Register  Login  Active Topics  Maps  

Language competence

 Language Learning Forum : General discussion Post Reply
80 messages over 10 pages: 1 24 5 6 7 ... 3 ... 9 10 Next >>
Volte
Tetraglot
Senior Member
Switzerland
Joined 6444 days ago

4474 posts - 6726 votes 
Speaks: English*, Esperanto, German, Italian
Studies: French, Finnish, Mandarin, Japanese

 
 Message 17 of 80
02 October 2010 at 6:52pm | IP Logged 
Old Chemist wrote:
Volte wrote:
In response to issues that occasionally come up on this board, I think it might be worthwhile to rehash what is involved in fluency.

Fluency implies:
* being able to flowingly engage in spontaneous conversations with individual and groups of native speakers, in depth and for an extended period of time, on most/all topics you can discuss in your native language. This requires understanding the other speakers, as well as expressing your own thoughts in a way understandable to them, even if they don't share any other languages with you. Specifically, this is basic fluency. Advanced fluency also implies very few errors, none of which are systematic. Native fluency requires being routinely mistaken for a native speaker.

The following do not imply fluency:
* Memorizing a few phrases, regardless of how flowingly or perfectly.
* Using a few memorized phrases and grammatical concepts with friends. Even if they praise your progress or ability.
* Using google translate.
* Being able to passively understand a language.
* Having completed a course.
* Having memorized grammatical tables.
* Having memorized vocabulary items.
* Having memorized sound shifts.
* Randomly mutating words from related languages.
* Thinking or writing in some form of a language which makes sense to you, but which does not make sense to native speakers of a language. "Me speeky gud Inglisch" is not good English, and it is not the fault of English speakers if they have trouble with it; it should be acknowledged that this is a problem on the part of the speaker, not a failure of a native English listener.
* Having previously spoken a language fluently, but no longer being able to converse freely in it.
* Being able to talk about a simple, limited range of topics with very patient native speakers.
* Having a relationship with a native speaker.

An interesting middle ground is when someone speaks a language well, and knows enough sound shifts to come up with something native speakers of a related language can understand, as well as being able to understand such speakers. However, most members of this forum would not call that fluency.


An interesting post. I would only dispute that frequently or routinely being mistaken for a native speaker implies fluency. I know French, German and Italian and have been mistaken for a native speaker in both the first languages, but I certainly could not claim to be. I don't think the individuals concerned were flattering me, and I am almost always recognized as an Englishman when speaking Italian. I do try to mimic native speakers as closely as possible, so maybe this is the explanation


I'd consider it a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.

It's possible to be mistaken for a native when you're well short of native fluency, especially when fairly little language use is involved. I've been mistaken for a native German speaker before - but never once I've said anything in German!

If you're never getting mistaken for a native speaker, though, you're fairly clearly not at native fluency (with some obvious caveats about languages with only a few hundred native speakers or less who all know each other, etc).

1 person has voted this message useful



kidshomestunner
Senior Member
United Kingdom
Joined 6410 days ago

239 posts - 285 votes 
Speaks: Japanese

 
 Message 18 of 80
02 October 2010 at 9:34pm | IP Logged 
Volte wrote:


If you're never getting mistaken for a native speaker, though, you're fairly clearly not at native fluency (with some obvious caveats about languages with only a few hundred native speakers or less who all know each other, etc).


But stuff life fashion sense, paralinguistic features and aizuchi would very, very very often give you away. These are outside of verbal language: You could be fluent in the language yet not be mistaken for a native speaker.
2 persons have voted this message useful



Aineko
Triglot
Senior Member
New Zealand
Joined 5453 days ago

238 posts - 442 votes 
Speaks: Serbian*, EnglishC2, Spanish
Studies: Russian, Arabic (Written), Mandarin

 
 Message 19 of 80
02 October 2010 at 11:43pm | IP Logged 
kidshomestunner wrote:

But stuff life fashion sense, paralinguistic features and aizuchi would very, very very
often give you away.

what about conversation on a phone or voice-chat? that would be a good test for 'native
fluency'. if native speaker is convinced you are a native too, then you could call your
level 'native fluency'.
2 persons have voted this message useful



reineke
Senior Member
United States
https://learnalangua
Joined 6452 days ago

851 posts - 1008 votes 
Studies: German

 
 Message 20 of 80
03 October 2010 at 12:14am | IP Logged 
fear of telephone conversations

Fluency (also called volubility and loquaciousness) is the property of a person or of a system that delivers information quickly and with expertise.

Language fluency is used informally to denote broadly a high level of language proficiency, most typically foreign language or another learned language, and more narrowly to denote fluid language use, as opposed to slow, halting use. In this narrow sense, fluency is necessary but not sufficient for language proficiency: fluent language users (particularly uneducated native speakers) may have narrow vocabularies, limited discourse strategies, and inaccurate word use. They may be illiterate, as well. Native language speakers are often incorrectly referred to as fluent.

Language proficiency or linguistic proficiency is the ability of an individual to speak or perform in an acquired language. As theories vary among pedagogues as to what constitutes proficiency,[1] there is little consistency as to how different organizations classify it. Additionally, fluency and language competence are generally recognized as being related, but separate controversial subjects. In predominant frameworks in the United States, proficient speakers demonstrate both accuracy and fluency, and use a variety of discourse strategies.[2] Thus, a high number of native speakers of a language can be fluent without being considered proficient.


Wikipedia
3 persons have voted this message useful



Old Chemist
Senior Member
United Kingdom
Joined 5178 days ago

227 posts - 285 votes 
Speaks: English*
Studies: German

 
 Message 21 of 80
03 October 2010 at 11:53am | IP Logged 
Aineko wrote:
kidshomestunner wrote:

But stuff life fashion sense, paralinguistic features and aizuchi would very, very very
often give you away.

what about conversation on a phone or voice-chat? that would be a good test for 'native
fluency'. if native speaker is convinced you are a native too, then you could call your
level 'native fluency'.

Perhaps a useful working definition of fluency would be being treated as "one of the natives" to all intents and purposes and not having native speakers slow down for you or resort to simplified explanations or "baby talk" This would be fairly difficult to achieve for all situations. As for being taken for a native, leave aside alien body language, we cannot change how we look, so a caucasian will not be able to pass for a native in Japan or anywhere with few Europeans in the "native mix"
1 person has voted this message useful





Iversen
Super Polyglot
Moderator
Denmark
berejst.dk
Joined 6708 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 22 of 80
03 October 2010 at 2:25pm | IP Logged 
Aineko wrote:
kidshomestunner wrote:

But stuff life fashion sense, paralinguistic features and aizuchi would very, very very
often give you away.

what about conversation on a phone or voice-chat? that would be a good test for 'native
fluency'. if native speaker is convinced you are a native too, then you could call your
level 'native fluency'.


That would actually be a variation of the socalled Turing test
1 person has voted this message useful



H.Computatralis
Triglot
Senior Member
Poland
Joined 6309 days ago

130 posts - 210 votes 
Speaks: Polish*, French, English
Studies: German, Spanish, Latin

 
 Message 23 of 80
03 October 2010 at 4:29pm | IP Logged 
Iversen wrote:
That would actually be a variation of the socalled Turing test


Well, the Turing test is about evaluating the intelligence of the speaker rather than the linguistic abilities. Granted, a computer which could pass the Turing test would probably also be able to communicate fluently in some natural language, but the two are not necessarily linked.
1 person has voted this message useful



Aineko
Triglot
Senior Member
New Zealand
Joined 5453 days ago

238 posts - 442 votes 
Speaks: Serbian*, EnglishC2, Spanish
Studies: Russian, Arabic (Written), Mandarin

 
 Message 24 of 80
03 October 2010 at 9:29pm | IP Logged 
Old Chemist wrote:

Perhaps a useful working definition of fluency would be being treated as "one of the
natives" to all intents and purposes and not having native speakers slow down for you
or resort to simplified explanations or "baby talk" This would be fairly difficult to
achieve for all situations. As for being taken for a native, leave aside alien body
language, we cannot change how we look, so a caucasian will not be able to pass for a
native in Japan or anywhere with few Europeans in the "native mix"

I think we are mixing things up now - my post was only about 'native fluency', not
fluency itself. There are people out there who are trying to get their accents close to
perfection, make only 'native mistakes', use idioms like natives do, etc. It was then
argued on this topic that, because of the way people look, they could never pass for a
native in certain languages, so passing for a native shouldn't be a criterion for
'native fluency'. So I just asked what about the voice chat? Yes, it is a sort of a
Turing test (but just a sort of, since we are not testing intelligence, only a language
ability).   
Fluency is one thing while 'native fluency' is a completely different topic. For me
personally, it's not worth the effort - the time needed to get from some C level to
native fluency is pretty much enough to learn another language. But some people have
'native fluency' for their goal and I think it should be acknowledged if their reach
it.


3 persons have voted this message useful



This discussion contains 80 messages over 10 pages: << Prev 1 24 5 6 7 8 9 10  Next >>


Post ReplyPost New Topic Printable version Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page was generated in 0.3911 seconds.


DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved
No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization.