If this article was posted somewhere here by someone else, I'm sorry. Forgot where I found this.

But finally got a good definition(Not trying to start a debate here or anything. Just wanted a clear/cut definition of what fluency truly means)

This site helped me clear some misconceptions of the definition itself.
http://www.xamuel.com/what-is-fluency/

I believe that blogger is a member here - I imagine he'll be pleased that he's managed to nail down a meaning of "fluency" that works for you.

Fluency is a lie.

kazelee Wrote:Fluency is a lie.

lol. People always argue over fluency when a person claims they are fluent in a language. It's like, people want other people to fail for some reason...

ta12121 Wrote:

kazelee Wrote:Fluency is a lie.

lol. People always argue over fluency when a person claims they are fluent in a language. It's like, people want other people to fail for some reason...

Only n00bs want to discuss second language fluency.

fluency |ˈfloōənsē|
noun
the quality or condition of being fluent, in particular
• the ability to speak or write a foreign language easily and accurately : fluency in Spanish is essential.
• the ability to express oneself easily and articulately.
• gracefulness and ease of movement or style : the horse was jumping with breathtaking fluency.

ORIGIN early 17th cent.: from Latin fluentia, from fluere ‘to flow.’

so fluency is being able to talk without consciously thinking about what you or the other person is trying to say...

hell, i've been fluent in japanese for months, despite my vocabulary being one step up from abysmal.

ta12121 Wrote:... Not trying to start a debate here or anything. Just wanted a clear/cut definition of what fluency truly means...

Not trying to start a debate huh?

SammyB Wrote:

ta12121 Wrote:... Not trying to start a debate here or anything. Just wanted a clear/cut definition of what fluency truly means...

Not trying to start a debate huh?

Well not intentionally It's hard answer for some reason. I guess the best answer, to what fluency is and how you'll acquired it is. Is deciding when you feel like your at that stage. Plus doing stuff in japanese,writing,talking,convos,reading,being able to read everything fluently that you come by(odd word come in,etc). Basically doing everything you can but in your native-language i guess.

I was tempted once to post a thread with the title "A Serious Discussion on Fluency and Literacy" after seeing every thread that tried to define fluency grow into a useless debate. I think we should discuss fluency and literacy, how to describe them and maybe how to reasonably measure them in part.

There's no hard/fast definition nor is there a guaranteed way to measure either of them. Still, there's merit in discussing them.

I always thought "fluency" was relative anyways.

Someone may be able to speak fluently within certain limitations, which is perfectly fine.

Whenever someone say "fluent" to me, I ask them how much they are fluent in rather than argue over what it means.

Someone may be able to fluently lecture on particle physics but stumble through any real conversation such as emotional affairs. Others may be able to talk to someone in bar for hours on end quite fluently, but then the next day when it comes to real "work" conversation not get very far.

It all depends what you study, and how much.

Too many variables to even have a good debate about.

That being said, if someone claims to be fluent in Japanese, period, it implies native-like conversation skills imho

Unless I misread Nukemarine, I agree that there is a difference between reading/writing ('literacy') and listening/speaking ('fluidity').

If someone says "I am fluent in Japanese," I'm going to assume that they mean that they are both literate, and can speak fluidly.

But, to some Average Joe, being able to speak fluidly might be considered 'fluent.' This is where "I can speak fluent Japanese" comes into place.

In my previous post, what I meant was that the definition in the article you gave seemed too 'open.' Being listen and speak without consciously thinking about the words you are using means you are "fluid," to me.

I think being "fluent" is having 4 skills being in a capacity to be used in a way such that conversations/books/forms/business/etc... can be conducted without having a break in the flow.

Wonder how long it takes to become fluent? People say 3 years usual. I'm hoping for me 2 years(hopefully, but only time will tell). I doubt i'll try to learn any other languages until I'm satisfied with the current one I'm learning.

I remember I posted a story, someone got fluent in 3 years(in all skills). Gotta find that again.

10 years and I can barely get past basic greetings, haha

Though those basic greetings, I am VERY fluent with

Asriel Wrote:so fluency is being able to talk without consciously thinking about what you or the other person is trying to say...

hell, i've been fluent in japanese for months, despite my vocabulary being one step up from abysmal.

I would add 'in a variety of situations' and it sounds about right.

Fluent adj. - an ever changing, unattainable state that can be easily redefined to suit the nature of one's argument. Also see high level.

Ex. Mark is fluent. Yeah, but if you compare him to Hitler, his words barely hit their mark.

Fluency n. - the annoying ability to show someone you know more about their language than they do.

Ex. As a display of his fluency, the foreigner corrected my grammar.

Fluently adv. - putting words together in a barely audible, accent filled, muck.

Ex. He speaks English fluently. Really? Cuz it all sounds like muck to me... and did he just split an infinitive?

@kazelee - I disagree, my definition of fluency is very different from yours, and thus the basis for whatever you're trying to say is unacceptable to me and I will continue to tell you so for as long as this thread progresses.

nest0r Wrote:@kazelee - I disagree, my definition of fluency is very different from yours, and thus the basis for whatever you're trying to say is unacceptable to me and I will continue to tell you so for as long as this thread progresses.

I'm responding with a sincere plea to stop this debate before it starts, since it will never go anywhere, is sure to get ugly, and by golly shouldn't we all just get back to studying Japanese since that's far more likely to produce fluency than arguing about fluency. This is driven by my sycophantic need to have everybody like me, but sadly, I don't realize that all I've managed to do is unite everyone else in the topic in thinking that I'm kind of a giant pussy.

Mcjon01 Wrote:

nest0r Wrote:@kazelee - I disagree, my definition of fluency is very different from yours, and thus the basis for whatever you're trying to say is unacceptable to me and I will continue to tell you so for as long as this thread progresses.

I'm responding with a sincere plea to stop this debate before it starts, since it will never go anywhere, is sure to get ugly, and by golly shouldn't we all just get back to studying Japanese since that's far more likely to produce fluency than arguing about fluency. This is driven by my sycophantic need to have everybody like me, but sadly, I don't realize that all I've managed to do is unite everyone else in the topic in thinking that I'm kind of a giant pussy.

Why are you talking like that? That's weird.

nest0r Wrote:That's weird.

Like your face.

But seriously, nest0r, if you didn't catch the meta-cognitive linguistic parsing at play in that post, I doubt you'll ever be able to achieve true multi-lingual fluency.

Mcjon01 Wrote:

nest0r Wrote:That's weird.

Like your face.

But seriously, nest0r, if you didn't catch the meta-cognitive linguistic parsing at play in that post, I doubt you'll ever be able to achieve true multi-lingual fluency.

It's 'metacognitive' and 'multilingual'. Real fluency is when you have good flow, which you can't have with those added dashes, thus you aren't fluent.

nest0r Wrote:

Mcjon01 Wrote:

nest0r Wrote:That's weird.

Like your face.

But seriously, nest0r, if you didn't catch the meta-cognitive linguistic parsing at play in that post, I doubt you'll ever be able to achieve true multi-lingual fluency.

It's 'metacognitive' and 'multilingual'. Real fluency is when you have good flow, which you can't have with those added dashes, thus you aren't fluent.

Um, hello? They're called dashes. That means you say them faster than a simple lack of separation. I thought everyone here knew how the IPA works.

nerds

But on more serious note:

How can you disagree with my definition of fluency when I have tons of evidence to back it up?

*google searches*

*scours the dark corners of the internet to find the one person in the universe who agrees with me*

See

Mcjon01 Wrote:Um, hello? They're called dashes. That means you say them faster than a simple lack of separation. I thought everyone here knew how the IPA works.

IPA is for n00bs.

kazelee Wrote:nerds

But on more serious note:

How can you disagree with my definition of fluency when I have tons of evidence to back it up?

*google searches*

*scours the dark corners of the internet to find the one person in the universe who agrees with me*

See

We need to hammer down the definition for fluency so we can know how to get fluent in one year! We know that there are fluent people out there, they say so in their blogs and tell us they did it very quickly, but we need to *know* what they mean by 'fluent' so we can know if we're learning quickly enough to brag on the forum. When will I be fluent? Is this person fluent? What is fluent? This is important.