|
 |
What does "basic fluency" really mean? | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| Farley Triglot Senior Member United States Joined 7091 days ago 681 posts - 739 votes  1 sounds Speaks: English*, GermanB1, French Studies: Spanish | Message 41 of 106 26 July 2006 at 1:29pm | IP Logged | |||||
We have tried and failed a couple of times so I don’t think we will be any more successful. The best thing we have done has been by giving examples, such as you did above. I have found this thread useful in collecting my thoughts about fluency and how to get there, so please forgive me if I’m just rambling on a familiar topic. Fluency seems to be one of those words such as “time”, that seem self evident at first until you to try and define it. Defining fluency as a number of words or rules is probably our way of imposing some type of order to language learning based on our experience. I learned the hard way that knowing X number of words and rules does not translate into the ability to read, write, listen and speak. What about all those words we understand in context but have no idea how to translate? We have already discussed this in a number or related topics, but I still enjoy reading all these “how fluent is really fluent” topics because they go strait to the heart of “how to learn a foreign language”, just as all those “I hate Pimsleur” and the “I hate Assimil” topics do from frustrated users. I think what we are doing here is superimposing our study plan and language goals onto the idea of fluency and so the arguments parallel the methods. On one hand you have the learning methods that practice fluency as a measure of what we can see, hear and understand, and on the other hand the methods that practice fluency as a measure of what we can say, write and response. Both methods also focus on sentences, phrases and examples rather than on the word or rule itself. Both methods work equally well as testified my members on the forum. As the learner our job is to find the right mix. This is probably self evident to many readers, but I think the lesson is an important one because as beginners we can sabotage our own efforts so easily by getting the method or the mix wrong. As Andy said above the use of a language is more the practice of reading, listening and speaking. In particular I like what was important to him because that I think defines not only when reach fluency, but how we get there. There was a point when I would have defined fluency as X number of words and rules. I painfully learned the hard way that X number of words and rules is just that – words and rules. I was also tempted to define fluency as a state where I would be when I completed course X and I learned the hard way yet again. Now my way of defining fluency is more of a ratio of 10-1, meaning that what is important is a massive input of reading and listening to relatively select practice of the important structural and functional phrases and then let the rest take care of itself. Keep going until it gets easier and easier. To sum up all of my rambling, is seems that fluency is more of a “subjective how” and not an “objective what” and thus will continue to be the subject of much debate. John Edited by Farley on 26 July 2006 at 2:23pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| patuco Diglot Moderator Gibraltar Joined 7014 days ago 3795 posts - 4268 votes Speaks: Spanish, English* Personal Language Map | Message 42 of 106 26 July 2006 at 2:16pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
Very good post John. I think you've summed it up very neatly, especially your last sentence.
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 43 of 106 26 July 2006 at 3:10pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
Andy, you have made me the author of thoughts that I have not expressed or implied. I think that if you read my post again you might realize that I do not say or imply that I think that the word competent is a better and more precise word than the word fluent. I say that competent is a better and more precise term than the term 'basically fluent'. And it is. Look carefully at what you have written: 'Certainly it [in this sentence of yours 'competent' is the antecedent of 'it' and 'it's'] may be "better" in your subjective opinion | because it's not as "sexy" a word as "fluent" but quite how you can argue that it's any more "precise" I don't know.' In this sentence you are saying that my opinion is that competent is better than fluent because it is a less sexy word. Nowhere do I imply such opinion. You are also saying that I argue that the word competent is more precise than the word fluent. Where do I argue that? I don't anywhere. Here is the sentence that has caused the trouble: '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.' In that sentence no comparison of terms is expressed or implied; and absent is the opinion you mention. In the clause 'just so he can use the sexy word fluent in regard to his ability,' I did not say 'the sexy term fluent' and modify 'fluent' with the adverb 'basically' because I thought so doing unnecessary. It is a learner that I am talking about. A learner is not fluent. (The word fluent should not be part of a term that is meant to indicate basic or intermediate skill.) Who cannot hear a learner saying to his new friends, 'In French I'm fluent, basically'?
Definitions already exist for all the words we are using. For these words I am not making up definitions that are in accord with my experience. According to the OED, and other excellent dictionaries, basic means simplest or lowest in level. Fluent implies complete mastery. For a learner to say that in his second language he is 'basically fluent' is ridiculous. Competent means adequate but not exceptional; and it is, therefore, a better term to describe basic or intermediate skill. The oxymoronic term 'basic fluency' is an imprecise term because it covers the whole spectrum. Competent does not cover the whole spectrum; it is, therefore, more precise, and it is an appropriate word to describe skills that fall far below the skills that constitute fluency. If you say that you are 'basically fluent' in a second language, I do not know how skilled you are at speaking it. If you say that you are competent at speaking a second language, I instantly know how skilled you are not. A person is infinitely more likely to ask you what you mean by 'basic fluency' than he is to ask you what you mean by competency. It is because the term 'basic fluency' is vague that this thread was begun. If the goal is to organize under a heading the requirements that constitute basic skill or intermediate skill, it makes sense to organize those requirements under a heading that does not consist of words that stand as a term that covers the whole spectrum--an oxymoronic term that means at one and the same time the lowest possible skill and the highest possible skill. 'Basic fluency' is a universal shoe: it stretches or shrinks to fit any learner who doesn't like the fit and feel of the 'shoe competency', or of the 'shoe proficiency'. He who prefers to consider himself to have achieved 'basic fluency', is in danger of growing satisfied with mediocrity. He becomes contented with what is really either basic skill or intermediate skill; and in his state of contentedness the aspiring polyglot sets aside the learning materials specific to his second tongue, stops short of mastery, and sets to work to achieve 'basic fluency' in a third, then in a fourth, and so on, thus becoming truly fluent in none. The mistake he has made is, in the main, the mistake of having two goals for one pursuit: the goal of achieving 'basic fluency' and the goal of achieving fluency. If his wish is to become fluent, he should have one goal--the goal of achieving fluency. By the way, an opinion, by its very nature, is subjective. But if you happen to be in a position to give a good example of an objective opinion, please do give it. I would like to see it. I say this with a friendly smile. Edited by Captlemuel on 14 August 2006 at 12:33am 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 44 of 106 26 July 2006 at 4:20pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
@Captlemuel: Does "fluent" really imply full mastery? I find the word "fluent" by itself is not very well defined; people use it to mean anything from basic conversational ability to native fluency. This doesn't mean that it's necessary, or even a good idea, to say "basic fluency" (a term which I and probably most of the other forum members use only on this forum, and not with our friends and colleagues), but for me and perhaps others here, fluency is a vague term. When someone says "I'm fluent in French", I always need to question them further to see if they mean native fluency, basic conversational ability, or something in between.
I think you're onto something with your idea that the term "basic fluency" leads people into the trap of believing that they've made a great achievement and can thus move on to another language without perfecting the first one. However, I'm inclined to believe that most forum members here learn languages for their own specific purposes (for example, to read books in Chinese without a dictionary), and not to simply add another title to a list on some web site. 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 45 of 106 26 July 2006 at 7:34pm | IP Logged | |||||
So how competent is competent? I don’t think the definition is what is in question here it is more the measuring stick we are using for basic fluency. Call it what you want, you are still back to square one.
Sorry, I hate to disagree again, but I don’t think self-deception is the problem either. I get the feeling that both of you think that if someone claims to be fluent, without having gone through a lot of hard work, they are receiving a medal without having earned it. It is really not contest. Some people are happy with modest goals and for others it just comes easy. 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 46 of 106 26 July 2006 at 7:52pm | IP Logged | |||||
Yes, this is what I meant in my original post. People learn for specific purposes which are highly personal, and not to achieve some predefined level outlined on a website. For example, I have no desire to speak Portuguese at a near-native level; "basic fluency" is enough for me in this language and will allow me to do everything I want. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| patuco Diglot Moderator Gibraltar Joined 7014 days ago 3795 posts - 4268 votes Speaks: Spanish, English* Personal Language Map | Message 47 of 106 27 July 2006 at 2:10am | IP Logged | |||||
This is why I NEVER use the word fluent when describing my abilities in my languages. When I'm asked "do you know French/Italian/etc?" I always reply "I can get by". Edited by patuco on 27 July 2006 at 2:11am 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 48 of 106 27 July 2006 at 3:05am | IP Logged | |||||
|
If a person were to tell me that he is fluent in French, I would think that by fluent he means that in most situations he speaks it quickly, easily, accurately, gracefully, and (perhaps) idiomatically; that he almost always has enough words on the tip of his tongue to carry on a conversation with a cultivated Parisian. If in most situations he in fact speaks as indicated, I would acknowledge him fluent and to have achieved mastery. Indeed, I do take fluency to imply mastery. But I do not take mastery to imply fluency... On the other hand, a person who has practiced his French enough to be able to chat in it with a patient Frenchman, but who cannot speak it easily and accurately in most situations; who in common conversation often pauses to search for common words that he knows but does not yet have at his command, is, in my opinion, neither fluent nor 'basically fluent'. I say he is not fluent and not 'basically fluent' because in most situations his expressions do not flow out of his mouth easily, accurately, etc. And of course I would not consider him to have achieved mastery. But I think he may be said to be competent in French; for he can engage a Frenchman in conversation.
Fluent means flowing; readiness in speech. It is defined as such by every good dictionary. We do still consult English dictionaries, right? And incidentally, fluent pertains to speaking, not to reading. If you read easily a book written in your second language, and understand what is conveyed, you do not read fluently; you read well, just as you read well, not fluently, when you read a book in your native language. It is entirely possible (and is probably quite common) that a person whose second language is, say, Italian, who has an active vocabulary of twenty thousand words, and a thorough understanding of sentence structure, may be less fluent in Italian than a person whose second language is also Italian, who has an active vocabulary of ten thousand words, and a good understanding of sentence structure. For fluency--a smooth and rapid and steady flow of accurate speech--is also determined by personality, by how fast the mind processes information, by how carefully one speaks, and probably by other things. So, to me, fluency does imply mastery; but mastery does not imply fluency. Fluency implies mastery and a ready tongue. To me mastery of a second language implies a thorough understanding of sentence structure, a large active vocabulary, and ability to speak accurately (unless the language is 'dead'). Edited by Captlemuel on 10 March 2007 at 11:09pm 2 persons have 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. |
