|
 |
Language competence | ||
Tags: CEFR Language Levels | Fluency | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
 Iversen Super Polyglot Moderator Denmark berejst.dk Joined 6706 days ago 9078 posts - 16473 votes  Speaks: Danish*, French, English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedish, Esperanto, Romanian, Catalan Studies: Afrikaans, Greek, Norwegian, Russian, Serbian, Icelandic, Latin, Irish, Lowland Scots, Indonesian, Polish, Croatian Personal Language Map | Message 41 of 80 13 October 2010 at 11:25am | IP Logged | ||
|
As S_Allard writes,"The CEFR is one system inter alia. One may debate its shortcomings, but fundamentally we can agree on the distinctions." My 'debate' with the system is that it is heavily skewed towards a skill which isn't my top priority - informal conversation - and of course also that I took enough exams earlier in my life, and I don't feel I need to prove anything more than what can be seen from my postings here. Everybody can judge my level from the things I write (and recently from my videos), but most members don't even give their true names here - so how could you trust that people had taken a C2 test or just lied about it? The test itself might be OK, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Edited by Iversen on 13 October 2010 at 12:00pm 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5433 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 42 of 80 13 October 2010 at 1:49pm | IP Logged | ||
As is often the case, Iversen makes a very valid point. Actually so does Aineko. Can we trust people to indicate their true CEFR rating? Furthermore, is the CEFR an appropriate rating system for everybody? Let's start with the second question. I think the CEFR attempts to be a comprehensive assessment system of all facets of language performance including writing. Of course, the videos show primarily the speaking skills in a rather informal setting. But remember that all the tests have a major written component. I would say that CEFR testing has somewhat of a bias towards the written form. Whatever the case, it is evident that the CEFR is not for everybody. It was designed to meet the needs of European institutions that are confronted with the problem of evaluating the the language skills of a mobile and diverse clientele. It was certainly not designed for the needs of language hobbyists or polyglots like us. There are other rating systems around. In fact, language testing goes hand in hand with a rating system. The huge advantage of the CEFR is standardization. All the European Union nations agree on a certain approach to defining and testing second language performance. That's the whole point of standardization. A B2 means the same thing to everybody. If a commercial language learning product claims a C1 level, I have a certain sense of what it will do. Right now, most of the products that are discussed here at HTAL make no specific claim other than the usual "guaranteed fluency". Actually, my interest in the CEFR systems does not stem from a belief that it is the best system around. To me it is a reasonably well defined scale that provides a good reference system for discussion of second language skills. To me it allows us to go beyond these maddening discussions of what is fluency. As many people know, I would restrict the word fluency to a very technical usage. As to whether people here at HTLAL would be honest in their self-evaluation, actually I don't see that as a problem at all. Sure, there may be some braggarts who will claim to be C2 in a long list of languages, but I believe that the vast majority of people will see and use the CEFR for what it is: a system of assessment of second language skills. In fact, I think most people will be quite humble, especially after watching some of the videos demonstrating the various levels. Frankly, I feel more comfortable saying my Russian and my German are A2 rather than "I speak Russian and German but not that well". As Iversen has put it, many of us have no desire or need to be certified at specific levels. That is very true, but we are not the target audience for the CEFR. However, that does not prevent us from using it when it comes in handy so that we can discuss really important issues rather than get tangled up in questions of definition of fluency. Edited by s_allard on 13 October 2010 at 4:02pm 9 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| Iversen Super Polyglot Moderator Denmark berejst.dk Joined 6706 days ago 9078 posts - 16473 votes Speaks: Danish*, French, English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedish, Esperanto, Romanian, Catalan Studies: Afrikaans, Greek, Norwegian, Russian, Serbian, Icelandic, Latin, Irish, Lowland Scots, Indonesian, Polish, Croatian Personal Language Map | Message 43 of 80 13 October 2010 at 2:27pm | IP Logged | ||
|
I mentioned the possibility that people could lie about their CEFR's if that was the official reference frame. I should probably add that I don't think that many members would pretend to having taken a test which they had failed or not even tried to take. My thesis is that people would make references to the names of the CEFR-levels that were just as confused and misleading as their references to the present four-tier system (with native and near-native fluency on the sideline). Or they would just not make any statements at all, which would be even less informative than the present system.
If you are an employer looking for someone who speaks 'fluent' Japanese or German (whatever that is) you can ask to see an original diploma, but here at HTLAL members already now have the chance to mark their CEFR diplomas - and extremely few people do so. All the rest is basically guesswork or based on homemade criteria. Remove those assessments and you have nothing left. It is clear that the word fluency is used in two very different senses. In one sense it is the ability to produce utterances without pauses (=flow), and in the other it is the quality of your utterances that is measured. This is of course problematic, but switching to the CEFR nomenklature won't solve that problem. Edited by Iversen on 13 October 2010 at 2:32pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| William Camden Hexaglot Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 6275 days ago 1936 posts - 2333 votes Speaks: English*, German, Spanish, Russian, Turkish, French | Message 44 of 80 13 October 2010 at 4:35pm | IP Logged | ||
|
In my profile I list three languages besides my native one as languages I "speak": German, French and Turkish. I would place my level in all three as "basic" though not "advanced" fluency. My criterion here is that if I were dropped suddenly by parachute where these languages are spoken, I could speak them. I wouldn't have to fall back on English, sign language or any other language. For example, I am in Austria and my German is fine for all normal purposes. I can also speak in Turkish when I encounter Turkish speakers. I don't often have opportunities to speak French but when I last did, there were no problems.
I have varying degrees of knowledge of some other languages, but I don't list them because for example, although I have studied Russian, I am not confident I could be dropped into Volokolamsk by parachute and make myself understood, and understand the locals. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5433 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 45 of 80 13 October 2010 at 5:14pm | IP Logged | ||
|
I certainly agree that HTLAL members can be mistaken and self-delusional in their self-assessments using the CEFR system. This is a forum not a school; people are judged by what they say or write. The regulars know each other and have an idea of their respective pet peeves and areas of interest. We are here because we enjoy a good debate.
This is exactly why I think it is important to use correct terminology. Fluency in the sense of proficiency is in my mind confusing because it obscures the technical sense of fluidity of speech. It is difficult to talk about true fluency because we get sidetracked by tangential issues. I recognize that not everyone here is a university-trained linguist and in general I don't get hung up over proper linguistics terminology. Heck, if the majority prefer fluency for proficiency, I really don't care, although I myself refuse to use follow suit. Contrary to Iversen, I do think that using the CEFR nomenclature would change usage of the term fluency here at HTLAL. In the CEFR the fundamental concept is proficiency and fluency is used in the "proper" technical sense. This would encourage people to use the appropriate terminology. The importance of appropriate terminology is that we can understand each other and ultimately make progress discussing the fundamental issues. Let's talk about fluency when we mean fluency. It is one of the most important aspects of second language learning. Edited by s_allard on 13 October 2010 at 7:58pm 5 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5433 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 46 of 80 13 October 2010 at 5:26pm | IP Logged | ||
|
With all due respect to member William Camden, I do not think that being dropped by parachute where a language is spoken and being able to speak the language tells us what "basic" fluency means. As a homemade criterion (dixit Iversen), it's probably quite good. This is how this member sees his skill set and it works perfectly well for him. I don't want to belabour this point ad nauseum, but without a standardized assessment system, there is no way of determining what basic, intermediate or advanced fluency means for most people.
3 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| fireflies Senior Member Joined 5184 days ago 172 posts - 234 votes Speaks: English* | Message 47 of 80 13 October 2010 at 10:42pm | IP Logged | ||
|
I have no doubt a good standardized test can measure proficiency in a language very accurately. I would enjoy taking one just for fun.
However, the questionnaire on this forum is vague.
'Getting your point across' is a very general definition. Also, I have no college training in any foreign language and can read popular novels in Spanish very rapidly and without a dictionary. I read them almost as quickly as I read in English. However, my own grammar is far from perfect and I am not fluent in any proficient way. I am not sure that reading popular novels or a newspaper has much to do with the speaking proficiency aspect of fluency. I do not formally study grammar/vocab in books/flashcards even though I bought some (they gather dust on my shelf and I feel guilty about it). I have been meaning to run through some workbooks I have on hand because I know that would improve my proficiency. I mostly just listen (learn through repetition) and use context. 3 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| Volte Tetraglot Senior Member Switzerland Joined 6442 days ago 4474 posts - 6726 votes Speaks: English*, Esperanto, German, Italian Studies: French, Finnish, Mandarin, Japanese | Message 48 of 80 14 October 2010 at 12:21am | IP Logged | ||
|
I'm rather unimpressed by the CEFR system in practice. I clicked on the Italian C1 example out of curiosity, after reading the showcase example/explanation.
The presumably professional assessors ranked the learner's 'correctness' as everything from B1 to C2. I've quoted the correctness assessment below.
Edited by Volte on 14 October 2010 at 12:22am 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. |
