Jump to content
Chinese-forums.com
Learn Chinese in China

  • Why you should look around

    Since 2003, Chinese-forums.com has been helping people learn Chinese faster and get to China sooner. Our members can recommend beginner textbooks, help you out with obscure classical vocabulary, and tell you where to get the best street food in Xi'an. And we're friendly about it too. 

    Have a look at what's going on, or search for something specific. We hope you'll join us. 
Moshen

What is fluency? Listening vs. speaking

Recommended Posts

Luxi
9 minutes ago, mungouk said:

Fluency is mainly about "production"

 

I believe reading and understanding what one reads is also production in a way. The proof is in being able to explain it to others or discuss a point - albeit stuttering and hesitating searching for the right words that are there somewhere in one's brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Site Sponsors:
Pleco for iPhone / Android iPhone & Android Chinese dictionary: camera & hand- writing input, flashcards, audio.
Study Chinese in Kunming 1-1 classes, qualified teachers and unique teaching methods in the Spring City.
Learn Chinese Characters Learn 2289 Chinese Characters in 90 Days with a Unique Flash Card System.
Hacking Chinese Tips and strategies for how to learn Chinese more efficiently
Popup Chinese Translator Understand Chinese inside any Windows application, website or PDF.
Chinese Grammar Wiki All Chinese grammar, organised by level, all in one place.

NinjaTurtle
5 minutes ago, mungouk said:

Guys, you're disagreeing with the established definition of "fluency". 

 

In my opinion, an illiterate person who speaks fluently is fluent. If that goes against the "accepted definition", then I am all for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mungouk
1 minute ago, Luxi said:

I believe reading and understanding what one reads is also production in a way.

7 minutes ago, NinjaTurtle said:

I disagree. A person can be illiterate and still be fluent. I guess it is just how we look at it. 

 

Production means speaking and writing.  "Producing" words.

 

These are well accepted terms in language learning. Whether you agree or disagree isn't the question here.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NinjaTurtle
1 minute ago, mungouk said:

These are well accepted terms in language learning. Whether you agree or disagree isn't the question here.

 

It is very much the question. I do not believe an idea just because people in ivory-covered towers tell me I have to believe something.

 

I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mungouk
1 minute ago, NinjaTurtle said:

In my opinion, an illiterate person who speaks fluently is fluent. It that goes against the "accepted definition", then I am all for it.

 

An illiterate person is someone who can't read or write.


This has nothing to do with whether you can speak or listen-and-understand.

 

Perhaps you should go back and read this thread again? 

 

I think we may be getting bogged down here in a misunderstanding of terminology.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mungouk
1 minute ago, NinjaTurtle said:

I do not believe an idea just because people in ivory-covered towers tell me I have to believe something.

 

Neither is this the question. 

 

Get over yourself, we're trying to have a sensible discussion here. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luxi

I was told by someone who knew him, that the translator and scholar Arthur Waley couldn't really speak Chinese. Yet, he produced some of the most beautiful, moving and correct English translations of Chinese poetry (from pre-Qin, Han, Tang) that one is likely to find, even now. He also produced a superb abridged version of "Journey to the West".

 

Whether one can call Waley fluent or not seems kind of irrelevant in light of his production.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mungouk
6 minutes ago, Luxi said:

Whether one can call Wailey fluent or not seems kind of irrelevant in light of his production.

 

Well, if he could write, then he could produce. 

 

Whether he took hours or weeks is a different discussion... but point well taken.

 

I'm sure that history is littered with academics who could read Latin, Greek, Sanskrit etc but wouldn't have been able to sustain a conversation.

So... I guess the conclusion from this is that writing doesn't count as fluent production, only speaking (and, as mentioned, to some extent listening inasmuch as it allows fluid conversation).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luxi

 

 

I have heard too many stupid but perfectly 'fluid' speeches of the kind that renders language quite pointless, to be convinced. Give me a good writer and a brilliant though muted translator any time 😁

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shelley

I have mentioned this before.

My grandfather was Professor of Languages and head of the language dept of Bonn university between the wars.

He could speak, read and write 7 languages, he could also read and write another 7. He always made this distinction but never made it sound like it lessened his abilities.

He translated Shakespeare in to Arabic. He complied and translated North African Idioms in to English and French and too much more to go into here.

He also taught many, many students several languages.

 

I do think you can be fluent but not speak the language, but if you can speak and understand but not read or write you are still fluent, just means you are illiterate.

 

There are many people around the world who can speak their mother tongue "fluently" but can not read or write.

 

For me to be fluent means you can speak to people in another language on topics and subjects that you can in your own language. A distinction must be drawn between vocabulary and grammar, syntax etc. I am fluent in English but I lack the vocabulary to conduct a conversation on quantum mechanics or meteorology although I am aware of these things.

 

Origin from the dictionary - late 16th century: from Latin fluent- ‘flowing’, from the verb fluere 

 

So flowing, easy, articulate. You can even describe some one's runny nose as fluent.

 

From the dictionary again - able to flow freely; fluid.   "a fluent discharge from the nose

 

To me this describes it perfectly - flowing speech. No more needs to be said in my opinion.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moshen
Quote

Fluency is the flow and efficiency with which you express your ideas, particularly when speaking. A few grammar mistakes may appear here and there in the explanation, but it should be delivered in a way that is easy to understand and shows how comfortable you are with the language.

 

According to this definition, people might not be fluent in their own language!  There are some famous academics (one of whom I had as a professor) who pause very often in order to express their ideas... in their native language... because they are constantly questioning what is the right thing to say.

 

If some people don't count as fluent in their own language, which they have total command over, because they are halting in expressing themselves (due to their thinking habits or for some other reason), then I believe there is something wrong with the definition.  "Established" or not!

 

Looked at another way, this definition gives a behavioral definition of fluency which doesn't necessarily reflect actual mastery of the language.  Again, if you do have total mastery of a language, whether your native tongue or a second language, yet don't have a conventional flow in your speaking, then you wouldn't count as fluent by this definition.  That's what's wrong with the definition.  It doesn't measure language mastery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
abcdefg

I would like to see a definition of fluency that includes understanding and being able to even occasionally produce some humor. Something beyond "sight gags" or slapstick in which the audience laughs when the clown trips and falls down. What I mean is humor that hinges on subtleties like puns and double entendres. Shades of meaning. Perhaps intentional exaggerations or the opposite. Humor always trips me up. I completely fail at humor in Chinese. 

 

I tried to tell a friend a joke earlier this morning and it was about like trying to extract one of my own molar teeth. Slow, strenuous and painful. (We were speaking Chinese of course.)  Sometimes I watch 相声 on TV; occasionally even famous routines by famous performers. I "get" at most 30% of it. The audience laughs and I completely miss the punch line. When I watch the news, it's with better comprehension, thank goodness, maybe 80 to 90%. Of course that's not a rigorous test, because the pictures help a lot; they make it easy to formulate a decent guess or two or three. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shelley

@abcdefg I wonder if one problem with humor is that humor can differ enormously from country to country. What one nationality finds funny another is left cold.

 

Here in the UK its a "well known fact that Germans have no sense of humor" this of course is untrue but widely believed. I think thats because what they find funny we don't. They have, what I consider, a love of Mr. Bean that is disproportionate to its actual humor. For me personally I can't bear to watch him. 

 

I only know one foreigner who has mastered cross talk and that of course is Da Shan, I don't expect even if you could understand the vocabulary that you could understand the humor.

 

I sort of agree with you that would show a high degree of fluency but I think you need to take into account national humor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
imron
4 hours ago, Shelley said:

Here in the UK its a "well known fact that Germans have no sense of humor"

As shown in this documentary

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DavyJonesLocker
4 hours ago, Shelley said:

. I think thats because what they find funny we don't. They have, what I consider, an love of Mr. Bean that is disproportionate to its actual humor. For me personally I can't bear to watch him

 

Me too, I never found him funny.

 

Even UK is pretty divided on humour. So many people loved the BBC "The Office" yet many hated that deadpan humour. 

 

When they redid it in America , many British thought they destroyed the comic value yet it pretty popular over there.

 

I think also there is even a split between North and South comedy in the UK. Peter Kay hugely popular in the north, yet not so much in London etc. He mentioned this himself. 

 

Hence I think in a country as vast as China there must be regional differences in comedy so a foreigner stepping into it will have a lot of difficulty understanding it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mungouk
16 hours ago, Moshen said:

That's what's wrong with the definition.  It doesn't measure language mastery.

 

The previously-mentioned article, very short and worth a look, is explaining the difference between fluency and accuracy — very relevant to this discussion (maybe until we arrived at Mr Bean).

 

C2 in the CEFR represents "Mastery or proficiency".  So it may be worth reading how Mastery is defined by CEFR if you want a workable definition.

For those who are unable to click on the link, C2 defines mastery level in fluency as:

 

Quote

Can express him/herself spontaneously at length with a natural colloquial flow, avoiding or backtracking around any difficulty so smoothly that the interlocutor is hardly aware of it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NinjaTurtle

Hi everyone,

 

One thing I have noticed about being fluent is an ability to handle very complex sentences, and being able to handle them effortlessly. One sentence I have all of my students learn to say is, “If I go to Russia, I am going to have to be able to speak Russian.” (I have yet to have any student who can handle this sentence at all.)

 

A sentence I just heard today from a native English speaker was, “It really took me a long time to figure out how to do that stuff.” (I give sentences a number that shows the level of difficulty, and I say this sentence has a difficulty-level of six. Anything over a difficulty-level of three is just too hard for most of my students.)

 

Only if a student could handle these sentences effortlessly would I consider saying the student is fluent.

 

Another thing is simple prepositions. A question like, "Which street do you live on?" tends to throw my students for a loop.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mungouk
3 hours ago, NinjaTurtle said:

difficulty-level of six. Anything over a difficulty-level of three is just too hard for most of my students.

 

Interesting. Are you benchmarking your personal rating scale to anything external like CEFR?

 

There are established norms for things like understanding 1st, 2nd and 3rd conditionals; certain tenses and so on, assuming we're talking about English.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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...