Fluency vs. Proficiency

[reineke]

Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in Second Language Acquisition

"This special issue addresses a general question that is at the heart of much research in applied linguistics and second language acquisition (SLA): what makes a second or foreign language (L2) user, or a native speaker for that matter, a more or less proficient language user?

Many researchers and language practitioners believe that the constructs of L2 performance and L2 proficiency are multi-componential in nature, and that their principal dimensions can be adequately, and comprehensively, captured by the notions of complexity, accuracy and fluency (Skehan 1998; Ellis 2003, 2008; Ellis and Barkhuizen 2005). As such, complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) have figured as major research variables in applied linguistic research. CAF have been used both as performance descriptors for the oral and written assessment of language learners as well as indicators of learners’ proficiency underlying their performance;..."

Applied Linguistics, Volume 30, Issue 4, 1 December 2009, Pages 461–473, https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048

[Cavesa]

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.

Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in Second Language Acquisition

"This special issue addresses a general question that is at the heart of much research in applied linguistics and second language acquisition (SLA): what makes a second or foreign language (L2) user, or a native speaker for that matter, a more or less proficient language user?

Many researchers and language practitioners believe that the constructs of L2 performance and L2 proficiency are multi-componential in nature, and that their principal dimensions can be adequately, and comprehensively, captured by the notions of complexity, accuracy and fluency (Skehan 1998; Ellis 2003, 2008; Ellis and Barkhuizen 2005). As such, complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) have figured as major research variables in applied linguistic research. CAF have been used both as performance descriptors for the oral and written assessment of language learners as well as indicators of learners’ proficiency underlying their performance;..."

Applied Linguistics, Volume 30, Issue 4, 1 December 2009, Pages 461–473, https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048

I can agree with the better definition of fluency as one part of the ability, I find it to be a good opinion and idea. Basically talking without making too many gaps and being too slow and without being annoying with our mistakes and imperfections.

Thanks for the quote, reineke!

The problem here wasn't that much about two camps, as far as I can remember, but usually there was a nucleus of the crystal, not rarely someone new, who started using the term "fluency" the same way most people do (non language learning nerds or people learning/teaching languages in the usual classes). As the general level of skill and the Holy Grail of language learning.

Truth be told, that is what bothers me the most. So many people asking about fluency and not taking into account that accuracy and complexity are no less important. Small children are fluent. From the moment they start making sentences. Do I want to talk like one? I certainly don't.

[Cainntear]

The problem here wasn't that much about two camps, as far as I can remember, but usually there was a nucleus of the crystal, not rarely someone new, who started using the term "fluency" the same way most people do (non language learning nerds or people learning/teaching languages in the usual classes). As the general level of skill and the Holy Grail of language learning.

Truth be told, that is what bothers me the most. So many people asking about fluency and not taking into account that accuracy and complexity are no less important. Small children are fluent. From the moment they start making sentences. Do I want to talk like one? I certainly don't.

Ehmmm… that's pretty much exactly what I was talking about. You're taking the stance that the vernacular usage is wrong. You're in the only-the-technical-definition-is-correct camp.

Someone who uses "fluency" to mean "proficiency" is not making any comment on the relative importance of accuracy, complexity and (technical term) fluency.

If we know what each other means, isn't that good enough? And if we don't understand, isn't enough to ask for clarification rather than get wound up over differences in language usage?

[Cavesa]

The problem here wasn't that much about two camps, as far as I can remember, but usually there was a nucleus of the crystal, not rarely someone new, who started using the term "fluency" the same way most people do (non language learning nerds or people learning/teaching languages in the usual classes). As the general level of skill and the Holy Grail of language learning.

Truth be told, that is what bothers me the most. So many people asking about fluency and not taking into account that accuracy and complexity are no less important. Small children are fluent. From the moment they start making sentences. Do I want to talk like one? I certainly don't.

Ehmmm… that's pretty much exactly what I was talking about. You're taking the stance that the vernacular usage is wrong. You're in the only-the-technical-definition-is-correct camp.

Someone who uses "fluency" to mean "proficiency" is not making any comment on the relative importance of accuracy, complexity and (technical term) fluency.

If we know what each other means, isn't that good enough? And if we don't understand, isn't enough to ask for clarification rather than get wound up over differences in language usage?

They are not making any comment on the relative importance of the other two because most people simply don't realise there is any.

What is enough depends on one's goals, but the problem often is too much focus on just fluency and getting by like you describe. And it is often a real problem in real life.

I am not saying everyone should strive for absolute functional freedom in the language, and skills strong enough to be equal in the communication with another person.

But it is a huge problem that many people (both learners and teachers) settle for much less, as has been discussed in the recent thread about advanced learners's progress (there were some great quotes of various papers, posted by reineke). Especially learners not surfing the internet the way we do and just relying on the usual sources have so small chances of getting to the high levels. They think becoming technically fluent is the top of what is possible.

That's why the level generally considered the goal and something to be proud of in English (the most obvious example) is so low. That's why so many university teachers suddenly talk like half educated morons, when lecturing in a foreign language (but they still get paid more for teaching in a foreign language, as if they were doing a good job). That's one of the main reasons why so many immigrants don't ever get to live up to their professional potential again, because asking for clarifications all the time and not being confident, precise, and convincing in the new language simply isn't enough.

And I could continue. Of course, there is nothing wrong with someone's goal being learning the basics or just getting to the point of reading newspapers. But there is a lot wrong with the widely spread idea that fluency=the ideal goal.

[eido]

I decided my speech was leaning too heavily maybe on persuasion the way I was writing it, so I chose to just write about the differences and similarities in regards to East Asian languages, namely Korean, Chinese, and Japanese. I ended up messing up a bit in the end, and it may have come out like a broken fountain of information, but I did it.

The amount of times I said 'liquid phoneme' trying to practice to get it perfect... I now have that phrase stuck in my head permanently.

But thank you all for discussing a bit this subject again. I have something to reference if I ever need it.

[zenmonkey]

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”

The linguist or the vernacular?

Basically I would consider the context of the use of these words.

If I write on my CV that I am fluent in English - one should be able to tell (by the jobs, universities, etc...) that I mean I am accurate, fluent and proficient in the language.

But there is a lot wrong with the widely spread idea that fluency=the ideal goal.

Why? I'd be quite happy to reach my internal working definition of that word in any of my non-core target languages. And it is basically my ideal goal in most of my languages. I personally really don't expect to be able to talk about the effects of transient Coulomb forces in quaternary folding harmonics in anything but one or two languages.

And, gasp, some languages are just poor environments to discuss some concepts.

[Decidida]

I have two very different friends attempting to reach the stage of fluency in English. One was a farmer with a 4th grade education. The other was a university professor.

Both struggle with English phonics and have handled it in opposite ways. The former farmer cannot read English and has had to learn English in ways that do not use text, and functions in this country as a closet illiterate. The professor can read English far better than he can listen to English, and when he tries to speak English using the phonics of his previous learned languages, he is very hard to understand.

Not only is the former farmer learning spoken English better, but he is quickly moving up into more advanced jobs, learning new job skills in English. The former professor is not able to even be employed at the status of the former farmer. His quality of life in the USA is significantly lower than his home country. The former farmer is enjoying a quality of life that is much higher than his home country, and recently has reached a level beyond anything he had even hoped for. He is in uncharted territory now, in hoping and planning his future.

The former farmer is rapidly gaining equal skill in English to his first language. But he has a lower bar to reach. I expect that in a few years, his spoken English will surpass his native language. I think he will know words in English that he will not know in his native language.

The former professor has very advanced language skills in other languages, so has a much higher bar to reach to equal those other languages.

Fluency will mean very different things to these two men.

[reineke]

Fluency = automatic procedural skill on the part of the speaker. In this sense fluency means the same thing to both individuals.

We don't know anything about their linguistic backgrounds but the farmer's "low" bar (or native competence of a functionally illiterate person) is insanely difficult to achieve. It is unlikely he will ever reach this level. He may lack the vocabulary to discuss his current job or way of life but his native language will remain his strongest linguistic asset.

The professor's aural and oral skills are not growing but this is certainly not due to his lofty goals.

[Decidida]

I don't know if I was clear what I meant. This probably is not any clearer. LOL.

I think we often think of ourselves as "fluent" by comparing our target language with ones we have already learned. Native speakers have very different sized vocabularies. A person with a smaller native vocabulary is going to feel confident about speaking with a smaller target vocabulary. He will think of himself as fluent with a smaller vocabulary than some people with larger native vocabularies.

And the extreme strengths and weaknesses of spoken compared to written in some people are interesting to me to observe.

My native language writing is stronger than my native speech. I am comfortable about seeing that replicated in my target languages. It is just the way it is for me with any language. I have spent large periods of my life where my opportunities to hear English were not equal to my opportunities to read it. Increased access to audio books and documentaries is closing the gap, but it is still present. I have seen the college professor struggle to make English speakers understand a word and I started to laugh, because it was clear the English speakers did not know the word in English. The non-native professor actually knew some English that was more advanced than that of the native speakers.

I guess I tend to think of fluent as when the speaker is not feeling frustrated. When he is not working hard to speak and listen. When it is not a profound relief to switch to another language.

[aaleks]

I have seen the college professor struggle to make English speakers understand a word and I started to laugh, because it was clear the English speakers did not know the word in English. The non-native professor actually knew some English that was more advanced than that of the native speakers.

It's not uncommon for non-native speakers to know the rare words many native speakers have never even heard of. I have known English learners who tend using rare, highbrow words in their writing. Sometimes I need to use a dictionary to read it (whereas I reraly need to use one to read this forum). But at the same time such learners may not know some of words I do even though my English vocabulary isn't so impressive.