THE DILEMMA OF FLUENCY
As somebody who has been a language student for around ten years now, I often find myself struggling to answer the questions "Are you fluent?" This may seem a simple question from the outside. I suppose it means something like 'can you communicate competently in that language?' But I feel like there is a lot more to being fluent, as opposed to being able to speak a language. I am at the stage where I can confidently have everyday conversations in Japanese. The way I usually like to explain it is that I can explain who, what , where and when with ease. True fluency is being able to explain 'why' and 'how' with ease. Certainly, I can explain the whys and hows of a select few topics that I am familiar with, but do I consider myself fluent? Hell no. Would I be confident enough to travel the country alone? Of course! I would even feel comfortable teaching somebody else the basics of the language. But I do not think this qualifies me as 'fluent'.
The other big problem that Asian language students face is that of kanji (or Chinese ideograms). There exist thousands of these characters. The Japanese government regularly updates a list of the most common kanji - the data being heavily influenced by the frequency with which characters appear in Japanese newspapers. As of 2010 the government recognised a total 2,136 characters. Needless to say, learning all these characters is a massive undertaking and one of the greatest challenges of learning Japanese. Conversationally my Japanese may be considered fluent. But hand me a Japanese newspaper and I will be reduced to the status of around a fifth grader - as the amount of kanji I know is roughly equivalent to that age bracket. The advent of technology has made it possible to take shortcuts around learning kanji. Rather than needing to know how to write all of them, it is now possible to get by through knowing how to read characters and select the ones you wish to use based on meaning. But is this a legitimate way to 'know' the language? Can you truly claim to be fluent without the knowledge of all 2,136 most common kanji?
I suppose for learners of romance or Latin based languages this would not be a problem. But there still remains the problem of vocabulary. If somebody wanted to have a detailed conversation with me about school life, their family or globalization I would be capable - as I am familiar with the vocabulary surrounding those topics. However, if somebody wanted to talk about car mechanics or mobile phone technology? I would not have a hope of understanding. Of course, it is often possible to explain a term without actually knowing the word but, again, isn't this a sign that you are not yet fluent?
For Japanese, and many other popular languages, there exist official qualifications which you can obtain to prove your fluency. For Japanese, it is the 'Japanese Language Proficiency Test' or JLPT. However the JLPT is, in my opinion, a flawed examination. Heavily influenced by traditional Japanese style examinations there are no writing or speaking components to the exam. It is entirely based around multiple choice questions testing your reading comprehension, grammatical and kanji knowledge and listening skills. The fact that you can pass the highest tier of this exam system without proving that you know how to *speak* a single word of the language seems a massive flaw. Additionally, this bias towards writing gives native Chinese speakers (and other Chinese-character based language speakers eg/ Taiwanese) a huge advantage in taking the test. Already familiar with the meanings of many characters they have only to study the readings (and of course the slight differences between simplified or traditional Chinese characters and Japanese characters which, to be fair, would still be a lot of work).
A problem with the way we currently perceive language learning is that 'fluency' is often placed on this pedestal as the ultimate goal of language learning. Once you 'obtain' fluency you are considered to have 'completed' the language. The more years I spend with Japanese, the more I come to believe that this is an unrealistic, unhelpful way to view fluency. Fluency is something achievable only through constant immersion in your chosen language and is something you have to fight to keep. As soon as you neglect your language, parts of it will slip away, and it is only by resuming daily use of the language that you will be able to regain your fluency.
The other big problem that Asian language students face is that of kanji (or Chinese ideograms). There exist thousands of these characters. The Japanese government regularly updates a list of the most common kanji - the data being heavily influenced by the frequency with which characters appear in Japanese newspapers. As of 2010 the government recognised a total 2,136 characters. Needless to say, learning all these characters is a massive undertaking and one of the greatest challenges of learning Japanese. Conversationally my Japanese may be considered fluent. But hand me a Japanese newspaper and I will be reduced to the status of around a fifth grader - as the amount of kanji I know is roughly equivalent to that age bracket. The advent of technology has made it possible to take shortcuts around learning kanji. Rather than needing to know how to write all of them, it is now possible to get by through knowing how to read characters and select the ones you wish to use based on meaning. But is this a legitimate way to 'know' the language? Can you truly claim to be fluent without the knowledge of all 2,136 most common kanji?
I suppose for learners of romance or Latin based languages this would not be a problem. But there still remains the problem of vocabulary. If somebody wanted to have a detailed conversation with me about school life, their family or globalization I would be capable - as I am familiar with the vocabulary surrounding those topics. However, if somebody wanted to talk about car mechanics or mobile phone technology? I would not have a hope of understanding. Of course, it is often possible to explain a term without actually knowing the word but, again, isn't this a sign that you are not yet fluent?
For Japanese, and many other popular languages, there exist official qualifications which you can obtain to prove your fluency. For Japanese, it is the 'Japanese Language Proficiency Test' or JLPT. However the JLPT is, in my opinion, a flawed examination. Heavily influenced by traditional Japanese style examinations there are no writing or speaking components to the exam. It is entirely based around multiple choice questions testing your reading comprehension, grammatical and kanji knowledge and listening skills. The fact that you can pass the highest tier of this exam system without proving that you know how to *speak* a single word of the language seems a massive flaw. Additionally, this bias towards writing gives native Chinese speakers (and other Chinese-character based language speakers eg/ Taiwanese) a huge advantage in taking the test. Already familiar with the meanings of many characters they have only to study the readings (and of course the slight differences between simplified or traditional Chinese characters and Japanese characters which, to be fair, would still be a lot of work).
A problem with the way we currently perceive language learning is that 'fluency' is often placed on this pedestal as the ultimate goal of language learning. Once you 'obtain' fluency you are considered to have 'completed' the language. The more years I spend with Japanese, the more I come to believe that this is an unrealistic, unhelpful way to view fluency. Fluency is something achievable only through constant immersion in your chosen language and is something you have to fight to keep. As soon as you neglect your language, parts of it will slip away, and it is only by resuming daily use of the language that you will be able to regain your fluency.
 |
| In my quest for fluency! |
