JLPT 3 and reading Murakami? I'm not seeing it. Maybe Norwegian Wood, but you can't read Kafka on the Shore or Wind Up Bird Chronicle at that level. At least not with any sort of ease/fun(well it can be fun...)

To answer the thread's questions:

5 years.

But this is only possible under these conditions:

1. You live in the Japanese countryside.

2. There's no English in your life.

3. You spend half the time crying due to the emotional breakdowns from lack of English.

I change my answer.  Based on condition 3 listed above: 2.5 years

The Last Samurai tells us about one year is good enough, but come on, it's a movie.

I'm surprised that people haven't talked about the proficiency descriptions in the link in the original post.  It seems like what many people are thinking of as fluent is Intermediate High -- Someone who is "able to converse with ease and confidence when dealing with most routine tasks and social situations" and "can generally be understood by native speakers unaccustomed to dealing with non-natives" but who has some mistakes and problems and who can't always maintain a high-level of speaking.  (These particular descriptions only deal with speaking ability, not reading or writing.)

Maybe you could get to intermediate high in a few years by working hard and being in the country, etc.  But getting to the higher levels of fluency -- being consistent, being able to deal with unfamiliar topics and situations, eliminating bad habits and pronunciation quirks, and doing all the other things described for the higher levels -- could take a lot longer.

Here is a link to the document again:
http://www.languagetesting.com/scale.htm

Edit: The group that did the proficiency descriptions also does tests of speaking ability, and apparently they will pay you $25 to be a guinea pig for someone who's learning how to give the tests.  http://llr.actfltraining.org/index.cfm  Hopefully, they also tell you how you did -- it doesn't say.

Last edited by KristinHolly (2009 February 10, 9:13 am)

KristinHolly wrote:

I'm surprised that people haven't talked about the proficiency descriptions in the link in the original post.  It seems like what many people are thinking of as fluent is Intermediate High -- Someone who is "able to converse with ease and confidence when dealing with most routine tasks and social situations" and "can generally be understood by native speakers unaccustomed to dealing with non-natives" but who has some mistakes and problems and who can't always maintain a high-level of speaking.  (These particular descriptions only deal with speaking ability, not reading or writing.)

Umm...  Yeah.  That's exactly what it means.

And there aren't 'levels of fluency' beyond fluent.  Beyond that you enter into skill beyond fluency.  The most illiterate person in the country is 'fluent' if they grew up with the language.  Why would you try to hold someone to a higher standard than native speakers?

wccrawford wrote:

KristinHolly wrote:

I'm surprised that people haven't talked about the proficiency descriptions in the link in the original post.  It seems like what many people are thinking of as fluent is Intermediate High -- Someone who is "able to converse with ease and confidence when dealing with most routine tasks and social situations" and "can generally be understood by native speakers unaccustomed to dealing with non-natives" but who has some mistakes and problems and who can't always maintain a high-level of speaking.  (These particular descriptions only deal with speaking ability, not reading or writing.)

Umm...  Yeah.  That's exactly what it means.

And there aren't 'levels of fluency' beyond fluent.  Beyond that you enter into skill beyond fluency.  The most illiterate person in the country is 'fluent' if they grew up with the language.  Why would you try to hold someone to a higher standard than native speakers?

I agree with Thora about this case. In other cases, there's still a big difference between "fluent" and "native". (JLPT1 is often cited as "fluent" level, which is still below "native" level.) Still, like everything else, it depends on your own definition. If you define fluent as "someone speaking exactly like a native", that's how far it goes. That isn't the common definition of fluency however.

As long as people can agree on some shared understanding for a particular discussion, that should be enough. No sense comparing apples and oranges. I'm not sure a definition of "fluent" in the abstract helps much.

From what I've read here, it appears the meaning is far from clear and musigny's dictionaries only confirm the different connotations. "With effortless ease" treats fluency as a separate skill from level of difficulty or accuracy (so does that testing site). One could be a fluent beginner, in other words. But I think people generally have something more advanced (polished, 上手) in mind when they ask, "Are you fluent?"  For other people it means bilingual or equivalent to native level. It doesn't really matter. I like the idea of clear and helpful information though, so that's why I wish the word "fluent" would magically disappear. (This isn't about some desire to debate minutia.)

What mentat-kgs said somewhere about enjoying the language learning process and savouring aspects of the language resonated with me. Striving for 'fluency' strikes me as striving for elusive happiness. Instead, just realize that we'll all encounter many different language milestones at different times depending which route we take. Celebrate each one! Stay for awhile at one if it gives you particular pleasure (maybe reading alone is the final destination for you). Take a shortcut if you need to for work or school. But who cares about the other guy's route or how fast he got there, wherever there is.

Edit: I take it back - just sit at your computer and TV for 6000 hrs and you will become fluent in Japanese...
.

Last edited by Thora (2009 February 15, 12:13 am)

Squintox wrote:

kazelee wrote:

Squintox wrote:

No more than 10,000 hours.

If studying is done in an on/off fashion lots of time can be wasted and it could possibly take more.

Not really - to be "fluent" according to most people's description, it should take around 6,000 hours - but to reach a native level fluency, it should be somewhere around 10,000.

Of course it isn't definitive, each person is different >_>

A warning that was. The thing of forgetting humans have. When I say on/off, I'm talking very long spans of off, from which the possibility arises that one journey will take longer (whether going for fluency or native fluency). Staying regular will, almost, always help you get where you are going faster than taking very long breaks... I think.

Thanks for that lovely definition. I'll submit it as a candidate for The Official RTK Forum Definition of "Fluent", but I need to warn you that the competition is stiff. And you know how folks here like to debate...  [sarcasm - sigh]

Last edited by Thora (2009 February 15, 6:42 am)

tokyostyle wrote:

For someone who has been through their entire college education in English they have a very expansive vocabulary and may know the lingo of one or more specialized fields.

This is amusingly ironic. This simple sentence is written incorrectly in a language in which the author is stating he has been through an entire education. If the definition of fluent were to include speaking the the language correctly, it is quite possible that one could be fluent in no languages, not even their own.

Last edited by musigny (2009 February 15, 5:01 am)

Anal-retentiveness reaching critical mass! It's gonna blow!

Hmm, that painted a slightly different picture than I'd really intended.

tokyostyle wrote:

Then you have failed to consider all manner of conversations that you can have in English that you shouldn't have in Japanese.  If you do not consider the social and cultural in your speech then you aren't close to fluent at all.  You are just doing basic translation.

"...That you may have in Japanese..." perhaps? Social and cultural what? Your writing style is making it very difficult to figure out what you are trying to say here.

Speaking of Anal, if I see "Anyways" one more time I might just blow! LOL.

Last edited by kazelee (2009 February 15, 6:00 am)

Irregardless, it's clear that the forum is having a seizure as the amateur sociologists and amateur linguists begin to clash!