What does it really mean to be fluent in a language?

[dalThor]

As an ESL/EFL teacher, in a technical sense fluency would be defined as able to effectively communicate on a wide range of topics in such a way that the listener (reader) clearly understands what is being discussed. From a testing standpoint this does not mean completely without error(s).

As far as I am concerned that's a good enough way to think about it. I think it's difficult for anyone learning an additional language to have the skills that a native speaker would. I wouldn't require that level of skill to consider someone fluent in any given language.

[baxus]

I can relate to that. I remember when a guy from Canada came to local Croatian student club. Somehow we ended up talking about cursing, and we explained to him what are our most common ones and translated them in English. Guy was properly amazed.

Well, an average person in these parts of the world does have more reason to curse than an average Canadian. :lol:

[Melphis Amekia]

On that ILR scale I am probably between the fourth and fifth level.

I can relate to that. I remember when a guy from Canada came to local Croatian student club. Somehow we ended up talking about cursing, and we explained to him what are our most common ones and translated them in English. Guy was properly amazed.

A couple of years ago, we had a sort of a student exchange with an Italian school(I actually learnt German, but my brothers learnt Italian at school, so I was around them), and the exchange was practically an exchange of curses. I remember only one - fottiti(fuck you) and I remember them telling me I say it with much more vigor than them.

[Tears of Lys]

As for swearing in English, it's really rare in Serbia.

Mainly because when it comes to curse words English is just no match for Serbian.

I knew a Czech woman once who would happily swear in English because she felt that swearing in Czech was just so much worse & had to saved for special occasions.

I'm sure that I'm not the only one who now has a morbid curiosity. :idea:

[Aniel]

I never said you have to speak flawlessly without an accent in order to be fluent, but I did note that I personally take pronunciation into consideration when thinking about fluency. It's not that easy to notice but I used bold text on the "I" in that sentence :P

As for accents within the language you're learning, I myself have failed learning the accent I've been taught. All of my teachers spoke with posh accents as Swedish schools teach British English (with the occasional "but they say like this in America/Australia") and well, I doubt anyone would call my accent posh... XD

As Jo498 said, I confused matters with my accent-comment. I'm a perfectionist when it comes to languages, and I'm especially hard on myself and other Swedes my age (since they should have the same education). Neither my father nor my sister speak without accents, but I would still consider them fluent.

Did anyone mention slang/colloquialisms? Or do we count that into the whole "without major issues" thing?

[Buckwheat]

I'm sure that I'm not the only one who now has a morbid curiosity. :idea:

It is just about having sexual intercouse with ... all kinds of stuff. :leaving:

Did anyone mention slang/colloquialisms? Or do we count that into the whole "without major issues" thing?

This might be one of the harder things to learn, especially because slang changes so quickly. Some words that come to use in one subculture can become unfashionable in a few years. So you would really have to live among the group whose language you want to learn to be able to learn it and follow all the used words. I do not think this would generally count under "fluency" really - I mean, I am pretty sure I do not know all the slang expressions teenagers from some village whereever use in the country that uses my first language.

Coincidentally, I had to do a language test in German about two months ago and got the highest level in most categories (grammar, reading understanding, hearing understanding) and the one below highest in the vocabulary and phrases. It is weird how I can speak about some outlandish concepts in literature theory and read texts about them, but sometimes do not remember a really common word ...

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

In order to be truly fluent in a language, you should be skillful enough to bring your partner to a sexual climax using only your words.

Anything less is mere competence.

[Jo498]

The first time I had to give a little presentation in English after about 2-3 months in the US I was quite nervous and while it was not bad I needed 30 min instead of 10 or so and really found that "improvising" was a LOT harder in a foreign language. I remember that I said something like "What do we await looking at these data/graph (whatever it was*)?" As soon as I had uttered this statement I knew that this was somehow odd but I didn't know what and of course everybody understood "await" although "expect" would have been correct. In English one basically has to learn at least two words for everything, one Germanic, one Latin/French. Or sometimes three: skin, hide, peel. Swine, pig, pork

*I vaguely remember that it was about the so-called "neutral currents" in weak interactions where one had to use sophisticated methods to get any meaningful data out of the "background" (it was no original research of course but presenting some important paper from the 1980s)

[eyenon15]

In order to be truly fluent in a language, you should be skillful enough to bring your partner to a sexual climax using only your words.

Anything less is mere competence.

I've had women do that without either of us speaking the same languages.

[Jo498]

In order to be truly fluent in a language, you should be skillful enough to bring your partner to a sexual climax using only your words.

I thought this only worked with Russian and partners who do not understand any of it.

[Tellus Explorer]

It feels like being fluent in a language is thrown around too loosely these days.Seems like everyone is now fluent in everything. So what does it really mean to be fluent? I can write and speak some Russian and I hardly even consider myself fluent in English even though I come across it every day. I understand that there are some geniuses around us, but I just cant wrap my head around how can there be so many people that claim to be fluent in 4 and more languages. There is just so much to learn and most of it cant be found in books.

And what do you guys think about those ads about being fluent in month or even less? Pure BS imo.

Hmm, being fluent is not forgetting French over winter for lack of use :bang: :bawl:

Its all about repetition in my opinion.

Active communication, and continuing to further your knowledge.

[Aniel]

This might be one of the harder things to learn, especially because slang changes so quickly. Some words that come to use in one subculture can become unfashionable in a few years. So you would really have to live among the group whose language you want to learn to be able to learn it and follow all the used words. I do not think this would generally count under "fluency" really - I mean, I am pretty sure I do not know all the slang expressions teenagers from some village whereever use in the country that uses my first language.

I agree that it's a harder thing to learn. I'm mainly pointing it out because there are some very common phrases which aren't going to be completely obvious to non-native speakers. Like "What's up?", a fairly common expression. Would you consider someone who just gives you a blank stare in reply fluent in English?

I'd say knowledge of some really common expressions would be needed to count as fluent, just because they are common and likely to come up in everyday speech. In my English classes we were taught some slang, and if you watch movies and play games in English you're bound to pick up some more, so it isn't necessary to actually spend time with natives just to pick up slang expressions. New and more regional slang, yes, but not words and expressions which have become common throughout most of the country (or countries) where it's the dominant language. Common in this case would mean common enough to be used in films and on TV by many character types and not just a character from a specific city/part of the country.

[Buckwheat]

I agree that it's a harder thing to learn. I'm mainly pointing it out because there are some very common phrases which aren't going to be completely obvious to non-native speakers. Like "What's up?", a fairly common expression. Would you consider someone who just gives you a blank stare in reply fluent in English?

I'd say knowledge of some really common expressions would be needed to count as fluent, just because they are common and likely to come up in everyday speech. In my English classes we were taught some slang, and if you watch movies and play games in English you're bound to pick up some more, so it isn't necessary to actually spend time with natives just to pick up slang expressions. New and more regional slang, yes, but not words and expressions which have become common throughout most of the country (or countries) where it's the dominant language. Common in this case would mean common enough to be used in films and on TV by many character types and not just a character from a specific city/part of the country.

Fair enough, "What's up" and such expressions are common enough to have to be known by somebody claiming to be fluent in a language. I was thinking more along the lines of really narrowly regional slang, or words that were specifically bound to one subculture that uses this slang.

[Mladen]

I'm sure that I'm not the only one who now has a morbid curiosity. :idea:

Let me just say you that in this corner of the world, we are rather descriptive in our swear words. F*** is just the tip of the iceberg.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Hmm, being fluent is not forgetting French over winter for lack of use :bang: :bawl:

Its all about repetition in my opinion.

Active communication, and continuing to further your knowledge.

It's less active communication, and more passive reception: the more reading and listening you do in a language, the better you will be at speaking and writing it.

[King Tyrion I]

As an ESL/EFL teacher, in a technical sense fluency would be defined as able to effectively communicate on a wide range of topics in such a way that the listener (reader) clearly understands what is being discussed. From a testing standpoint this does not mean completely without error(s).

As far as I am concerned that's a good enough way to think about it. I think it's difficult for anyone learning an additional language to have the skills that a native speaker would. I wouldn't require that level of skill to consider someone fluent in any given language.

I'll also stick with this definition.

And I guess being fluent also means that one understands puns and is able to make puns as well. Additionally how to use a certain word in a sentence. The usage of synonyms, of course.

I bought a thesaurus for the English language a couple of years back, and my friend (I was on holiday in Bridlington) asked me if I knew about the words and their meaning and if I could read them. I did - and she was quite amazed.

Grammar is another thing. You can learn it "technically" like memorizing: S(ubject) + P(redicate) + O(bject) - adverbial of place comes before adverbial of time. Or you have a sense for languages, and you can learn it intuitively. That's how I do it.

After all, there are synthetic and analytic languages (an example of the latter would be Latin).

The more you use a language the more fluent you will become. That means active and passive usage. Active: communication, passive: watching films, etc. in the target language.

It's okay to make mistakes because even a native speaker won't be perfect as well.

It's less active communication, and more passive reception: the more reading and listening you do in a language, the better you will be at speaking and writing it.

:agree:

[Buckwheat]

I was often told the "passive - active" dichotomy of the knowledge of a language is old-fashioned. After all, as a listener, one is active too, one's brain just works in another way.

Grammar is another thing. You can learn it "technically" like memorizing: S(ubject) + P(redicate) + O(bject) - adverbial of place comes before adverbial of time. Or you have a sense for languages, and you can learn it intuitively. That's how I do it.

Actually, everybody does it that way ... when they are about 2 or 3 years old. :P While learning their first language, I mean. There is no "technical" way to teach a small kid how to speak, and up to some point, everybody has this intuition - which only increases if one is constantly surrounded by this language.

[Tellus Explorer]

It's less active communication, and more passive reception: the more reading and listening you do in a language, the better you will be at speaking and writing it.

*noted* :D

I must now buy some books