|
 |
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 65 of 106 19 September 2006 at 9:01pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
Thanks for setting us straight on the issue!
So am I. Based on the Platiquemos’ descriptions of the proficiency levels I think a level 3 in listening/reading and a 2+ in speaking would still pass for the forum’s rating of Basic Fluency. Edited by Farley on 19 September 2006 at 9:09pm 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 66 of 106 19 September 2006 at 9:13pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
Yes, "basic fluency" as used on this site is meaningless, but there is a level of ability that is short of native ability, yet fluent. On the other hand, being able to stumble through a conversation is not fluency. It is called "competence", a word that allows for a qualitative range (basic competence, advanced competence, etc.). "Proficiency" is a similarly gradable word. If someone says he's fluent in English, I expect to converse with him as effortlessly and smoothly as any native — without notable mistakes or pronunciation issues, and without resorting to simplified language. I expect him to know every word and idiom I use. That doesn't mean I expect him to have the same intuitive understanding of the language as a native; that bar is higher yet (and some do reach it). There's no point in trying to redefine "fluent" as anything less than "fluent" unless someone's trying to claim an accolade he hasn't earned yet. I haven't earned the label "fluent" for any of my languages yet, and I don't need to redefine the word for my ego. The word "fluent" is not useless or meaningless. It's just that people exaggerate or overestimate their skills. :) 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| frenkeld Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 6942 days ago 2042 posts - 2719 votes Speaks: Russian*, English Studies: German | Message 67 of 106 19 September 2006 at 9:31pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
The scale I use for myself is just "beginner", "intermediate", "advanced". "Beginning fluency" as used here is still "intermediate" to me. What I see as the separating line between "intermediate" and "advanced" is when one no longer has to rephrase all the time, but can usually say what one wants the way one meant to say it. (There is plenty of work left even after one crosses that line.) Edited by frenkeld on 19 September 2006 at 9:53pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Frisco Triglot Senior Member United States Joined 6855 days ago 380 posts - 398 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish, Portuguese Studies: Norwegian, Italian, Turkish, Mandarin | Message 68 of 106 19 September 2006 at 9:40pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
That already sounds like too high of a bar. Native English speakers from different regions misunderstand each other all the time due to a difference in words and idioms, yet nobody would claim the other isn't fluent. I would agree that misunderstandings should be minimal, but whenever such an occasion arises and a clarification is needed--the clarification should be understood. 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 69 of 106 19 September 2006 at 9:46pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
Haddock, sorry for stirring the topic up again but… I made reference to this above on this topic a while back. Is the issue the use of Basic Fluency on this forum (as it relates to FSI proficiency levels)? Or is that you think that some of us are unjustly awarding ourselves badges and honors? 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| lengua Senior Member United States polyglottery.wordpre Joined 6683 days ago 549 posts - 595 votes Studies: French, Italian, Spanish, German | Message 70 of 106 19 September 2006 at 9:48pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
It seems more and more as if the problem isn't simply due to an imprecise definition of "the word", but due to the tendency of some to try to apply their impossibly-long metersticks to the rest of the language-learning world. People are creating impossible standards, and standing on top of them and declaring "you must do THIS and THIS and ESPECIALLY THIS OR ELSE you're not (the word)!!!" It's starting to seem quite childish.
This thread is nearly indistinguishable from the Ziad Fazah thread, where we have people arguing that one needs to know more words than those found in the collected works of Shakespeare in order to truly be "the word". If it isn't a word-count, it's the ability to "take college classes", or "debate in front of scholars", or "speak and understand without any errors", or "write university essays", or "speak for hours without tiring while standing on your head" other impractical qualifications 9 out of every 10 human beings on Earth would fail. This to me suggests that the people battling so...eagerly...to turn "the word" into the linguistic equivalent of growing three heads makes me think it's sort of a wolf-in-the-manger issue - an "if I can't call myself (the word), I'm going to do my best to make sure no one else possibly can either" complex. And that's just silly. I know I should stay out of this thread, and I will after this, but I had to make my feelings known on the matter. Building straw towers and asking everyone else to climb them seems to run against the very spirit one should have in trying to learn a foreign language - or a dozen. Edited by lengua on 19 September 2006 at 9:55pm 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| frenkeld Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 6942 days ago 2042 posts - 2719 votes Speaks: Russian*, English Studies: German | Message 71 of 106 19 September 2006 at 9:55pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
It is not a straw tower to aim for near-native fluency. Whether one wants to do that is really a matter of choice, but it can and has been done, although most definitely not with a dozen languages. Edited by frenkeld on 19 September 2006 at 9:56pm 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| lengua Senior Member United States polyglottery.wordpre Joined 6683 days ago 549 posts - 595 votes Studies: French, Italian, Spanish, German | Message 72 of 106 19 September 2006 at 9:56pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
However, this thread isn't about near-native fluency. It's titled "basic-fluency". This is what I'm talking about with the straw-tower issue. :^) If we apply the standards necessary for near-native fluency (whatever those are) to a discussion about what is needed for 'basic' fluency, then it becomes impossible to have a basic fluency in any language - because we're judging it by n-n fluency standards. If we're going to talk about n-n fluency, let's do so, but let's do so on a thread dedicated to the topic. Or else we have two groups of people talking about two completely different things, and neither will agree with the other. And for the record, I fully believe it is possible to acquire near-native proficiency in a dozen languages. Edited by lengua on 19 September 2006 at 11:01pm 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. |
