Register  Login  Active Topics  Maps  

Language competence

 Language Learning Forum : General discussion Post Reply
80 messages over 10 pages: << Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 8 ... 9 10 Next >>
Volte
Tetraglot
Senior Member
Switzerland
Joined 6249 days ago
4474 posts - 6726 votes 
Speaks: English*, Esperanto, German, Italian
Studies: French, Finnish, Mandarin, Japanese

 
 Message 57 of 80
16 October 2010 at 7:27pm | IP Logged 
Of course the CEFR is not a perfect synonym for fluency. It has both advantages and disadvantages.

People waste time talking about CEFR levels too.

And I agree that this discussion is moot.

1 person has voted this message useful



Aineko
Triglot
Senior Member
New Zealand
Joined 5258 days ago
238 posts - 442 votes 
Speaks: Serbian*, EnglishC2, Spanish
Studies: Russian, Arabic (Written), Mandarin

 
 Message 58 of 80
16 October 2010 at 11:54pm | IP Logged 
Maybe it would be a good solution to add one more section into a language profile where
people would be asked to rate their skills in a given language based on a CEFR scale?
Something like: "Based on a CEFR system (CEFR description), how do you rate your
listening/speaking/reading/writing for this language?".
Completely replacing current system with CEFR wouldn't really end discussions, it would
just shift focus a little bit. In addition to what is fluency, we would also have
discussions about 'but how many languages do you speak? what do you mean you count that
one in your 'speak' languages while your writing is A1?' and similar...
I do not have a problem with current HTLAL system, it already has a very detailed
language profile and whoever wants can check specific skills for someone's language (if
they are entered, of course), but since CEFR is a standardized system then it's not a bad
idea to include it in lang. profiles.
2 persons have voted this message useful



ellasevia
Super Polyglot
Winner TAC 2011
Senior Member
Germany
Joined 5952 days ago
2150 posts - 3229 votes 
Speaks: English*, German, Croatian, Greek, French, Spanish, Russian, Swedish, Portuguese, Turkish, Italian
Studies: Catalan, Persian, Mandarin, Japanese, Romanian, Ukrainian

 
 Message 59 of 80
17 October 2010 at 12:54am | IP Logged 
Aineko wrote:
Maybe it would be a good solution to add one more section into a language profile where people would be asked to rate their skills in a given language based on a CEFR scale? Something like: "Based on a CEFR system (CEFR description), how do you rate your listening/speaking/reading/writing for this language?". Completely replacing current system with CEFR wouldn't really end discussions, it would just shift focus a little bit. In addition to what is fluency, we would also have discussions about 'but how many languages do you speak? what do you mean you count that one in your 'speak' languages while your writing is A1?' and similar... I do not have a problem with current HTLAL system, it already has a very detailed language profile and whoever wants can check specific skills for someone's language (if they are entered, of course), but since CEFR is a standardized system then it's not a bad idea to include it in lang. profiles.


That sounds like a great idea, actually. It could be an optional feature, just like the current details/skills/reasons/certificates sections and would appease those who like the traditional structure of the website and also those who prefer to rate themselves with CEFR. It would also probably be easier to implement than having to convert everyone's language levels into the CEFR 'equivalents.'

Taking this off on a tangent, I think it would be nice if after filling in these skills, we could receive an average score along with a suggested fluency level. For example, for my Swedish, I would classify myself like this, with A1 being a 1 and C2 being a 6:

Listening: B1 (3)
Reading: B2 (4)
Spoken Interaction: B1 (3)
Spoken Production: B1 (3)
Writing: B2 (4)

This would yield an average score of 3.4, which would be rounded down to 3, which would be an average of B1 level. Most people here would probably agree that B1 is approximately an intermediate level. If I had scored higher, perhaps a 3.7, it could be rounded up to a 4, or B2 level, which would then recommend "basic fluency" (since most people here agree that basic fluency is approximately B2 level). After this you can choose whether or not you want to heed this advice ("your average level is B2, so you are approximately at an intermediate level") and mark the level in terms of our fluency levels in the main part of the profile.

Probably a little complicated, but even so, I think it could be quite useful. What do you think of that idea?
3 persons have voted this message useful



William Camden
Hexaglot
Senior Member
United Kingdom
Joined 6082 days ago
1936 posts - 2333 votes 
Speaks: English*, German, Spanish, Russian, Turkish, French

 
 Message 60 of 80
16 November 2010 at 2:05pm | IP Logged 
Volte wrote:
Iversen wrote:

If a suitably educated and knowledgeable native speaker doesn't discover that you are a foreigner when communicating 1) purely by sound 2) purely in writing then you have attained near-native competence - though in case 2 limited to written skills. The jury is still out on whether you could inversely be mistaken for a native speaker orally, but revealed through errors committed in your writing.


It's definitely possible. I had a classmate at one point, in an intermediate Italian class. Native Italians were shocked that we were in the same class; at least some of them thought she was a native speaker. Her writing was terrible, though - it was quite filled with non-native grammatical errors.

More generally, I know quite a few people who are very fluent in spoken English, but write significantly worse than they speak, while making very non-native errors.


I have known Germans whose spoken English was great, and only very lightly accented. While their written English was riddled with wrong spellings and was clearly inferior to their spoken English.
2 persons have voted this message useful



hrhenry
Octoglot
Senior Member
United States
languagehopper.blogs
Joined 4940 days ago
1871 posts - 3642 votes 
Speaks: English*, SpanishC2, ItalianC2, Norwegian, Catalan, Galician, Turkish, Portuguese
Studies: Polish, Indonesian, Ojibwe

 
 Message 61 of 80
16 November 2010 at 2:17pm | IP Logged 
William Camden wrote:
While their written English was riddled with wrong spellings and was clearly inferior to their spoken English.

That sounds like a large portion of the native English-speaking population.

I say that only half-joking.

R.
==
2 persons have voted this message useful



RealJames
Diglot
Newbie
Japan
realizeenglish.com/
Joined 4934 days ago
37 posts - 42 votes
Speaks: French, English*
Studies: Japanese

 
 Message 62 of 80
16 November 2010 at 3:04pm | IP Logged 
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.


I agree with these guidelines entirely. :)
I do have to add though that according to them, a great number of native English speakers are in fact not fluent in English. ;)
1 person has voted this message useful



Cainntear
Pentaglot
Senior Member
Scotland
linguafrankly.blogsp
Joined 5821 days ago
4399 posts - 7687 votes 
Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic
Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh

 
 Message 63 of 80
16 November 2010 at 7:09pm | IP Logged 
Aineko wrote:
but since CEFR is a standardized system then it's not a bad
idea to include it in lang. profiles.

It's a terrible idea specifically because it's a standardised system.

A lot of people here are fluent in several languages but would still fail the A1 criteria in many of them. The CEFR is designed for immigrant workers, so at A1 you're supposed to understand job application forms. It progresses through work-related skills (answering the telephone etc) to being able to discuss "your specialism" (I can't really say much about IT -- my specialism -- in any of my languages but English) before finally becoming general.

The CEFR is completely irrelevant to us here. FX has set up his own matrix of "I can" skills here that is also far from perfect, but of far more general applicability than the CEFR.

The CEFR is particularly irrelevant to minority languages -- for example, application forms in minority language areas will be bilingual in the majority language, so teaching/learning to this model is pointless.
2 persons have voted this message useful



s_allard
Triglot
Senior Member
Canada
Joined 5240 days ago
2704 posts - 5425 votes 
Speaks: French*, English, Spanish
Studies: Polish

 
 Message 64 of 80
16 November 2010 at 8:51pm | IP Logged 
Cainntear wrote:
Aineko wrote:
but since CEFR is a standardized system then it's not a bad
idea to include it in lang. profiles.

It's a terrible idea specifically because it's a standardised system.

A lot of people here are fluent in several languages but would still fail the A1 criteria in many of them. The CEFR is designed for immigrant workers, so at A1 you're supposed to understand job application forms. It progresses through work-related skills (answering the telephone etc) to being able to discuss "your specialism" (I can't really say much about IT -- my specialism -- in any of my languages but English) before finally becoming general.

The CEFR is completely irrelevant to us here. FX has set up his own matrix of "I can" skills here that is also far from perfect, but of far more general applicability than the CEFR.

The CEFR is particularly irrelevant to minority languages -- for example, application forms in minority language areas will be bilingual in the majority language, so teaching/learning to this model is pointless.


Really, Cainntear, sometimes I think you go out of your way to make the most outlandish statements on purpose. To say these things about the CEFR model demonstrates an unfathomable ignorance about its origins, development and purpose. Just ask the people at Cambridge ESOL, a large language testing firm, if they think that the CEFR was designed solely for immigrant workers:
http://www.cambridgeesol.org/exams/exams-info/cefr.html


3 persons have voted this message useful



This discussion contains 80 messages over 10 pages: << Prev 1 2 3 4 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 0.3125 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.