I've heard people with various degrees of language proficiency claim they were 'fluent' in a language. Is it enough to be able to read and have basic exchanges? Or should you be able to understand literature, for example, before you can claim you are fluent in a language? There are some people who can understand a language rather well because of its similarity to a language they already speak, but they can barely utter a word in that language themselves. Are they fluent? I've been studying French for many years, and although I can use it in almost any situation, I hestitate to say I'm fluent because I haven't mastered every grammatical concept and I have trouble understanding academic and informal/argot spoken French. Am I fluent?[br][edited by alex_ca on 2005-04-28 01:13:40]

Subject created by alex_ca on Apr 28, 2005 @ 01:12

in my opinion its when you can leave the books behind and cross over/make the change from foriegn language learning to second language learning. being explained the meanung of words and phrases in the langage you are learning. which starts after about 1080 0r more hours of listening to the language and study .

Comment written by spokk3 on Jan 23, 2006 @ 05:01

Interesting subject! I thought I'd jump in! :) For me to be fluent in a language, differently from the previous entry, means that I think in that language, which is I don't need to make a mental translation when I try to express myself in that language. I would consider fluency in a language probably different from the ability to express yourself correctly in that language, ie according to grammatical rules, correct spelling, etc... if that was the case (oops) if that were the case (subjunctive) probably very few people could consider themself (oops) themselves fluent in any language, innit? :)

Comment written by Yalmar on Jun 01, 2005 @ 02:46

i'd say you're fluent when you're able to speak without having to think about it... you know what i mean?

Comment written by sknitz on May 10, 2005 @ 14:48

I agree that there are some important differences. The ability to communicate vs. the ability to converse Understanding the grammatical features of a language vs. mastering the colloquial features. Obviously one can't achieve perfect fluency without cultural immersion. But some linguistic education is certainly excellent preparation for an immersion experience :-)[br][edited by alex_ca on 2005-04-30 04:42:53]

Comment written by alex_ca on Apr 30, 2005 @ 04:42

we could say that the subjunctive is a kind of french equivalent for the english conjunctive, but there are some slight differences of course. Conjunctive embraces in English more than one form, as you know. And more uses than in French. I don´t think that the French forget to use the subjunctive. They stopped using the Imperfect and the Plus-que-parfait of the subjunctive. But they do use the present and the past very often. It is practically impossible to communicate in French without it.

Comment written by I-R-I-N-A on Apr 29, 2005 @ 02:38

Sorry, but I would not consider you fluent... Fluency really depends on your ability to completely understand a language. That means slang and academic vocabulary, too. Fluent does not mean that you understand all of the grammatical rules: it means that you follow most of them without even having to think about it and understand nuances and idioms. In my opinion, the only way to truly become fluent in a language is to live in a country where that language is spoken for an extended period of time. Academic fluency is very different from natural, living fluency, in my opinion. You probably have great academic fluency, but it is hard to achieve true fluency without living in complete immersion.

Comment written by helloplatypu on Apr 29, 2005 @ 01:34

What is the subjunctive?

Comment written by Turtlehead on Apr 28, 2005 @ 11:20

Not even a native speaker of some languages gets everything correct. In English we hardly use our own subjunctive...and, people who speak English as a second language often speak it better than we do. I hear that sometimes french people forget to use the subjunctive as well. I would consider you fluent- not even native speakers are perfect at their language

Comment written by JeSuisMarie on Apr 28, 2005 @ 06:22

I've heard people with various degrees of language proficiency claim they were 'fluent' in a language. Is it enough to be able to read and have basic exchanges? Or should you be able to understand literature, for example, before you can claim you are fluent in a language? There are some people who can understand a language rather well because of its similarity to a language they already speak, but they can barely utter a word in that language themselves. Are they fluent? I've been studying French for many years, and although I can use it in almost any situation, I hestitate to say I'm fluent because I haven't mastered every grammatical concept and I have trouble understanding academic and informal/argot spoken French. Am I fluent?[br][edited by alex_ca on 2005-04-28 01:13:40]

Comment written by alex_ca on Apr 28, 2005 @ 01:12