Polyglots?

[Svartalf]

OK, all you Western European speakers, I'll rephrase:
Do you honestly consider someone who can speak Japanese but not read it to be fluent? If so, why can't they do my job?

Imagine meeting an illiterate Japanese person. S/he can converse gobs much better than you, but you can read more than him/her. Which of you has native-speaker "fluency"?

the five year old?

[Kimpatsu]

OK, all you Western European speakers, I'll rephrase:
Do you honestly consider someone who can speak Japanese but not read it to be fluent? If so, why can't they do my job?

Of course s/he's fluent... If not literate. It's elitist to demand literacy. Some languages don't have an orthography, y'know? Doesn't make it any less of a language to me.

Literacy is elitist? Says the man who can read and write.

[Kimpatsu]

Imagine meeting an illiterate Japanese person. S/he can converse gobs much better than you, but you can read more than him/her. Which of you has native-speaker "fluency"?

If they're that illiterate, they're probably brain damaged. (Japan has a very high literacy rate.) In which case, I'd be able to speak gobs better than they can. I already have a bigger specialised vocabulary than the average Japanese, anyway. (I do scientific and medical translations.)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

... a cracker?

[Kimpatsu]

... a cracker?

せんべい？

[Gawdzilla Sama]

... a cracker?

せんべい？

I was thinking of the Dukes of Hazard, actually.

[Kimpatsu]

I was thinking of the Dukes of Hazard, actually.

I know nothing about the Dukes of Hazard, sorry.

[FBM]

Actually, FBM, if I spent enough time in the place where my aunt and uncle are spending their retirement, I might learn through the natural method, but what I'd learn there would be of no use for reading or understanding the TV, and I would probably have problems communicating with anybody from anywhere North of Cordoba.

I hear ya. Like I said, reading and writing are separate from listening and speaking and require different methods. As for regional dialects, when I drive to the southern tip of the peninsula to Jeollanamdo, I can hardly understand a word them fuggers say. Mainland Koreans can't understand the dialect spoken on Jeju, their major island, either. Learning dialects is almost like starting over again, innit?

If they're that illiterate, they're probably brain damaged. (Japan has a very high literacy rate.) In which case, I'd be able to speak gobs better than they can. I already have a bigger specialised vocabulary than the average Japanese, anyway. (I do scientific and medical translations.)

In your one field, I suppose, but there is specialized vocabulary for farming, fishing, making noodles, etc. If you stepped outside of your own sphere, I imagine you'd be humbled pretty quickly.

Insofar as Wiki is to be trusted:

Language fluency is used informally to denote broadly a high level of language proficiency, most typically foreign language or another learned language, and more narrowly to denote fluid language use, as opposed to slow, halting use. In this narrow sense, fluency is necessary but not sufficient for language proficiency: fluent language users (particularly uneducated native speakers) may have narrow vocabularies, limited discourse strategies, and inaccurate word use. They may be illiterate, as well. Native language speakers are often incorrectly referred to as fluent.

In the sense of proficiency, "fluency" encompasses a number of related but separable skills:

Reading: the ability to easily read and understand texts written in the language;[3]
Writing: the ability to formulate written texts in the language;
Comprehension: the ability to follow and understand speech in the language;
Speaking: the ability to produce speech in the language and be understood by its speakers.
To some extent, these skills can be acquired separately. Generally, the later in life a learner approaches the study of a foreign language, the harder it is to acquire auditory comprehension and fluent speaking skills – however, the Critical Period Hypothesis as a limitation to language acquisition is a hotly debated topic. For instance, reading and writing skills in a foreign language can be acquired more easily after the primary language acquisition period of youth is over.

[Kimpatsu]

In your one field, I suppose, but there is specialized vocabulary for farming, fishing, making noodles, etc. If you stepped outside of your own sphere, I imagine you'd be humbled pretty quickly.

Doubtless, but then it's no longer an issue of native/non-native fluency, but of knowledge of specialist vocabulary. And to communicate the specialist vocab, you will still need to be literate.

Insofar as Wiki is to be trusted:

You're right; I don't trust Wiki. (Well, maybe Star Trek Wiki.)

[FBM]

The Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics

fluency, fluent
The features which give speech the qualities of being natural and normal, including native like use of PAUSING, rhythm, INTONATION, STRESS, rate of speaking, and use of interjections and interruptions. If speech disorders cause a breakdown in normal speech (e.g. as with APHASIA or stuttering), the resulting speech may be referred to as dysfluent, or as an example of dysfluency.

In second and foreign language teaching, fluency describes a level of proficiency in communication, which includes:

a the ability to produce written and/or spoken language with ease
b the ability to speak with a good but not necessarily perfect command of intonation, vocabulary, and grammar
c the ability to communicate ideas effectively
d the ability to produce continuous speech without causing comprehension difficulties or a breakdown of communication.
It is sometimes contrasted with accuracy, which refers to the ability to produce grammatically correct sentences but may not include the ability to speak or write fluently.

http://www.professorjackrichards.com/wo ... tm~content

[Kimpatsu]

I notice the definition you've just given excludes pausing to think through what one wants to say succinctly.

[FBM]

I notice the definition you've just given excludes pausing to think through what one wants to say succinctly.

Pausing to think about your message is distinct from pausing due to lack of fluency, innit?

[Kimpatsu]

Pausing to think about your message is distinct from pausing due to lack of fluency, innit?

Yes, it is, but the definition given doesn't allow for that.

[FBM]

Pausing to think about your message is distinct from pausing due to lack of fluency, innit?

Yes, it is, but the definition given doesn't allow for that.

Probably because what you're talking about has nothing to do with language skills, which is what those people are focused on. Look, man. If you've acheived a high performance level by other methods, that says nothing about the value of The Natural Approach to language learners in general. There's more than one way to skin a cat. If you're comfortable with memorization and translation, I wouldn't presume to suggest you change what you're doing. I'm just saying that the old Grammar/Translation Approach combined with rote memorization has produced millions of Koreans, Chinese and Japanese people who can read at a high level, but who are functionally inept at even basic oral communication. The Natural Approach is a remedy for that, and I get nothing but positive feedback from my students and colleagues for applying this approach to my classroom activities.

[Kimpatsu]

Probably because what you're talking about has nothing to do with language skills, which is what those people are focused on. Look, man. If you've acheived a high performance level by other methods, that says nothing about the value of The Natural Approach to language learners in general. There's more than one way to skin a cat. If you're comfortable with memorization and translation, I wouldn't presume to suggest you change what you're doing. I'm just saying that the old Grammar/Translation Approach combined with rote memorization has produced millions of Koreans, Chinese and Japanese people who can read at a high level, but who are functionally inept at even basic oral communication. The Natural Approach is a remedy for that, and I get nothing but positive feedback from my students and colleagues for applying this approach to my classroom activities.

I won't speak for the Koreans and Chinese, but the reason the Japanese can't speak English is cultural, not linguistic. basically, they are too paranoid about being laughed at for making a mistake (which we all make when we're learning to speak a foreign language, whether it be calling the Sydney Carnival a "big orgy" or offering a French girl a "big fuck"), so they avoid any attempts at speaking. As for the Natural Approach (why the capitalization, bTW? Is it a copyrighted system?), I don7t think it can produce experts on the level of the traditional approach. How do your students learn irregular verbs, for example?