Fluent or Proficient?

[Chip00]

I've heard quite a few people in my time describe themselves as "fluent" in the States and in my opinion only 10% of the people who claim to be fluent actually are. My opinion of being "fluent" is someone for example who could work at a company answering the phone in a foreign language or dealing with the public and co-workers on a daily basis. It doesn't have to do with speaking without an accent necessarily because there are quite a large number of people I have known in the States who speak English fluently albiet with an accent. A good example of like this IMO would be Arnold Swarzenegger.

On the other hand, "proficient" is a more accurate term to describe the majority of people who speak foreign languages. IMO based on interactions with people speaking English as a second language for 25+ years I would have to say that 85% fall into this category.

Basically, that would leave relatively few who could be considered "fluent" by my definition but I think that is reasonable becasue honestly there are very few who are able to speak a foreign language well enough to be able to interact like a native.

Also, based on my definition I would have to classify myself as proficient and would be interested in what the other DR1'ers think.

 

[KateP]

Personally I would say that once you don't have to think about answers or start automatically counting in a language other than your mother tongue, you can consider yourself fluent. I often find myself having to think twice before answering a question in English because my auto pilot is now in Spanish. And forget about my French which is actually my first language. It's just sad sad sad. Often when I'm counting something, I'll start in Spanish, continue in English and end up with a mess in French which makes me have to start all over again and concentrate to not switch around :cheeky:

As for being proficient, I would say it's some who can understand and express themselves well in another language although they might have an accent and not understand all the different expressions typical to a specific region.

 

[Capt. Rob57]

Understanding

What one must understand is that all latin countries speak Spanish there are may different words used for example lechosa is paypa so it all depends where you are used to living and speaking. I remember when I was 18 went to Mexico and asked for eggs and bacon and almost got killed using huevos in the country side back then it was called the blanco de la gallina. Which to me would be feathers. Huevos would be testicles. Now remember this was over 30 years ago. Times change.

 

[Alyonka]

My english teacher said that the language in your mind when you are thinking about something is your native. So, to me, it is when you start thinking in a different language and are able to pronaunce words and sentences correctly and clearly for everyone to understand - then you are proficient.

 

[Norma Rosa]

It is erroneous to separate both terms (fluent/proficient) to designate a level of proficiency acquired by a lenguage learner. Fluency is proficiency in a language. The usual classification of lenguage learners is as follows: Beginners, intermediate, advanced, and fluent. (There are subdivisions withing those categories.)

The following quote is from About.
Fluent:
"A fluent speaker can participate in extended conversations, understand the language when spoken normally (on TV, radio, film, etc.), figure out meaning of words within context, debate, and use/understand complicated grammatical structures with little or no difficulty. Has good accent and understands dialects with slight-to-moderate difficulty."

Here to help (and learn)
Norma

 

[Kyle]

so what about us who can speak a little span-glish (spanish/english) ? would we be considered "having a basic knowledge" ??

 

[Chirimoya]

There's also a 'good working knowledge' - I can barely order a meal in a restaurant in French, mainly due to lack of practice, but I can understand a reasonably complex text and follow other people's conversations well enough.

 

[bob saunders]

Perhaps the term to use would be Functional. This is the term we use in Canada under our Official bilingual legalize for hiring people for bilingual positions. Either you are Fluent, functional, or have a " working knowledge"

 

[2LeftFeet]

You know that you are really good in that language when you dream in that language instead of your 1st language.

 

[Kyle]

i keeps my spanish translation book with me at all times in case i get into a jam...i'm sure not to many people do that...it comes in handy, believe me...

 

[Chip00]

It is erroneous to separate both terms (fluent/proficient) to designate a level of proficiency acquired by a lenguage learner. Fluency is proficiency in a language.

from Merriam Webster Dictionary:

Proficient: implies a thorough competence derived from training and practice.

Fluent: capable of using a language easily and accurately.

I think the two defintions are somewhat different IMO. Whereas "fluent" is described as using the language easily and accurately, almost like a fluid, proficient just implies a "thorough competence" - a big difference.

 

[xamaicano]

How would one convey functional in Spanish when it comes to language proficiency?

Perhaps the term to use would be Functional. This is the term we use in Canada under our Official bilingual legalize for hiring people for bilingual positions. Either you are Fluent, functional, or have a " working knowledge"

 

[Chip00]

Perhaps the term to use would be Functional. This is the term we use in Canada under our Official bilingual legalize for hiring people for bilingual positions. Either you are Fluent, functional, or have a " working knowledge"

I think functional is similar to proficient in that it applies a sufficient ability to get the job done.

Where I used to work in Orlando we have a large majority of Hispanics and I would say that less than 10% of them would be considered fluent but most of them could be considered proficient or functional.

It appears to me that in 95% of the cases where a person is completely fluent in two languages that the person grew up speaking both languages. It is very rare to meet someone who learned a language after they were in their teens or later who could be really considered to be fluent.

In my own case I learned very late and for this reason I am happy with speaking at the proficient level but have aspirations to be better. Since I live in the DR who knows - it may happen at some point. However, I have known many Hispanics in Orlando who have lived there 20 years and whose English stays at the basic or intermediate level so maybe I've already peaked and I just don't know it yet.

 

[Norma Rosa]

from Merriam Webster Dictionary:

Proficient: implies a thorough competence derived from training and practice.

Fluent: capable of using a language easily and accurately.

I think the two defintions are somewhat different IMO. Whereas "fluent" is described as using the language easily and accurately, almost like a fluid, proficient just implies a "thorough competence" - a big difference.

If you analize both definitions, one does not take away from the other. The definition of the word "proficient" is not arrived at with language acquisition in mind only. A language-fluent person ("one that can use a language easily and accurately") arrives at that level after much "training and practice". Although the expression "one can not serve two masters" might apply here also, a great number of people acquire a good functional and intellectual knowledge of a language other than the mother tongue. "Learn while in thy youth" in a great proverb, however, if a person with a sack full of initiative is placed in the right environment for language acquisition, age is not an impediment for language development. (I am not talking here of those of very advanced age.)
Proficiency (fluency) in a language is something that educators have found difficult to define. Every State Department of Education has set its own bench marks for placing or moving a student from one level of proficiency to another. I will post those of California when I find them.

Here to help and learn,
Norma

 

[Chip00]

If you analize both definitions, one does not take away from the other. The definition of the word "proficient" is not arrived at with language acquisition in mind only. A language-fluent person ("one that can use a language easily and accurately") arrives at that level after much "training and practice". Although the expression "one can not serve two masters" might apply here also, a great number of people acquire a good functional and intellectual knowledge of a language other than the mother tongue. "Learn while in thy youth" in a great proverb, however, if a person with a sack full of initiative is placed in the right environment for language acquisition, age is not an impediment for language development. (I am not talking here of those of very advanced age.)
Proficiency (fluency) in a language is something that educators have found difficult to define. Every State Department of Education has set its own bench marks for placing or moving a student from one level of proficiency to another. I will post those of California when I find them.

Here to help and learn,
Norma

Norma

The point of the original thread was not really to discuss the semantical differences between "proficient" and "fluent" but rather to try to describe communicating ability - if you feel proficient is equal or not much different than fluent in meaning then maybe using the term "good working knowledge" would be more helpful.

The point I'm trying to make is distinguish between someone whom really is "fluent" and someone who is at a somewhat lower level but that is still able to function on an adequete level in order to communicate. IMO I just feel that the term "fluent" is overused because such a few people are really able to operate at this level.

 

[johne]

You know that you are really good in that language when you dream in that language instead of your 1st language.

I was going to post that a couple of years ago on a similar thread someone posted this exact thought--before you time as a member of DR1
john

 

[2LeftFeet]

I think living in the DR you are at a disadvantage for becoming fluent only because there are so many people that speak English and can accomodate you.

I'm not saying you can't. You just can't cheat and speak English when you are in a bind or live with ex-pats.

If you live in the campo--- you are not going to have a choice. You have to speak Spanish.

When I was in SD I spoke Spanish or I didn't speak. 2X when times I was in a jam people asked ME if I spoke English. I refused to ask people to help me in English. You don't learn that way. You become lazy and dependant and you will NEVER learn.

You will become fluent --don't cheat.

 

[Norma Rosa]

Norma

The point of the original thread was not really to discuss the semantical differences between "proficient" and "fluent" but rather to try to describe communicating ability - if you feel proficient is equal or not much different than fluent in meaning then maybe using the term "good working knowledge" would be more helpful.

The point I'm trying to make is distinguish between someone whom really is "fluent" and someone who is at a somewhat lower level but that is still able to function on an adequete level in order to communicate. IMO I just feel that the term "fluent" is overused because such a few people are really able to operate at this level.

Chipoo, you are really becoming a Dominican male: You refuse to admit you can be wrong. Please read what you and I have posted on this subject. It has not been discussed "semantically." It seem to me that you began this thread with the intention of stating your opinion. You are refusing to accept information that goes against what you have chosen to believe.

Well, I will be in the DR in the summer. I will take with me my boxing gloves. You provide the ring.

Here to help AND LEARN,
Norma

 

[Chip00]

Chipoo, you are really becoming a Dominican male: You refuse to admit you can be wrong. Please read what you and I have posted on this subject. It has not been discussed "semantically." It seem to me that you began this thread with the intention of stating your opinion. You are refusing to accept information that goes against what you have chosen to believe.

Well, I will be in the DR in the summer. I will take with me my boxing gloves. You provide the ring.

Here to help AND LEARN,
Norma

Haha you're funny. That couldn't be further from the truth - I have no problem admitting that I'm wrong.

As for the purpose of this thread it was really was about defining "fluent" and "something less that being fluent" (which I chose the word proficient of course). Let's just say that for argument purposes "proficient" is equal to "fluent" then that is fine with me - I'll just rephrase my original post to say "a good working knowledge" instead of proficient - see I admit I'm wrong!

As far as the boxing ring we just better keep our friendship on DR1. If your not aware the wife is a "Mocana" and you know they don't call them "mata presidente" (just kidding, almost). Joking aside, my wife is EXTREMELY jealous. I actually don't know what for because I'm no womanizer but nonetheless if I told her that I had a Spanish speaking women friend, well lets just say it wouldn't be pretty!aranoid:

 

[Roo]

One of my friends who teaches ESL (English as a Second Language) delineates between "fluent" and "accurate". Fluent is someone who can express herself more or less easily, may need help w/the right word occasionally, but can ask in that language (w/o reverting to native tongue) what the right word is, thereby increasing her vocabulary. (Remember, in our native language, we still learn new words occasionally/regularly.)

"Accuracy" on the other hand, is not only about ability to communicate, but to know the most precise words, to get it right grammatically, etc.

Personally, my Spanish teacher began calling me "fluent" and encouraged me to put it on my resume when I was thinking in Spanish, babbling more or less coherently (note "babbling" - when I got pretty excited about a topic and didn't have time to worry about grammar, etc.), and still lacked many words, but was able to ask what a new word that I heard meant & understand the explanation.

Now, there are regional differences, as mentioned, so when I go to Cuba or DR, they all think I speak far less than I do for the first few days as I acclimate b/c their accents & words are so different than the Mexican Spanish that I'm used to. So my perceived fluency level will vary based on that.

Btw, it was my conception of "fluency" as perfect and w/o flaw that kept me from describing myself that way for some time. Then I started to take note of the range of folks who described themselves as fluent. It's true, unless you learned while young or have been immersed for quite some time, you'll still make mistakes. If we were to go by such strict standards, very few people would be considered fluent, despite living daily in another language/culture, using it professionally, etc.

I don't think being exclusionary serves us here, and there's times to go with the accepted meaning of the word (this is how language is shaped and changes). -How many times in Spanish (assuming it's not your first language) do you look up a word and have a native speaker tell you, "Well, yes, that's what it says, but it really means more of this..."? Just like that for the word "fluent", I think.