Jump to content
Chinese-Forums
  • Sign Up

Can Westerners become fluent in Chinese?


david1978

Recommended Posts

I once met someone who spoke at least three languages reasonably well, but none fluently. It was a long time ago and I forget the details, but I think she was born in HK to Indian parents who spoke mostly English, or something like that. She would certainly qualify for certain definitions of fluency in the various languages, but she didn't consider herself fluent in any of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think "fluent" is a useless word when talking about language proficiency. There's no definition for it that everyone can agree on. One person could mean "I can order food and make simple chit chat in a bar," while another could mean "I'm essentially indistinguishable from a well-educated native speaker." Does it include both oral and written communication? And on and on.

Much more useful would be specifically-defined levels of proficiency. The ILR scale, for instance, is very useful, as it gives specific descriptions of proficiency for all four skills (speaking, listening, reading, and writing) at each level. If someone tells me he's a 4 on the ILR scale, that's something that's clear and understandable. If he says "I'm fluent," then I have to ask "what do you mean by that?"

Of course, if the person hasn't actually been certified, you still have to deal with his subjective estimation of his own ability. But it's still a whole lot better than using a word with no clear definition.

And sorry, Chinese is no different than any other language. The fact that it's more difficult for English speakers to learn than French (for instance) doesn't mean there should be different standards. It means you chose a difficult language and you have to deal with the fact that it will take longer to reach any given number on the ILR scale than if you had chosen French.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the ILR scale that OneEye pointed to was rather interesting, and probably quite useful in terms of evaluating professional translators. I must say, though, that the standard for being "native" on that scale is quite different from how I think about it. For example,

1) A well-educated English-speaking American would probably not meet the requirement for being a native English speaker if she was in Britain (different colloquialisms and cultural references).

2) At a local technical college here, a large number of freshmen who have spoken English at home since they were kids, received all their education in English and speak no other language (which I think qualifies them as "native") would probably fail to reach even level 3 in writing (and maybe others).

To reach level 5 in a language on the ILR scale, it seems to me that you would both have to both grow up using that language and complete a writing-intensive university degree in that same language. Perhaps people who simply read a lot in their mother tongue might be able to qualify, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, a 5 is not simply "native-like" proficiency, it requires that "proficiency is functionally equivalent to that of a highly articulate well-educated native speaker" (emphasis mine). It's a much higher standard. People who research this stuff (Betty Lou Leaver, for example) consider a 4 to already be near-native, and that's two levels (counting the '+' in between) from a 5. Supposedly a 3 is reachable after 1320-2760 hours of instruction (depending on the language of course, and we can put Chinese at the high end of that range), but a 4 is reachable only after many thousands of hours of use and practice. According to Leaver's research, it takes an average of 17 years to reach level 4, though of course with focused work and training you can cut that time down significantly (the subject of a few of her books). ICLP reports students starting from scratch and reaching level 4 after two years of study there, and people coming in at a high intermediate level and reaching level 4 after 9 months or a year, and that seems to jibe with what I know from my friends who have attended there.

A 5, of course, would take just that much more effort to reach, and I doubt many people ever reach that level, no matter the target language. I'd also imagine that if a learner had reached that level in American English, they would not be penalized for being as unfamiliar with British-isms as a well-educated American, and vice-versa. Also notice that it says nothing about adhering to a "standard" accent (referring to the discussion on the previous page), but rather having pronunciation "typically consistent with that of well-educated native speakers of a non-stigmatized dialect." To my mind, an authentic accent is much better than trying to stick to some practiced standard that nobody actually speaks natively. Then again, that could be my Taiwan showing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear that you need a reasonable level of classical Chinese to be accepted as 4+ or 5 in Chinese on the ILR scale by the US diplomatic service. It is an interesting question, how important classical Chinese should be to assessing whether someone should be regarded as equivalent to a "well educated native speaker" of the modern language, and suggests to me that even with a scale as interesting and useful as the ILR, it is very difficult to completely eliminate subjectivity in certification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not directly relevant to the topic, but since this came up earlier, here is an example of a native-speaker mistake in a PhD thesis!

From the penultimate paragraph on page 4 of the PDF (or iv as the page is numbered in the document):

Also my thanks should go to friends, housemates, climbers including Andy, Alex, Chris, Rachel, Miggy, Catherine, Tom, Jon and those who I haven’t mentioned but should of.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course classical Chinese is required to be considered equivalent to a well-educated native speaker. A well-educated native speaker would have no trouble reading 袁枚 or 蘇軾, for example. At the least, I think having gone through a high school 國文 reader, if not a university-level one, would be a prerequisite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.govtilr.o...IRL History.htm

The rationale for what was to become the ILR arose through discussions in 1955 among Howard Sollenberger of the Foreign Service Institute, Clyde Sargent of the CIA Training Division, and James R. Frith, then with the Air Force Language Program and later Dean of FSI’s School of Language Studies, all of whom recognized the need for better coordination and communication in language training and testing among federal agencies.

The ILR Interagency standards were designed for hiring people for the US military, foreign services, and the CIA, so the meaning of "well educated" would have be interpreted with that purpose in mind.

Notice that even the lower level standards require the ability to use the foreign language for professional purposes. For example, Level 3 speaking requires: "Can typically discuss particular interests and special fields of competence with reasonable ease. Can use the language as part of normal professional duties such as answering objections, clarifying points, justifying decisions, understanding the essence of challenges, stating and defending policy, conducting meetings, delivering briefings, or other extended and elaborate informative monologues."

So these are standards for a specialized purpose rather than general use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my mind, an authentic accent is much better than trying to stick to some practiced standard that nobody actually speaks natively. Then again, that could be my Taiwan showing.
If you haven't spent time in Northern China, it's easy to start believing that retroflexes and erhua are something artificial that nobody uses naturally. In Taiwan, it's certainly true that only teachers of Chinese as a foreign language speak that way. At the same time, while speaking Guoyu on the mainland will be noticed as non-standard by Chinese, it's still an accent "typically consistent with that of well-educated native speakers of a non-stigmatized dialect." So as long as you don't take it too far and still distinguish your f's and h's and your ü's and i's, you'd still fit the definition just fine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what about people who only use the erhua that is mandated by textbooks, and doesn't use it for any other words? That's Standard Chinese but it's very peculiar because it's just some "token" erhua: most people would either use a fair bit (or lots), or none at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure: aren't they saying that the language should be good enough that you can use it in any area you specialise in? I.e. more than just regular chit-chat.

What I was pointing out is that whereas Level 5 requires "well educated", Level 3 already requires "professional" proficiency. Usually people think of "professional" as above "well educated". But here what they had in mind is that "well educated" would include "professional" usage as well as broader language skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

people who only use the erhua that is mandated by textbooks, and doesn't use it for any other words?

That's what I meant when I said "some practiced standard that nobody actually speaks natively." I understand that retroflexes and erhua are natural for some speakers, and that's fine. My point of contention is the idea that every learner has to aspire to a newscaster standard, when it's an artificially created standard and not a natural dialect.

Lu, the people who mix up f/h and ü/i in Taiwan aren't generally native Mandarin speakers anyway. Educated, native Mandarin speakers, and even some native Taiwanese speakers with very good Mandarin, distinguish all the sounds that 'ought' to be distinguished in Mandarin. That includes zh/ch/sh and z/c/s, it's just that they pronounce zh/ch/sh differently than the Mainland standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gato: I see what you mean.

OneEye: Taiwan may be a special case but there think are definitely places in southern China where people's 方言 doesn't include the zh/ch/sh sounds and therefore, because their language doesn't include it, they don't use them when they speak Standard Chinese, they just use the z/c/s sounds which their 方言 does provide.

As for Taiwan, just looking inexpertly through Wikipedia, if most most people have a Hokkien background, that 方言 seems to have the "ch" sound but not the "zh" or "sh" which would suggest that people learning the ch/sh/zh of Standard Chinese at least have something to play with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point of contention is the idea that every learner has to aspire to a newscaster standard, when it's an artificially created standard and not a natural dialect.

The idea is not to aspire to it because it's artificial, but to aspire to it because it is by far the most widely understood pronunciation. And it's actually easier to learn than most others due to the availability of learning materials.

You seem to advocate using the Taiwanese standard instead of the Mainland standard, but you are still advocating an artificially created standard. I guess I understand your point -- I'm certainly learning the continental Portuguese pronunciation instead of the more popular Brazilian one because I live in Portugal. But I'm aiming for the standard pronunciation of Portugal first, with local things thrown in later. Everyone in Portugal and many in Africa will understand that, and so will most Brazilians if I speak slowly.

I am not actively trying to speak the local Algarvian dialect because then there would be 200 million Portuguese speakers who would not understand a word I say. What would be the point of that?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea is not to aspire to it because it's artificial, but to aspire to it because it is by far the most widely understood pronunciation.

It used to be artificial, but now it's more and more common because it is widely heard on TV -- just like many Americans now do speak the "standard" American English accent heard on TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like generalising my experience because I don't live in China, so the samples I'm exposed to are not representative, but the "bookish" and "newscasterish" accent is by far the most common I hear from young Chinese people studying in Europe. Regardless of where they grew up: Nanjing, Shanghai, Suzhou, Guangdong, Wuxi... More than half of them speak something very close to what you'd hear on TV, selective erhua and all.

In fact, the strongest erhua I've ever heard was from a girl who grew up in Wuxi.

OneEye doesn't notice this in Taiwan, of course, but people do speak like that. And at least part of the reason is that it is a prestige dialect on the mainland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to advocate using the Taiwanese standard instead of the Mainland standard, but you are still advocating an artificially created standard.

I don't think OneEye is advocating any particular standard.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and select your username and password later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Click here to reply. Select text to quote.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...