From: wpm@is.morgan.com (W. Phillip Moore)
Subject: Re: `fluency in Japanese'
Organization: Informations Services Dept., Morgan Stanley Japan
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:35:17 GMT


>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Crispin <mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>:

Mark> The problem with Mark Rowe's definition [`anyone who can converse in
Mark> Japanese with an average native Japanese person at a normal rate of
Mark> speech and in a smoothly flowing manner...where each understands what
Mark> is being said would be fluent in Japanese'] is that it is too easy to
Mark> stretch that definition to cover a multitude of individuals who are
Mark> merely capable of making themselves understood.

But Mark Rowe's definition is not only the Webster's definition, his
*interpretation* of it is also the accepted standard.  Although I do not
claim to represent the personnel department of my firm, it is consistent
with our interpretation of fluency for hiring purposes.  It is also
consistent with the accepted definition of every other official or
quasi-official organization I am familiar with, particularly for hiring
purposes.

Of course the definition of "fluent" according to any dictionary is vague.
The issue is not the technical definition, but the accepted, standard
interpretation in use in society today.  

Mark> Someone who can speak a kind of pidgin Japanese could speak `in a
Mark> smoothly flowing manner' and `be understood' but can not be
Mark> considered to be fluent in Japanese.  Such a person is fluent in
Mark> pidgin, which is a different thing entirely.  My experience suggests
Mark> that many self-proclaimed `fluent in Japanese' individuals are in
Mark> fact fluent speakers of pidgin.

My 2 year old daughter speaks fluidly, but she speaks nonsense (albeit very
cute).  Obviously I would not call her fluent in English.  You are
stretching the interpretation of "fluent" to an absurd extreme in your
example.  One assumption in addition to speaking fluidly is speaking
correctly.  

However, your interpretation is the opposite extreme.  Basically, by the
conditions you have described for fluency, only native speakers and
non-natives who were raised in Japan will ever attain that level.  It is
far too restrictive an interpretation of "fluent".  The individuals who
will meet the Crispin interpretation of fluent will be the 99.999
percentile.  

Mark> Can you hold an *extended* conversation on the telephone (long enough
Mark> to run out of pattern sentences and having to compose your own)
Mark> without the other person having a clue that you aren't a native
Mark> speaker?

Whether or not native speakers are fooled into thinking you are Japanese or
not has nothing to do with fluency.  As an example, I have several English
speaking friends who are not native speakers, and it is obvious by their
accents.  However, they are perfectly fluent.  They speak grammatically
correct English; it is only their pronunciation which varies, in some cases
very subtly.  

This distinction SHOULD NOT be important.  Then you would be eliminating
from the interpretation of fluent, those speakers of regional dialects who
do not speak the defined standard of the language.  I meet very few native
Japanese who speak hyoujun-go (standard Japanese) in everyday life, and who
by their own admission, cannot.  My Mother-in-law, for example, can speak
Kansai dialect only. (My wife is Japanese if that's not obvious).  

Concrete example: I know many people from India whose grammar is better
than mine, and one who even beat my verbal score on the GRE*.  Yet their
accent is very heavy.  Where do they fall in your interpretation of
fluent??

Mark> Can you hold a conversation without being consciously aware of what
Mark> language you are speaking, and in particular have your partner switch
Mark> the language several times in the course of the conversation without
Mark> you being consciously aware of the switch?

I also think this has nothing to do with being fluent.  People who are not
consciously aware of which language they are speaking are probably natural
speakers of both languages.  By natural speaker, I mean someone who was
raised in an environment where they learned both languages in early
childhood.  

Mark> Can you read a newspaper or technical report?

Completely, totally incorrect.  Reading ability is referred to as literacy,
Mark.  Look it up.  A fluent speaker can be completely illiterate.  I know
some professional translators in Japan who meet your absurd interpretation
of spoken fluency, but they can read almost no Kanji.

W. Phillip Moore	   				Phone: 81-3-3286-9359
Information Services Department                           FAX: 81-3-3286-9040
Morgan Stanley Japan Ltd.  Tokyo Branch             E-mail: wpm@is.morgan.com
	Ote Center Bldg. 3F, 1-1-3 Otemachi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100

* GRE == Graduate Record Examination.  A standard US test for college
graduates, required for application to most graduate schools. 
Newsgroups: sci.lang.japan