|
 |
Why do people lie about being fluent? | ||
Tags: Fake Reviews | Fluency | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| Arekkusu Hexaglot Senior Member Canada bit.ly/qc_10_lec Joined 5382 days ago 3971 posts - 7747 votes  Speaks: English, French*, GermanC1, Spanish, Japanese, Esperanto Studies: Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Estonian | Message 17 of 88 27 April 2011 at 3:44pm | IP Logged | ||
|
When a person has had enough regular contact with natives that they understand their ability in the real world, I have no problem with any claims of fluency, regardless of the meaning they give the word, because if you've used it in real life, you wouldn't say "fluent" unless you actually were somewhat fluent. Generally, fluent usually means something like "in a natural exchange with native speakers, I am able to discuss various topics with relative ease". I don't care about the specifics of it.
The problem is when people have only had superficial contact with the language and feel that they are fluent without really knowing what they are talking about, and let's face it, people who do know what they are talking about are few and far between. That being said, it IS possible for some people to be fluent after a few semesters. 5 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5431 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 18 of 88 27 April 2011 at 5:54pm | IP Logged | ||
I don't want to get into that dreadful debate about what is fluency, but I think that we always reach the same dead end when we ask people to define what they mean by fluency. Basically, fluency is whatever you make it to be. If you feel you are fluent, then you are fluent. So, people aren't lying about their proficiency, that is they are not deliberately deceiving others. They're not claiming to be B2 when in reality they are A2. They just think that they have achieved a level in the language that justifies using that catch-all and rather meaningless term "fluent." And I think they are right. Since I never use the terms fluency and fluent except in a technical sense, I think most of these discussions end up going nowhere because all debate is doomed due to the improper terminology being used. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| sam1000 Newbie United States Joined 4961 days ago 1 posts - 1 votes | Message 20 of 88 27 April 2011 at 9:53pm | IP Logged | ||
|
being fluent in my definition is simple. If you can express your thoughts to a native in a way that the native understands you immediately and vice-versa then you're fluent. Being fluent implies that you can clearly explain yourself without awkward pauses and do not need to phrase sentences in your mind and also immediately understand what a native speaker says.
Given this definition I think many who claim they are fluent are infact not. My brother and cousins are an example. My brother knows a few sentences in Spanish and claims he is fluent, these cookie-cutter sentences were learned in his line of work speaking to Spanish speakers in Los Angeles (with a large Spanish speaking population). I think when you use these cookie-cutter sentences and a native responds you feel that you've accomplished communication and thus feel fluent...that is my guess why people claim fluency. I for one think it's extremely unlikely one can become fluent without being immersed in a native environment. People who took courses and just studied academically in a country where that language is not native cannot normally become fluent unless they are linguistic geniuses. Edited by sam1000 on 27 April 2011 at 9:55pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Arekkusu Hexaglot Senior Member Canada bit.ly/qc_10_lec Joined 5382 days ago 3971 posts - 7747 votes Speaks: English, French*, GermanC1, Spanish, Japanese, Esperanto Studies: Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Estonian | Message 21 of 88 27 April 2011 at 9:59pm | IP Logged | ||
Your definition of fluency is very forgiving. Consequently, I was quite surprised to see you end your post with the claim that it's extremely unlikely outside of immersion. I've seen it done too often, by too many people to agree with you. I will agree that few people have enough motivation to reach that level, though, but they needn't be geniuses. 5 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| Cavesa Triglot Senior Member Czech Republic Joined 5010 days ago 3277 posts - 6779 votes Speaks: Czech*, FrenchC2, EnglishC1 Studies: Spanish, German, Italian | Message 22 of 88 27 April 2011 at 11:19pm | IP Logged | ||
|
Perhaps the person just felt fluent in situations her studies had covered so far (and it doesn't necessarily mean just parroting a few phrases like ordering a beer as the definitions of A1 and maybe A2 level imply.depends much on the quality of lessons and her own efforts) and it is an accomplishment for her which I understand. Many people after a few semesters of studies are not able to put a simple sentence together but unless I hear someone speaking I cannot judge whether or not they are "fluent" to any extent.
As Iversen mentioned, there should be a difference between using words fluent and proficient while proficient should be understood as a very high level (I wouldn't call myself proficient in any of my foreign languages while I feel quite fluent in two of them). Or there might be other reasons like someone telling her, or making the impression she seemed fluent to them. Might be a teacher trying to motivate the student or a monolingual friend impressed by a few sentences. So, what's the matter with someone calling themselves fluent even though they don't seem to be? If they apply for a job, most employers already want some certificate. If they speak with a native, they'll use what they know and either strenghten or leave their feeling of fluency. Only trouble might come if they promised something concerning the language to a friend who got false impression about their skills. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| portunhol Triglot Senior Member United States thelinguistblogger.w Joined 6253 days ago 198 posts - 299 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish, Portuguese Studies: German, Arabic (classical) | Message 23 of 88 27 April 2011 at 11:28pm | IP Logged | ||
|
If I have learned anything rubbing shoulders with polyglots it is that one should always qualify one's language abilities. It's kind of like saying your a good martial artist. You're almost begging people to pick a fight with you or at least test you. If you describe yourself as advanced, fluent, near native, etc. then be prepared to back up your claims.
1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5431 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 24 of 88 27 April 2011 at 11:50pm | IP Logged | ||
|
I just have to laugh when I read these discussions of what is fluency, discussions that I consider basically useless. Now, I know that what we are trying to define is levels of foreign-language skills. But why are we constantly reinventing the wheel? Why try to define fluent or any term for that matter when there is a huge body of literature on the assessment of language proficiency? If one does not like the CEFR system, there are others. But, please, why not use at least some standardized rating system so that we are on the same page?
6 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. |
