From: mark@hpcvxmsr.cv.hp.com (Mark Rowe)
Subject: Re: `fluency in Japanese'
Reply-To: mark@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com
Organization: UDT-CV (ITO)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:55:01 GMT

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

At the risk of turning a discussion into an argument, I would like to
point out that what I gave as the "definition" of fluent (free-flowing)
was not my definition but rather Webster's and was replaced in Mark
Crispin's  para-phrased quote with .... The description I gave is
admittingly a personal interpretation of fluent which I believe is pretty
close to the mark, and which I believe requires a lot more than "merely
capable of making themselves understood".

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

I agree with this, but this is directed at what it means to speak Japanese,
not at what it means to be fluent.  My issue was not with Mark C's Japanese,
but rather with his English.  "Fluent" is a defined English word.  Its
definition may be somewhat vague, but we are not completely free to use it
as we choose.  My interpretation may or may not be completely accurate, but
I believe it is far closer than Mark C's interpretation which is far too
restrictive.  Mark C. has outlined a set a criteria that establish a pretty
high threshold for mastery of the Japanese language.  Had he used the term
"mastering the language" instead of "fluent in the language", no problem.
While I think his criteria is pretty severe, I can agree that it might be
appropriate for mastering the language.  The point of my previous article
was that Mark C's criteria went far beyond "fluent".

> Here are some of the things I consider important:
>  . Can you hold an *extended* conversation on the telephone (long enough to
>    run out of pattern sentences and having to compose your own) without the
>    other person having a clue that you aren't a native speaker?

Why is it important that the listener not know that you are not Japanese.
While it might be nice to be able to "masquerade" as a native Japanese, I
hardly consider this important (unless you're a spy I suppose).

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

This would be nice, but I hardly consider it important in and of itself.
What you want to be able to do is to speak without having your awareness
of the language interfer with that speech.  If you can do this, then it
doesn't matter whether or not you are actually aware of the language.

>  . Can you read a newspaper or technical report?

OK

> These are some of the things I consider to be the earmark of fluency, and what
> I think only a handful of people can accomplish.

My own aims are somewhat more modest.  I would like to be able to carry on
a normal conversation without embarrassing myself or offending others.  I
would like to be able speak at a normal speed without constantly having to
stop and ponder the appropriate word or form of speech.  If not able to
totally rid myself of an accent, I would like to have a light enough accent
that it does not interfer with me being understood.  I would like to be
able to watch a movie, read a newspaper, listen to a radio program, etc. and
understand all of what is being said (if I have to look up an occassional
word, well I have to do that in English too).  I do not believe that the
time I have to devote to this pursuit or the opportunities available to me
will enable me to completely accomplish this goal.  If I am successful
however, then I will consider myself fluent in the language, and if someone
else disagrees then that is a problem with their English not my Japanese.

Mark Rowe             email: mark@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com