Register  Login  Active Topics  Maps  

Are we being too hard on the polyglots?

 Language Learning Forum : Polyglots Post Reply
72 messages over 9 pages: << Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 8 9 Next >>
Sprachprofi
Nonaglot
Senior Member
Germany
learnlangs.comRegistered users can see my Skype Name
Joined 6280 days ago

2608 posts - 4866 votes 
Speaks: German*, English, French, Esperanto, Greek, Mandarin, Latin, Dutch, Italian
Studies: Spanish, Arabic (Written), Swahili, Indonesian, Japanese, Modern Hebrew, Portuguese

 
 Message 57 of 72
05 January 2012 at 7:18pm | IP Logged 
nway wrote:
Volte wrote:
If you insist that "fluency" needs to mean "adult native
fluency", the vast majority of Europe is suddenly monolingual. That Swiss banker and
Dutch businessman you see in the corner who do complicated business in 6 languages each
are suddenly both only 'fluent' in one. Universities are full of people (both students
and professors) who have spent their whole academic life in a language and are well-
regarded in their field, but suddenly can't use the word "fluent" to describe their
level of ability in it any longer. Even people who live off of their language skills,
such as proofreaders and authors who work in a language which is not native to them,
can suddenly be stripped of use of the word 'fluency', regardless of how useful their
work is even to educated native speakers of the language in question.

Just because you're not fluent in a language doesn't mean you can't speak it at all.
There's no need to deal in absolutes here.

No, the point is that if you can do complicated business in a language, or write poetry
in it, you're fluent, no matter if you have the exact same abilities as an adult native
speaker (who might not be able to do business or write poetry in his native language)
or not. An adult native speaker is probably more likely to know what a "nip slip" is,
or dozens of such culturally-influenced details, but they are not essential to claiming
fluency even by a very demanding definition. The most fluent non-native speakers have
abilities that many native speakers lack (e. g. knowing scientific vocabulary, or being
able to write a thesis paper) and they lack other abilities that native speakers tend
to have (e. g. knowing baby talk). Neither is better or worse, nor more or less
perfect, more or less fluent, just different, and that difference is called native vs.
non-native.
6 persons have voted this message useful



tractor
Tetraglot
Senior Member
Norway
Joined 5263 days ago

1349 posts - 2292 votes 
Speaks: Norwegian*, English, Spanish, Catalan
Studies: French, German, Latin

 
 Message 58 of 72
05 January 2012 at 8:24pm | IP Logged 
Oh, no! This has turned into yet another of our fluency debates.

While I agree with most of what Nway said in his long post, I'd say you are fluent long before you reach "native
fluency" or even "near native fluency".
3 persons have voted this message useful



Volte
Tetraglot
Senior Member
Switzerland
Joined 6249 days ago

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

 
 Message 59 of 72
05 January 2012 at 8:33pm | IP Logged 
tractor wrote:
Oh, no! This has turned into yet another of our fluency debates.

While I agree with most of what Nway said in his long post, I'd say you are fluent long before you reach "native
fluency" or even "near native fluency".


And everyone except self-proclaimed monolinguals from the USA seem to agree with you.

3 persons have voted this message useful



lichtrausch
Triglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 5770 days ago

525 posts - 1072 votes 
Speaks: English*, German, Japanese
Studies: Korean, Mandarin

 
 Message 60 of 72
05 January 2012 at 8:35pm | IP Logged 
Just when I thought I had heard every possible definition of "fluency"...
1 person has voted this message useful



mick33
Senior Member
United States
Joined 5734 days ago

1335 posts - 1632 votes 
Speaks: English*
Studies: Finnish
Studies: Thai, Polish, Afrikaans, Hindi, Hungarian, Italian, Spanish, Swedish

 
 Message 61 of 72
05 January 2012 at 8:49pm | IP Logged 
Sprachprofi wrote:
nway wrote:
Volte wrote:
If you insist that "fluency" needs to mean "adult native
fluency", the vast majority of Europe is suddenly monolingual. That Swiss banker and
Dutch businessman you see in the corner who do complicated business in 6 languages each
are suddenly both only 'fluent' in one. Universities are full of people (both students
and professors) who have spent their whole academic life in a language and are well-
regarded in their field, but suddenly can't use the word "fluent" to describe their
level of ability in it any longer. Even people who live off of their language skills,
such as proofreaders and authors who work in a language which is not native to them,
can suddenly be stripped of use of the word 'fluency', regardless of how useful their
work is even to educated native speakers of the language in question.

Just because you're not fluent in a language doesn't mean you can't speak it at all.
There's no need to deal in absolutes here.

No, the point is that if you can do complicated business in a language, or write poetry
in it, you're fluent, no matter if you have the exact same abilities as an adult native
speaker (who might not be able to do business or write poetry in his native language)
or not. An adult native speaker is probably more likely to know what a "nip slip" is,
or dozens of such culturally-influenced details, but they are not essential to claiming
fluency even by a very demanding definition. The most fluent non-native speakers have
abilities that many native speakers lack (e. g. knowing scientific vocabulary, or being
able to write a thesis paper) and they lack other abilities that native speakers tend
to have (e. g. knowing baby talk). Neither is better or worse, nor more or less
perfect, more or less fluent, just different, and that difference is called native vs.
non-native.
I agree that there is a difference between native and non-native fluency. BTW Some of the definitions of fluency here which set the threshold very, very high may require me to stop claiming native fluency in English because I had to look up the term "nip slip" to know what it meant.

Edited by mick33 on 05 January 2012 at 9:03pm

1 person has voted this message useful



Volte
Tetraglot
Senior Member
Switzerland
Joined 6249 days ago

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

 
 Message 62 of 72
05 January 2012 at 9:51pm | IP Logged 
mick33 wrote:
I agree that there is a difference between native and non-native fluency. BTW Some of the definitions of fluency here which set the threshold very, very high may require me to stop claiming native fluency in English because I had to look up the term "nip slip" to know what it meant.


Exactly. Similarly, does a native speaker lose 'native fluency' as soon as another native speaker from the same region mistakes them for a non-native speaker? Or brings up a song only one of them has heard, or a film only one has watched? Is someone who really doesn't like films and hasn't watched any as an adult not a native speaker? I don't think so...


3 persons have voted this message useful



Serpent
Octoglot
Senior Member
Russian Federation
serpent-849.livejour
Joined 6407 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 63 of 72
05 January 2012 at 10:25pm | IP Logged 
nway wrote:
For those of us who are native English speakers, we didn't just learn English in our writing, grammar, and literature classes at school. We learned it in our math, history, science, and music classes. We learned it at church.
Or to put it differently, as children and teenagers we learned our native language so slowly because we were still discovering the world. We learned concepts and we learned the names for them. Now, apart from some cultural differences, we know most of the concepts that a child learns, so we can learn much faster because we just need to learn the names.
1 person has voted this message useful



nway
Senior Member
United States
youtube.com/user/Vic
Joined 5225 days ago

574 posts - 1707 votes 
Speaks: English*
Studies: Spanish, Mandarin, Japanese, Korean

 
 Message 64 of 72
05 January 2012 at 11:05pm | IP Logged 
All of you who are getting your panties in a bunch (proverbially, hopefully) about the semantics of my interpretation of the term "fluency" are missing the forest for the trees (again, probably proverbially).

The point of my original post was the conceptual framework that I outlined over the following paragraphs. The standard that I established in the first paragraph was merely a contextual basis from which to progress into the main point.

All of you ought to be far enough along in your language studies to know that words can be elusive things. They change across time and space, as a consequence of both historical cultural development and individual personal connotation. I wasn't trying to define a word; I was trying to explicate a concept.

Volte wrote:
Similarly, does a native speaker lose 'native fluency' as soon as another native speaker from the same region mistakes them for a non-native speaker? Or brings up a song only one of them has heard, or a film only one has watched? Is someone who really doesn't like films and hasn't watched any as an adult not a native speaker? I don't think so...

A native speaker's status as a native speaker doesn't depend on the opinions of another native speaker. It's a factual matter of whether or not the individual is a native speaker. Let's try to maintain integrity in our rhetorical allegations, shall we?

Serpent wrote:
Or to put it differently, as children and teenagers we learned our native language so slowly because we were still discovering the world. We learned concepts and we learned the names for them. Now, apart from some cultural differences, we know most of the concepts that a child learns, so we can learn much faster because we just need to learn the names.

Good point, and probably the most valid feedback I've read over the past page. Still, I'd note that the actual process of learning a concept through a language will establish a richer and much more memorable linguistic connotation than merely reading the translation from a book or hearing it on an audiotape. After all, mastering languages isn't just about learning them, but internalizing them into the fundamental thought process.

Edited by nway on 05 January 2012 at 11:06pm



1 person has voted this message useful



This discussion contains 72 messages over 9 pages: << Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 79  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 0.5000 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.