|
 |
How many words to speak? | ||
Tags: Number of words | Speaking | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5429 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes  Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 225 of 309 21 September 2014 at 1:52am | IP Logged | ||
|
I was a bit surprised to see that some people here felt that the problem with that e-mail that I gave earlier as a
bit of an interlude in the discussion was in the vocabulary. Not everybody agrees with my statement that the vocabulary was perfect. My choice of wording may not have been the best but I thought that the key words of the person's intentions were all there. I don't see anything missing. There may be two schools of thought here as to how to improve this e-mail: a) add more vocabulary and b) correct the binding between the existing words. I'm obviously on the b) side. If I were an examiner hearing a candidate speak like this, I would not be very satisfied. I would give good marks for the vocabulary and low marks for grammar and overall proficiency. What would make a difference for me, the examiner? Actually, it wouldn't take much. I'm not a native speaker of English, but I'll have a go at an improved version. Before "How are you? I'm happy, I'm on weekend and I see you Sunday for the meeting. I would like having private lessons with you, above all for my understanding and to speak and speak again. The next week, I don't work on Thursday, so we can try on skype. We discuss on Sunday, ok? Thanks and have a nice evening. Best regards," After - Version 1 "How are you? I'm happy, it's the weekend, and I'll be seeing you Sunday at the meeting. I would like to have private lessons with you, above all for understanding and speaking - and more speaking! Next week, I don't work on Thursday, so we can try Skype. Let's discuss it Sunday, ok? Thanks, and have a nice evening. Best regards," This is of course only one attempt at improving the original. I encourage readers to suggest their own After version. As we can see, I hardly made any changes to the original vocabulary and sentence structure. The corrections were all in the flow or binding of the words together. If I were an examiner hearing this, especially with good pronunciation, including good intonation, the candidate would sail through the test. Other versions are certainly possible but there is nothing wrong - by my standards - that warrants deducting marks. I would be really curious to see how adding more vocabulary would work. With or without the grammatical corrections. I could see taking the After version and adding all sorts of vocabulary to demonstrate lexical prowess, but that is another story. Edited by s_allard on 21 September 2014 at 1:54am 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| luke Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 7204 days ago 3133 posts - 4351 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish Studies: Esperanto, French | Message 226 of 309 21 September 2014 at 2:38am | IP Logged | ||
This brings up the question of what guidelines examiner's use and how much leeway they have or feel they have. For the CEFR, I wonder. The FSI examiners have guidelines they take very seriously. The FSI rating is a promise the candidate will be able to perform at at least the level awarded for some period of time after the test. They get in trouble if the candidate cannot perform at the rating level specified for the post. The FSI French and Spanish Testing Kit also gives examiner's methods and tactics to feel out the candidate to make sure they don't rate a candidate higher than they can actually perform at the level in the real world and not just for a few minutes during the exam. For the FSI, there is no "sail through the test" because of good pronunciation and intonation. In fact, of the five things they rate candidates on, grammar, vocabulary, comprehension, fluency, and accent, accent is given the least weight. 5 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| robarb Nonaglot Senior Member United States languagenpluson Joined 5058 days ago 361 posts - 921 votes Speaks: Portuguese, English*, German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Swedish, Esperanto, French Studies: Mandarin, Danish, Russian, Norwegian, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, Polish, Greek, Latin, Nepali, Modern Hebrew | Message 227 of 309 21 September 2014 at 8:05am | IP Logged | ||
|
I've reproduced here the weights assigned to each level of the components of speaking according to the FSI
guidelines, where 1 is completely inadequate and 6 is functionally equivalent to a native speaker. For scores 1-2-3-4-5-6: Accent: 0-1-2-2-3-4 Grammar: 6-12-18-24-30-36 Vocabulary: 4-8-12-16-20-24 Fluency: 2-4-6-8-10-12 Comprehension: 4-8-12-15-19-23 Conversion from total scores to assigned level: 16-25: 0+ 26-32: 1 33-42: 1+ 43-52: 2 53-62: 2+ 63-72: 3 73-82: 3+ 83-92: 4 93-99: 4+ Now, a rating of 1+ is roughly equivalent to B1. If the examinee has a vocabulary score of 2 ("limited to basic personal and survival areas") and their other skills are as good or better, they'll pass at this level. B1 learners are not supposed to be able to converse at full speed about any topic. It's enough to converse, mostly comprehensibly but allowing for some repair, on a few basic topics. I see no reason why you couldn't get a 1+. It's not like a student who scores a 1+ would be sent off to translate critical documents for the US government and deal with foreign diplomats. It's more like a badge of "adequate progress, approve for Intermediate course." Edited by robarb on 21 September 2014 at 8:07am 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| theyweed Senior Member Poland Joined 3811 days ago 23 posts - 33 votes Speaks: English | Message 228 of 309 21 September 2014 at 12:48pm | IP Logged | ||
|
The original post has 16 distinct words, but it lacks correctness. The one you've
created has 17 distinct and is well written. I've tried to come up with a message more succint (explanation below), yet it turned out that it contains 19 distinct words. Note 1: I don't claim to be an expert as far as English is concerned, actually I'd assess my level B2. Note 2: The programme used to count those words is called tagcrowd (it doesn't count Is, Yous, ares, donts etc.) My version: How are you. I’m looking forward to seeing you. I’d like to have private lessons with you, in order to improve my understanding and speak more. (I'm not sure about the gist of the first line. Did he mean that it's sunday or that he comes on sunday. I assumed the meeting is already arranged and he's glad to see you, not describing his state in general) I’m free following Thursday, so we can try to converse on Skype. We’ll discuss it Sunday, ok? Thanks, and have a nice evening. My point: I must admit that having done this little test I slowly begin to comprehend your reasoning. The feasibility of surviving in a language with scarce vocabulary resources exists. Interestingly, only 15-20 words were used to convey a quite comprehensive output. Nevertheless such limited vocabulary may lead to incredibly awkward circumlocutions and is simply tiring for interlocutors. Edited by theyweed on 21 September 2014 at 12:52pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| luke Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 7204 days ago 3133 posts - 4351 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish Studies: Esperanto, French | Message 229 of 309 21 September 2014 at 12:56pm | IP Logged | ||
Thank you for reproducing the charts and weighting. FSI diplomats are typically shooting for FSI level 3 (general professional proficiency) or higher. FSI and ILR ratings are the same. According to wikipedia, level 3 is similar to CEFR level C1. One informal observation mentioned in the conclusion of lessons learned from fifty years of language learning is that at borderline professional proficiency or less, candidates skills "experience attrition" after training and while on post. Strongly at FSI level 3, speaking skills are maintained or improve. If they leave training speaking at level 3+ or 4, they "almost certainly continue to improve". Edited by luke on 21 September 2014 at 1:06pm 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5429 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 230 of 309 21 September 2014 at 2:00pm | IP Logged | ||
Thanks theyweed for a fine After version of the e-mail. I should point out that I reason I presented the original e- mail was not to show the utility of a small vocabulary but rather to illustrate the importance of usage and grammar in the perception of a message. I really wouldn't worry about the number of words here. I personally kept very close to the original because I felt this best represented the author's original thinking. For example, the author is happy because the weekend is here. But there is certainly room for interpretation and quite different versions. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5429 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 231 of 309 21 September 2014 at 3:14pm | IP Logged | ||
|
I had a look at the suggested version of the FSI testing kit for French and Spanish. I should point out that the FSI
is a rating or placement test that aims to determine the level of linguistic performance. On the other hand the CEFR tests are achievement tests that assess for a specific level of proficiency. You can fail a CEFR test and end up with nothing. One thing that caught my eye in the FSI section on Testing Procedure was the following passage (page 4):
I've said on a few occasions that examiners of oral proficiency can have a good sense of an examinee's proficiency within a few minutes of the interview. The FSI testing kit authors seem to agree with me. I've even said with reference to our e-mail example that if the candidate spoke like in the After version, they would "sail through the test." What I meant, metaphorically of course, was that this candidate obviously demonstrated a very good command of the language and would have no problem with the rest of the test. There is no reason for anyone to get upset. To come back to the central theme of the thread, the question, it seems to me, is: How can such a small speaking sample (5 minutes) be enough to give an overall idea of the candidate's proficiency? With reference specifically to vocabulary, how much vocabulary can one cram into a conversation of five minutes duration? You may have a huge vocabulary but you can't cram 1000 unique words into five minutes of conversation. It will probably be closer to 200 from what we've seen here. But let's be generous and say 300 for the fast talkers. How can 300 words determine your speaking proficiency? I don't want to annoy even more people by repeating my position on this question ad nauseam. Basically, I believe that such is the functioning of language that examiners feel confident that what they see in a small sample is consistent with the rest. Taking our e-mail example, if you talk like one of the After versions above, you're immediately pegged as a much better speaker than someone who speaks like the Before version. The assumption is that anyone who can speak as in the After version exhibits a mastery of the language that applies across the board. As the FSI document points out, the level of proficiency quickly becomes apparent from the very beginning with the initial pleasantries. All of this should not be surprising to us. For example, something like accent, which is generally not very important for test scores, tends to be a good indicator of overall proficiency. With fluency, it is certainly the most striking feature. As robarb has mentioned earlier, a great accent and a few words will convince most people that you speak a language well. Not examiners or native speakers, of course. What about cheating on a speaking test? There is this idea of having "islands" of knowledge where you may feel more comfortable speaking because you are more familiar with the vocabulary and you have rehearsed more. Therefore, you try to steer the conversation towards those islands. Not a bad strategy. It's certainly easier to talk about pet topics than about things you are less familiar with. That said, I don't see how this makes a difference in your grammar. I can see trying to avoid grammatical constructions that you are less sure of. Certainly a good idea, but I think your level of control and mastery of complexity becomes apparent quite quickly. You make mistakes or you don't. And, as the FSI, makes clear in the very beginning, the gold standard in all this is what would a native speaker say in a similar situation. This actually leaves room for a lot of variation because people don't all speak alike, just as we can have different versions of our After e-mail above. But they are not full of mistakes. Edited by s_allard on 21 September 2014 at 4:25pm 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| Serpent Octoglot Senior Member Russian Federation serpent-849.livejour Joined 6596 days ago 9753 posts - 15779 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Russian*, English, FinnishC1, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese Studies: Danish, Romanian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Slovenian, Catalan, Czech, Galician, Dutch, Swedish | Message 232 of 309 21 September 2014 at 3:58pm | IP Logged | ||
You said elsewhere that it's your motivation in general for this kind of discussions. But then why not name your threads accordingly and state the real subject clearly from the beginning? We've already had too many sport metaphors, but this is basically like starting a thread on "how to improve your running speed" on a forum about a sport that involves running (but not solely about running), and then just try to convince everyone that it's not really important to be a fast runner. 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. |
