|
 |
What does "basic fluency" really mean? | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| patuco Diglot Moderator Gibraltar Joined 7014 days ago 3795 posts - 4268 votes  Speaks: Spanish, English* Personal Language Map | Message 17 of 106 24 July 2006 at 7:03pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
I'm not so sure that there is one possible definition of basic fluency.
For example, if I could read Latin "fluently" without resorting to a dictionary (except in dire emergencies) but I wasn't interested in talking with, say, the Pope, then I would consider myself basically fluent in Latin. Similarly, if I could understand just about everything a Japanese speaker said to me and respond in kind, but I couldn't read a single character, then I would consider myself basically fluent in Japanese. I think that it really does depend on which of the four skills of language you want to develop. The more developed they all are, the more fluent you are. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| AML Senior Member United States Joined 6824 days ago 323 posts - 426 votes 2 sounds Speaks: English* Studies: Modern Hebrew, German, Spanish | Message 18 of 106 24 July 2006 at 8:56pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
Patuco, good point. Here in California, I have many Asian-American friends
who speak fluent Mandarin/Cantonese because their parents immigrated here and spoke the language at home to the children. Most of these friends, however, are completely and hopelessly illiterate. They don't know one character. I would definitely consider them "Advanced Fluency", just not for reading or writing. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Malcolm Triglot Retired Moderator Senior Member Korea, South Joined 7314 days ago 500 posts - 515 votes 5 sounds Speaks: English*, Spanish, Korean Studies: Mandarin, Japanese, Latin | Message 19 of 106 24 July 2006 at 9:11pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
@Sinfonia: "*Should of" is really a spelling error since "should of" and "should have" have the same phonetic realization in the English dialects I'm aware of. Your other examples of grammar mistakes may in fact be mistakes, but they are irrelevant to this discussion since they are only found in the speech of native speakers. What I consider a grammar mistake with respect to non-native speakers (for whom these criteria are intended) is when they translate grammar from their native language into a non-native language. These errors almost always sound wrong and awkward to all native speakers, not just the educated ones. I'd rather not go too far off topic. All I really want to say here is that the standards for what constitutes a grammar mistake are different for native and non-native speakers. Feel free to post your ideas of grammar and vocabulary requirements for Basic Fluency.
@luke: I don't count forms created through inflection as separate words (be, is, am, are, etc.). However, most new forms created through derivation are fair game in my opinion (happy, unhappy, happiness, unhappiness, etc.). Edited by Malcolm on 24 July 2006 at 9:14pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Farley Triglot Senior Member United States Joined 7091 days ago 681 posts - 739 votes 1 sounds Speaks: English*, GermanB1, French Studies: Spanish | Message 20 of 106 24 July 2006 at 10:26pm | IP Logged | |||||
You’re right, that is the case. There is something to the 5000 word claim. I found it takes at least of knowledge of 5000 words before you can begin to start reading authentic sources without a dictionary and inferring the rest from context.
Well put, that was really the point I was really trying to make. Edited by Farley on 24 July 2006 at 10:27pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Captain Haddock Diglot Senior Member Japan kanjicabinet.tumblr. Joined 6767 days ago 2282 posts - 2814 votes Speaks: English*, Japanese Studies: French, Korean, Ancient Greek | Message 21 of 106 24 July 2006 at 10:43pm | IP Logged | |||||
Word = lexical entry = lemma, i.e. something that will be listed as a heading or sub-heading in a dictionary. All the above are one word, or lemma ("to be") in its various conjugations. However, the following can be considered separate "words" for the purposes of estimating one's vocabulary: go up go off go through go against go by go down go on They all have different meanings and could be replaced with different synonyms. They'll also have individual entries in a dictionary underneath the main "go" entry. Whether a lemma is written as one group of letters or two is largely irrelevant. This sort of example could probably be given with any language; German also does verb + preposition word production (ausgehen, mitkommen, etc), while Japanese does a lot of verb compounding. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Captlemuel Groupie United States Joined 6721 days ago 58 posts - 60 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Russian, Mandarin | Message 22 of 106 25 July 2006 at 3:07am | IP Logged | |||||
|
With this my first post, I break my silence and cease to be a spectator at this site.
This term--basic fluency--is an oxymoronic term. Fluency, used in reference to the level of skill attained by one who has learned to speak a second language, implies expertise in the use of that second tongue; it means able to speak it easily and quickly and gracefully, in addition to grammatically and idiomatically. Fluency used in reference to the skill with which a person speaks his native tongue, should be taken to mean that he speaks it easily, quickly and idiomatically, but not necessarily to mean that he speaks it gracefully and grammatically. There is no such thing as 'basic fluency'. Competent is a better and more precise term than the term 'basically fluent'. Perhaps it would be best to say that the persevering learner first becomes competent, then proficient, then fluent? Fluency is an appealing word to an aspiring polyglot. But the learner who has achieved mere competency should not consider himself to have achieved 'basic fluency' just so he can use the sexy word fluent in regard to his ability. Malcolm, you said: "'Should of' is really a spelling error since 'should of' and 'should have' have the same phonetic realization in the English dialects I'm aware of." Your sentence might read, 'In the English dialects I'm aware of, 'should of' and 'should have' have the same phonetic realization. Therefore 'should of' is really a spelling error.' Based on the premise you have given, you could actually say that 'should have' is really a spelling error. In referring to the dialects that you say you are aware of, Malcolm, when you say that 'should of' is really a spelling error, you are in effect saying that speakers of certain dialects make a mistake in spelling every time they use 'should of' in speaking (phonetic realization). No one is likely to be able to tell the difference between 'should of' and 'should've' when they are uttered rapidly. The person who uses 'should of' in writing is the person who uses 'should of' in speaking, and when he uses 'should of' in writing or in speaking his error is a grammatical one, not one in spelling. I am aware that you wanted to stay on track, and not get into a discussion about grammar, but I cannot stand by and 'listen' to someone say with authority something about English grammar that is thoroughly incorrect. Edited by Captlemuel on 14 August 2006 at 12:43am 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Andy E Triglot Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 7102 days ago 1651 posts - 1939 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish, French | Message 23 of 106 25 July 2006 at 3:35am | IP Logged | |||||
I'd just like to say that in my particular English "dialect", these definitely do not have the same phonetic realisation - even when (as mentioned above) they are spoken rapidly. Andy. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Captain Haddock Diglot Senior Member Japan kanjicabinet.tumblr. Joined 6767 days ago 2282 posts - 2814 votes Speaks: English*, Japanese Studies: French, Korean, Ancient Greek | Message 24 of 106 25 July 2006 at 4:01am | IP Logged | |||||
As with my standard Canadian English, "have", "of", and "-'ve" are three different vowels. I've never understood how people make that bizarre mistake — who on earth taught them that "of" was a helping verb?. Edited by Captain Haddock on 25 July 2006 at 4:01am 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
