This is probably an easily answered question but the last time I remember reading about it there was some debate surrounding it.
What does fluency mean to you? Is there a technical, objective definition? What's the difference between it and proficiency?
For background, I have to do a speech to inform the audience. I chose to inform them about schools of thought about language learning, and how many think you can do it out of sheer willpower. I have to define some terms so I can speak about them, and these are a few of them.
If any of you have links to threads or studies about things relevant to the argument of my speech, that'd be cool too.
But mainly I'm curious about defining these words. Links to previous threads discussing them are great too.
Fluency vs. Proficiency
- eido
- Blue Belt
- Posts: 842
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:31 pm
- Languages: English (N), Spanish (C1)
- x 3189
- Serpent
- Black Belt - 3rd Dan
- Posts: 3657
- Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 10:54 am
- Location: Moskova
- Languages: heritage
Russian (native); Belarusian, Polish
fluent or close: Finnish (certified C1), English; Portuguese, Spanish, German, Italian
learning: Croatian+, Ukrainian; Romanian, Galician; Danish, Swedish; Estonian
exploring: Latin, Karelian, Catalan, Dutch, Czech, Latvian - x 5181
- Contact:
Re: Fluency vs. Proficiency
Honestly I'd avoid discussing the issue of fluency vs proficiency Just describe some language level scales, such as CEFR or ILR; point out that for most tasks you don't need to be native-like (let alone speak with "no accent"), and that language knowledge isn't a glass which is either full or empty. As Barry Farber said, unlike neurosurgery, language is worth knowing even poorly.
10 x
- eido
- Blue Belt
- Posts: 842
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:31 pm
- Languages: English (N), Spanish (C1)
- x 3189
Re: Fluency vs. Proficiency
I think I lack direction with what I have. I have part of an argument, but this is the conclusion I came to with the whole fluency and proficiency question:
Do you say to avoid them because it's too technical, and diverges from the topic at large?
You can have one or the other, or both. In your native language, you likely have both. But if you've been only reading or writing in your target language, you won't have fluency because you haven't been practicing moving your mouth. If you focus on speaking first and learning grammar later, you will be great at talking up a local, but you'll probably have speech filled with mistakes. Both concepts exist on a continuum.
Do you say to avoid them because it's too technical, and diverges from the topic at large?
0 x
- rdearman
- Site Admin
- Posts: 7260
- Joined: Thu May 14, 2015 4:18 pm
- Location: United Kingdom
- Languages: English (N)
- Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1836
- x 23317
- Contact:
Re: Fluency vs. Proficiency
Fluency is a waffle word. It can mean anything to anyone. Person A thinks they are fluent because they can order soup in a restaurant. Person B thinks they aren't fluent until they can disxuss recipes and write a cookbook.
This is why there is a CEFL scale.
This is why there is a CEFL scale.
4 x
: Read 150 books in 2024
My YouTube Channel
The Autodidactic Podcast
My Author's Newsletter
I post on this forum with mobile devices, so excuse short msgs and typos.
My YouTube Channel
The Autodidactic Podcast
My Author's Newsletter
I post on this forum with mobile devices, so excuse short msgs and typos.
- Ani
- Brown Belt
- Posts: 1433
- Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 8:58 am
- Location: Alaska
- Languages: English (N), speaks French, Russian & Icelandic (beginner)
- x 3842
- Contact:
Re: Fluency vs. Proficiency
eido wrote:Do you say to avoid them because it's too technical, and diverges from the topic at large?
It is actually not technical, which is the problem. It ends up being subjective as people use the word differently, and turns out to be somewhat useless both for learners and assessors of language skills. Many languages could have been learned in the time people have spent arguing about fluency on the internets.
7 x
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
-
- Black Belt - 1st Dan
- Posts: 1588
- Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 12:35 pm
- Location: Scotland
- Languages: Native: English
Advanced: Italian, French
Intermediate: Spanish
Beginner: German, Japanese - Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1855
- x 6093
- Contact:
Re: Fluency vs. Proficiency
I thought fluency had a fairly accepted definition: being able to speak fluidly (even if not necessarily correctly). Just because it's often misused outside of circles like this doesn't mean it should be avoided. I think it can be useful to discuss it because it's one aspect of proficiency, and in my experience fluency and accuracy are at odds with each other: if I focus on accuracy, my speaking becomes less fluent, and vice versa.
2 x
- Uncle Roger
- Orange Belt
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:53 am
- Languages: Italian (Native), English (as good as you see me write it here?), Norwegian (C1?), French (B2), Swedish (B1?)
- x 193
Re: Fluency vs. Proficiency
In my opinion and experience, L2 fluency is two things
1) the ability to make yourself understood by a native without him/her asking you to repeat or rephrase things because of your non-native grammar, pronounciation or vocabulary choices
2) likewise, the ability to understand a native in most everyday life situations without, in turn, having to ask him/her to repeat him/herself more than it would normally happen with another native
It's basically communication between two people (in a language that is L2 for one of the two) and in which neither speaking nor listening require more effort from either part than it would if it was communication between two speakers.
I'd say "proficiency" is a higher level, but as a word is seems to me like "a different tool for a different job" compared to "fluency"
1) the ability to make yourself understood by a native without him/her asking you to repeat or rephrase things because of your non-native grammar, pronounciation or vocabulary choices
2) likewise, the ability to understand a native in most everyday life situations without, in turn, having to ask him/her to repeat him/herself more than it would normally happen with another native
It's basically communication between two people (in a language that is L2 for one of the two) and in which neither speaking nor listening require more effort from either part than it would if it was communication between two speakers.
I'd say "proficiency" is a higher level, but as a word is seems to me like "a different tool for a different job" compared to "fluency"
Last edited by Uncle Roger on Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
3 x
«If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library.»
Frank Zappa
Frank Zappa
-
- Blue Belt
- Posts: 884
- Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:04 pm
- Languages: Russian (N)
- x 1910
Re: Fluency vs. Proficiency
To me, fluency is a part of proficiency. But that doesn't work the other way around. You could be fluent without being proficient in a language, but you could not be proficient without being fluent.
1 x
- Serpent
- Black Belt - 3rd Dan
- Posts: 3657
- Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 10:54 am
- Location: Moskova
- Languages: heritage
Russian (native); Belarusian, Polish
fluent or close: Finnish (certified C1), English; Portuguese, Spanish, German, Italian
learning: Croatian+, Ukrainian; Romanian, Galician; Danish, Swedish; Estonian
exploring: Latin, Karelian, Catalan, Dutch, Czech, Latvian - x 5181
- Contact:
Re: Fluency vs. Proficiency
i'm afraid that if you bring it up it will dominate the discussiongaryb wrote:I thought fluency had a fairly accepted definition: being able to speak fluidly (even if not necessarily correctly). Just because it's often misused outside of circles like this doesn't mean it should be avoided. I think it can be useful to discuss it because it's one aspect of proficiency, and in my experience fluency and accuracy are at odds with each other: if I focus on accuracy, my speaking becomes less fluent, and vice versa.
0 x
-
- Black Belt - 3rd Dan
- Posts: 3534
- Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:04 am
- Location: Scotland
- Languages: English(N)
Advanced: French,Spanish, Scottish Gaelic
Intermediate: Italian, Catalan, Corsican
Basic: Welsh
Dabbling: Polish, Russian etc - x 8810
- Contact:
Re: Fluency vs. Proficiency
The simple answer:
What most people commonly call "fluency", people working in linguistics and teaching typically refer to as "proficiency" -- quite simply "how good you are at language."
In technical circles, proficiency can be subdivided into "fluency" and "accuracy". Fluency means how "fluidly" or "flowingly" you produce or understand language, while accuracy is just how correct your language is, regardless of how quickly you process it.
The controversy here in the past has been people from one or other camp telling people from the opposite camp that they're wrong.
For your purposes, you have to decide whether there's any benefit to your audience in explaining the technical version, sticking with the vernacular, or just avoiding the term "fluency" altogether.
What most people commonly call "fluency", people working in linguistics and teaching typically refer to as "proficiency" -- quite simply "how good you are at language."
In technical circles, proficiency can be subdivided into "fluency" and "accuracy". Fluency means how "fluidly" or "flowingly" you produce or understand language, while accuracy is just how correct your language is, regardless of how quickly you process it.
The controversy here in the past has been people from one or other camp telling people from the opposite camp that they're wrong.
For your purposes, you have to decide whether there's any benefit to your audience in explaining the technical version, sticking with the vernacular, or just avoiding the term "fluency" altogether.
7 x
Return to “General Language Discussion”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests