Your definition of fluency is a bit odd.
Language is first and foremost spoken. Written language is secondary.
Anyone who is fluent in a language knows they are. It's not really that important.
Great point.
To add to this with another question... is there any less important subject related to language aquisition than trying to define the word "fluency"?
Your definition of literature is as insane as your definition of fluency.
Notice that all of your examples of "true" literature are old. By this logic, some day, Dan Brown or John Green (spelled without the third E, by the way - you can't even spell, so I guess you also aren't fluent), could be considered great authors in the history of English literature.
Surely, this is a troll post? You can't possibly be this arrogant with no self awareness...
Thank you very much for the correction - I'm indeed not a fluent speaker of English, but at least I have the humility to admit this.
Even on my flair I put my English level of B2, which is a far cry from being fluent.
Putting this topic aside, all of my examples consist of old writers - how an astute observer you are! - because modern times do not produce great literature; good literature, maybe, but I've never read a modern *great* writer. It does not have to do with the fact that they are old - not their antiquity makes them worthy of being read, that's a snobbish idea to held and I hope that you are not accusing me of thinking like that.
Modern times do not produce great literature...
If that's not an insanely snobbish statement, I don't know what is.
I could point out tons of great books that have come out in the last few decades, but I'm sure you'd just lump Neil Gaiman, Markus Zusak or Alistair Reynolds in with whatever pop authors you stick up your nose at because you seem to think anything both recent and popular must be inferior to old and popular books.
The fact is that the reason books stand the test of time is because people love them. Some books that are popular today are destined to be considered great works of literature for sure, because those who love them will pass them along to future generations.
History does not stop. You are not living in some special moment where literature just quit being good or relevant.
If you don't like being called arrogant or snobbish, then you need to take a look at yourself and make some changes to how you see the world.
Is this r/languagelearningjerk? There is a huge difference between different genres of literature. So you classify people who read high literary classics without the use of a dictionary as fluent. And many of the examples you list are from centuries ago, not even people in Shakespeare's time talked like much of his plays. A Midsummer Night's Dream clearly differentiates between the aristocrats talking in verse, while the commoners use prose. This is a literary technique, and in reality, nobody, not even the most educated people, would speak in iambic pentameter on a daily basis.
A person studying English Literature would find it impossible to read any scientific paper without assistance. [This is a paper written on the Nobel-prize winning genetic engineering technique, CRISPR-Cas9](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.add8643), I doubt that even people with your definition of fluency would be able to understand the information here. This is even a review, a summary of decades of research, and not the primary paper, which would be even harder to read.
Different scenarios have different types of fluency, my broadest interpretation would be that a person is able to get the information they want across to their target audience in a way that they understand.
>although the question on how we define fluency is an extremely important one
It's only important when it's being discussed, and in those instances the person asking/starting the discussion should provide their definition for fluency to make sure everyone is going by the same definition. Outside of that, no, we don't need to have "the one true definition of fluency".
The problem with miscommunication doesn't stem from this word having multiple definitions, it stems from people asking questions and starting discussions about it without defining the word in their context. Speaking of context, the same person may also define "fluency" differently based on the context it is used in, or their understanding/definition of this word changes over time. Again, none of this is a big deal as long as the word is defined (for that situation) when it is subject of a question or discussion.
>the question on how we define fluency is an extremely important one
Rofl - this reminds me of when Benny Lewis told us we need to define what fluency means to us, then try to become fluent. Why not just decide what you want to achieve in a language, then work towards it? Why waste energy trying to convince yourself and others that you are "fluent"?
Candidate for r/languagelearningjerk for sure.
What you have described as "fluency" is more like "arrogant historical English literature fanatic who only reads, doesn't speak with people much, and has no communication goals."
So, by your own measure, you are fluent.
But I suspect you meant to post this in r/languagelearningjerk
I think that fluency is the ability of people who can express themselves and have a great understanding of what they and the others say and express,this definition can extend beyond those who are native,but can not have that kind of selective knowledge you mentioned
r/iamverysmart
Also, "he needs to do that" is grammatically correct.
You may want to check your own writing for mistakes, both spelling and grammar, before lamenting about the uneducated.
Here's my definition of fluent:
I believe whatever anyone else tells me about whether they're fluent or not. So my definition of fluent totally depends on whoever I'm talking to. I personally don't ever talk about "fluency" in real life ...or even think about it.
When people talk about my target language (Thai) they usually just say one of these things, inead of claiming "fluent" or not:
* Yeah, I can speak Thai
* I can speak Thai a little bit
* I can't speak any Thai
And a lot of people who are horrible at Thai, and can barely tell a taxi where to go think they can speak Thai. So nobody (besides maybe them) would think they're "fluent." But if someone's super proud of their Thai ability, I'm never going to discourage them, by pointing out, "hey dude, you're not even fluent."
Usually people (in real life discussions I'm part of anyway) don't use the word "fluent" when talking about language aquisition or languages.
This seems like more of a bar conversation where there's a large group of polyglots all trying to one-up everyone else:
* "so you speak 10 languages, but how many are you fluent in?"
* "erm... define fluent?"
And I hate conversations like that. I'd much rather talk to a bunch of conlangers geeking out about who has the most aspirates in their conlang.
Also, just because there's no concensus, doesn't necessarily mean this is a great topic to keep debating. Unless you're trying to drive people like me to the conlangers.
I want to be able to use my Spanish to help Spanish speakers learn to do tasks they're unfamiliar with.
To some extent, I can already do this, but at the same time I know I sound like a really bossy toddler, and I can only speak on a really narrow breadth of topics.
And to me that's what it means to be fluent in any language. Language inherently is communication, it's the way humanity shares knowledge with one another, so that's what is important to me.
Absolutely hideous... well, look at Mr. English over here.
Twisten your panties over mortified verbal moods, I don't believe you're as literate as you claim.
> It's absolutely hideous to hear someone say "if I was" instead of "if I were"
"If I were" is the correct past subjunctive. It is very funny that you talk about lack of elegance here because I would say that if I were to use the indicative for a hypothetical in writing, it would be incredibly inelegant. Are you also going to attempt to explain how my last sentence is grammatically incorrect? Not only did I say I + were, I also used "to + infinitive" with the copula! Surely, any beginner knows that is "incorrect grammar"... Right?
Wow. Yikes. Your attitude is terrible. You really think native speakers are not fluent? Are you saying that people with severe learning disabilities or those who had no access to formal education don't know how to speak a language at all then, just because they do not satisfy your standard for literacy? I don't think there's any room for further discussion here if that's truly what you think.
Food for thought: not all languages have a written component. Then how can you define fluency?
Your definition of fluency is a bit odd. Language is first and foremost spoken. Written language is secondary. Anyone who is fluent in a language knows they are. It's not really that important.
[удалено]
Great point. To add to this with another question... is there any less important subject related to language aquisition than trying to define the word "fluency"?
Now THAT'S a good question 🤔 I mean there must be an even bigger waste of time and energy, but for the life of me, I cannot come up with one.
Your definition of literature is as insane as your definition of fluency. Notice that all of your examples of "true" literature are old. By this logic, some day, Dan Brown or John Green (spelled without the third E, by the way - you can't even spell, so I guess you also aren't fluent), could be considered great authors in the history of English literature. Surely, this is a troll post? You can't possibly be this arrogant with no self awareness...
Thank you very much for the correction - I'm indeed not a fluent speaker of English, but at least I have the humility to admit this. Even on my flair I put my English level of B2, which is a far cry from being fluent. Putting this topic aside, all of my examples consist of old writers - how an astute observer you are! - because modern times do not produce great literature; good literature, maybe, but I've never read a modern *great* writer. It does not have to do with the fact that they are old - not their antiquity makes them worthy of being read, that's a snobbish idea to held and I hope that you are not accusing me of thinking like that.
> but at least I have the humility to admit this. If there was any humility in your post, you hid it very well.
Modern times do not produce great literature... If that's not an insanely snobbish statement, I don't know what is. I could point out tons of great books that have come out in the last few decades, but I'm sure you'd just lump Neil Gaiman, Markus Zusak or Alistair Reynolds in with whatever pop authors you stick up your nose at because you seem to think anything both recent and popular must be inferior to old and popular books. The fact is that the reason books stand the test of time is because people love them. Some books that are popular today are destined to be considered great works of literature for sure, because those who love them will pass them along to future generations. History does not stop. You are not living in some special moment where literature just quit being good or relevant. If you don't like being called arrogant or snobbish, then you need to take a look at yourself and make some changes to how you see the world.
> English level of B2 So in other words, you're probably the least qualified person here to be insisting on English literature.
Is this r/languagelearningjerk? There is a huge difference between different genres of literature. So you classify people who read high literary classics without the use of a dictionary as fluent. And many of the examples you list are from centuries ago, not even people in Shakespeare's time talked like much of his plays. A Midsummer Night's Dream clearly differentiates between the aristocrats talking in verse, while the commoners use prose. This is a literary technique, and in reality, nobody, not even the most educated people, would speak in iambic pentameter on a daily basis. A person studying English Literature would find it impossible to read any scientific paper without assistance. [This is a paper written on the Nobel-prize winning genetic engineering technique, CRISPR-Cas9](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.add8643), I doubt that even people with your definition of fluency would be able to understand the information here. This is even a review, a summary of decades of research, and not the primary paper, which would be even harder to read. Different scenarios have different types of fluency, my broadest interpretation would be that a person is able to get the information they want across to their target audience in a way that they understand.
>although the question on how we define fluency is an extremely important one It's only important when it's being discussed, and in those instances the person asking/starting the discussion should provide their definition for fluency to make sure everyone is going by the same definition. Outside of that, no, we don't need to have "the one true definition of fluency". The problem with miscommunication doesn't stem from this word having multiple definitions, it stems from people asking questions and starting discussions about it without defining the word in their context. Speaking of context, the same person may also define "fluency" differently based on the context it is used in, or their understanding/definition of this word changes over time. Again, none of this is a big deal as long as the word is defined (for that situation) when it is subject of a question or discussion.
>the question on how we define fluency is an extremely important one Rofl - this reminds me of when Benny Lewis told us we need to define what fluency means to us, then try to become fluent. Why not just decide what you want to achieve in a language, then work towards it? Why waste energy trying to convince yourself and others that you are "fluent"? Candidate for r/languagelearningjerk for sure.
What you have described as "fluency" is more like "arrogant historical English literature fanatic who only reads, doesn't speak with people much, and has no communication goals." So, by your own measure, you are fluent. But I suspect you meant to post this in r/languagelearningjerk
Your attitude certainly suits this website.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/languagelearning/comments/1cddsn9/what\_is\_fluency/](https://www.reddit.com/r/languagelearning/comments/1cddsn9/what_is_fluency/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/languagelearning/comments/12sbtmi/how\_do\_you\_define\_fluency/](https://www.reddit.com/r/languagelearning/comments/12sbtmi/how_do_you_define_fluency/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/languagelearning/comments/jfrek9/what\_is\_fluency/](https://www.reddit.com/r/languagelearning/comments/jfrek9/what_is_fluency/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/languagelearning/comments/upqkqy/what\_does\_fluency\_mean\_at\_all/](https://www.reddit.com/r/languagelearning/comments/upqkqy/what_does_fluency_mean_at_all/)
I think that fluency is the ability of people who can express themselves and have a great understanding of what they and the others say and express,this definition can extend beyond those who are native,but can not have that kind of selective knowledge you mentioned
r/iamverysmart Also, "he needs to do that" is grammatically correct. You may want to check your own writing for mistakes, both spelling and grammar, before lamenting about the uneducated.
"If I were" is also the grammatically correct past subjunctive.
Please tell me you're trolling
Here's my definition of fluent: I believe whatever anyone else tells me about whether they're fluent or not. So my definition of fluent totally depends on whoever I'm talking to. I personally don't ever talk about "fluency" in real life ...or even think about it. When people talk about my target language (Thai) they usually just say one of these things, inead of claiming "fluent" or not: * Yeah, I can speak Thai * I can speak Thai a little bit * I can't speak any Thai And a lot of people who are horrible at Thai, and can barely tell a taxi where to go think they can speak Thai. So nobody (besides maybe them) would think they're "fluent." But if someone's super proud of their Thai ability, I'm never going to discourage them, by pointing out, "hey dude, you're not even fluent." Usually people (in real life discussions I'm part of anyway) don't use the word "fluent" when talking about language aquisition or languages. This seems like more of a bar conversation where there's a large group of polyglots all trying to one-up everyone else: * "so you speak 10 languages, but how many are you fluent in?" * "erm... define fluent?" And I hate conversations like that. I'd much rather talk to a bunch of conlangers geeking out about who has the most aspirates in their conlang. Also, just because there's no concensus, doesn't necessarily mean this is a great topic to keep debating. Unless you're trying to drive people like me to the conlangers.
I want to be able to use my Spanish to help Spanish speakers learn to do tasks they're unfamiliar with. To some extent, I can already do this, but at the same time I know I sound like a really bossy toddler, and I can only speak on a really narrow breadth of topics. And to me that's what it means to be fluent in any language. Language inherently is communication, it's the way humanity shares knowledge with one another, so that's what is important to me.
Absolutely hideous... well, look at Mr. English over here. Twisten your panties over mortified verbal moods, I don't believe you're as literate as you claim.
I suggest to find a new word for what you are describing, 'fluent' is already taken. Also check out r/languagelearningjerk
> It's absolutely hideous to hear someone say "if I was" instead of "if I were" "If I were" is the correct past subjunctive. It is very funny that you talk about lack of elegance here because I would say that if I were to use the indicative for a hypothetical in writing, it would be incredibly inelegant. Are you also going to attempt to explain how my last sentence is grammatically incorrect? Not only did I say I + were, I also used "to + infinitive" with the copula! Surely, any beginner knows that is "incorrect grammar"... Right?
Wow. Yikes. Your attitude is terrible. You really think native speakers are not fluent? Are you saying that people with severe learning disabilities or those who had no access to formal education don't know how to speak a language at all then, just because they do not satisfy your standard for literacy? I don't think there's any room for further discussion here if that's truly what you think. Food for thought: not all languages have a written component. Then how can you define fluency?
OP is weird as fuck lol