the language the immigrants learn. 'The engine has given up the ghost' happens to be a German expression. Hispanics create words like 'afordar' and 'grocerias' (in the sense of groceries).

I usually go with the US government when defining fluency, they typically refer to the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) scale.

http://www.govtilr.org/Skills/ILRscale1.htm

level 3 (General Professional Proficiency):
Speaking: Speak with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabulary to participate effectively in most formal and informal conversations in practical, social and professional topics.
Reading: Read within a normal range of speed and with almost complete comprehension of a variety of authentic prose material on unfamiliar subjects.
Writing: Write the language effectively in most formal and informal written exchanges on practical, social, and professional topics.
Listening: Understand the essentials of all speech in a standard dialect including technical discussions within a special field.

level 4 (Advanced Professional Proficiency): ...superior in all respects, usually equivalent to that of a well educated, highly articulate native...
level 5 (Functionally Native Proficiency): ...functionally equivalent to that of a highly articulate well-educated native speaker and reflects the cultural standards of the country where the language is native...

oregum Wrote:I usually go with the US government when defining fluency, they typically refer to the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) scale.

http://www.govtilr.org/Skills/ILRscale1.htm

level 3 (General Professional Proficiency):
Speaking: Speak with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabulary to participate effectively in most formal and informal conversations in practical, social and professional topics.
Reading: Read within a normal range of speed and with almost complete comprehension of a variety of authentic prose material on unfamiliar subjects.
Writing: Write the language effectively in most formal and informal written exchanges on practical, social, and professional topics.
Listening: Understand the essentials of all speech in a standard dialect including technical discussions within a special field.

level 4 (Advanced Professional Proficiency): ...superior in all respects, usually equivalent to that of a well educated, highly articulate native...
level 5 (Functionally Native Proficiency): ...functionally equivalent to that of a highly articulate well-educated native speaker and reflects the cultural standards of the country where the language is native...

3-4 is possible to get. but level 5 hmmm
Even though i'm a native speaker of english, due to being in canada for almost all my life. I still don't know all those cultural stuff

On the ILR scale 3/3+ is generally considered fluent. You do not have be to a naive, speak w/o accent, or know everything to be fluent.

Beyond that
level 4 is like a non-native that went through hs + uni in host country
level 5 is like native w/ uni

I did a comparison of scales here:
http://www.nihongocentral.com/proficiency-scales/

In practical terms ILR 2+ just about equivalent to JLPT N1.

It really put into perspective how limited the JLPT is in relation to superior fluency.

oregum Wrote:On the ILR scale 3/3+ is generally considered fluent. You do not have be to a naive, speak w/o accent, or know everything to be fluent.

Beyond that
level 4 is like a non-native that went through hs + uni in host country
level 5 is like native w/ uni

I did a comparison of scales here:
http://www.nihongocentral.com/proficiency-scales/

In practical terms ILR 2+ just about equivalent to JLPT N1.

It really put into perspective how limited the JLPT is in relation to superior fluency.

yea i agree. JLPT isn't really a good indicator for fluency, not even close actually.
I'm sure you don't need to know everything to be fluent, but for me personally I do wanna aim for higher in terms of reading/understanding. When it comes to speaking/writing. I don't think i want to aim to be able to write complex essays in japanese or something. Even in English that's hard to do.