Talk:Fluency/Archives/2012

English

The English-specific terms used to explain reading fluency should be removed. Fluency isn't an English-specific concept. —Largo Plazo 14:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

English-specific terms definitely should not be removed, however it would be appropriate to create a section called "English-specific terms" and remove everything that's bugging you from the body. Please remember to add to, not just delete from, wikipedia. Fredsmith2 15:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing unreferenced tag

I removed the unreferenced tag, because there are in fact, references in this article. If you'd like to put it back on, put on either a section reference tag, or a {{fact}} tag. Fredsmith2 16:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Prating

"Prating" redirects to this page, but isn't explained anywhere. This isn't helpful, since so far as I can gather, prating means babbling, which is not at all the same as fluency. -Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.241.156 (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fluency English training in spain ,(españa murcia ingles)

In murcia españa we define fluency a bit differently.Its how you are received by the natives but also by how even people from german or japan receive you. If your english fluency is good,not only natives catch you but also people who spaeak english as a second language .En murcia españa.fluency en ingles y idiomas es mas que para comunicar con nativos.alumnos comunicar con japoneses y gente de alemania.Si solo nativos te entiende no tienes fluency.o fluidez.un ingles garantizado no es facil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.97.68 (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Second Generation Speaker

What about a second generation speaker. Someone who has been speaking a second language all their lives but mostly speak it primarily with parents, native relatives, and family friends. They tend to be pseudo-fluent, they have no formal education in the language but can visit a country and understand almost everything in a typical conversation and engage in it, etc... but, unlike someone who is only a fluent speaker, who learned it as a second language after first being a native speaker of another language, a second generation speaker has been speaking their 'second' language for as long as they have been speaking their 'first' since their parents introduced it to them at a very young age.

Maybe there should be a distinction between a second generation speaker; a native (someone who grew up in a country that speaks their first language); and an adult speaker, someone who has only learned it as an adult.

Maybe we can have an educated native, a partially educated native, and an uneducated native. An educated native can be someone who finished high school in their native country, a partially educated native can be someone who started a few years of school in their native country and later moved to another country and finished their schooling their, and an uneducated native could be someone who has lived in their native country for a number of years but has little to no formal education there because they moved at a relatively young age.

The nomenclature covering this subject seems to be rather vague and I have a few ideas on improving it. Maybe an immersed fluent speaker, someone who lived in a country of their second language for a number of years vs a non-immersed fluent speaker, someone who has learned a second language primarily through education or other means (radio, Internet, etc...).

I just read this and it should be added to the see also links

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Multilingualism

This is a much better resource for defining terms.

Also, why not define fluency in terms of percentage of understood words (in context). Are there any studies on the percentage of understood words for an average native? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.144.159 (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Unsupported opinions conflicting internally and with Wiki Article on Language Proficiency

This article is highly subjective, unsupported, and internally conflicting. For example, one assertion is: "Fluency is a speech language pathology term that means the smoothness or flow with which sounds, syllables, words and phrases are joined together when speaking quickly.[1]" Then it almost immediately follows with this: "Fluency in English is basically one’s ability to be understood by both native and non native listeners. " So which is it? Smooth and fluid....or being understood by people who aren't even native speakers? Then the writer goes on to assert that even native speakers aren't fluent!??? Obviously, proficiency and fluency are being used interchangeably, and the ensuing confusion is evident throughout the article. Importantly, the Wikipedia article on Language Proficiency agrees with the first assertion by stating: "In predominant frameworks in the United States, proficient speakers demonstrate both accuracy and fluency, and use a variety of discourse strategies.[2] Thus, native speakers of a language can be fluent without being considered proficient." Yes, that's right, proficient is different from fluent. To reiterate, "fluent" is a word that in both ordinary and linguistic usage is different from "proficient." Even the American Heritage Dictionary makes this clear by defining "fluent" as: "Able to express oneself readily and effortlessly... " Obviously someone's opinion that illiterate speakers are NOT fluent is an ok opinion, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia when it conflicts with linguists and dictionaries. I would respectfully suggest this article remove the entire sub-section entitled "Language Fluency" as unsupported by experts and the remainder be merged with the article on Language Proficiency so that a reader can understand the full spectrum of competencies exhibited by native and non-native speakers. By the way, the one reference regarding "reading fluency" cites an elementary school teacher's article about teaching children to read....hardly the kind of "research" expected in a citation. I could, for example, include a section called "behavioral fluency" and cite www.fluency.org as my source. Again, not a real value add to this important subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N0w8st8s (talk • contribs) 19:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)