Fluency vs. Proficiency

[Denzagathist]

I partially agree with what some others have stated about fluency and proficiency partially overlapping but remaining distinct. I tend to think about fluency as a description of spoken language ability, in terms of how easily one can speak without stumbling or needing to stop to search for words or grammatical structures. I think of proficiency, on the other hand, as how well one knows the language overall.

As an example, I would consider my Greek to be far more fluent than my Turkish, even though I'm probably more proficient in Turkish overall. Why? Because I spoke and listened to Greek at home for years (albeit not at a sophisticated level), so speaking it is natural and smooth for me, whereas I have much less experience using Turkish. On the other hand, I've studied Turkish much more formally so my knowledge of the language's structure, as well as my vocabulary in it, is much better than in Greek. Thus, it would probably be easier for me to pass an official proficiency exam in Turkish, whereas it would be easier for me to hold a conversation with a native speaker in Greek.

[Cainntear]

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

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

"Proficiency" has three components: accuracy, complexity and technical-term-fluency.

Vernacular-term-fluency is a synonym for proficiency. People who use the term "fluency" that way are not talking about technical-term-fluency, they're talking about proficiency. Proficiency encompasses accuracy, complexity and fluency, so people who use fluency to mean proficiency are talking about accuracy, complexity and technical-term-fluency.
Hence they are not making any comment on the relative merits of accuracy, complexity and technical-term-fluency whatsoever.

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.

That is completely not what I was describing, and while I agree with you that some people don't take the matter seriously enough and content themselves with some vague, unmeasurable notion of "practical skills" and "being understood".
There are also plenty of teachers who do place priority on fluency, and I strongly disagree with their approach.

… but that is an entirely different matter from people who use "fluency" as a synonym for "proficiency", and a topic for other threads; it only muddies the waters here.

[Cainntear]

I partially agree with what some others have stated about fluency and proficiency partially overlapping but remaining distinct.

That would mean a whole new definition of fluency and/or proficiency.
As it stands now, fluency is either a synonym for proficiency, or it is a component of proficiency.
Either way, there is no "partial" overlap.

[Decidida]

Definitions of words are interesting. When a group with power defines a word differently than a group with less power has been using it, the definition becomes controversial. I am realizing that "fluent" is one of those words.

[Cainntear]

Definitions of words are interesting. When a group with power defines a word differently than a group with less power has been using it, the definition becomes controversial. I am realizing that "fluent" is one of those words.

What do you mean by a group with power? Here we have a group with power-in-numbers leading a change, and a small group with no real power saying another.

[Decidida]

I was not referring to the power dynamics here. I was talking about the power to define words in general, in subcultures, and worldwide. I have just always found the concept interesting as I have watched it play out across cultures and groups. I wasn't trying to be divisive!

I loved my sociology 101 class, last term!

Sorry. I'm just a little too fascinated by some topics.