Nice article. Thanks for writing it. It gives me some added motivation as I keep up my Mandarin studies. I’m convinced that half the internet population reads blogs solely to answer this question, “How can I disagree with this person?” These posts confirm my suspicion.

William

Fluency as defined by the New Oxford American Dictionary is just to “be able speak or write to be able to express oneself easily, articulately, and accurately.”

Speak OR write.

According to this definition, one can be illiterate and still be fluent, right? I speak, read, and write English, Spanish, and Mandarin and can perform social and business functions in each. I can read newspapers, basic novels, and magazines. Scientific journals take a while, but they take a while even in my native English. I consider myself fluent in all three, but only really educated in the two where I received formal instruction (English & Spanish).

With that said, I know individuals who speak all three as native speakers yet are illiterate (really cannot read or write at all) due to a total lack of education or schooling. Does this make me (a native USA) more fluent than my indigenous friends in Mexico because I can read Pablo Neruda and they can’t? Or more fluent because I can read Three Kingdoms, but the countryside peasants in Anhui I met who never learned to read can’t?

I don’t think so.

In addition, there were (and still are) many languages that are only oral in tradition. Thai, for example, only got a writing system in the 13th c. I’m ignorant to the continent of Africa, but I assume that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of local languages without formal writing systems. The Native Americans of the USA as well. Did the Epic of Gilgamesh and the emergence of Cuneiform raise the bar on what defines true fluency? It’s hard to convince me of that.

Therefore, let’s not confuse language sophistication or education with an individual being considered “fluent”.

It’s been 35 years since my first ma, ma, ma, ma, and I’m still learning– which brings up the issue of effective fluency.

The points Nick and Marie alluded to are important, I think. And it’s not as simple a matter as achieving the learner’s goals. Here’s why: true fluency means that one can communicate as effectively in Chinese as he/she would in their native tongue in situations where it matters– all in a cultural context very different for most foreigners. Let’s face it, many of us don’t even realize it when we’ve missed the mark among Chinese, but we’d get the proper feedback to correct if we were back home (jerks excepted).

I am sure you’ve met foreigners in China who have the “kick ass” ability to articulate anything they want in Chinese. But I call them “loose cannons”. Sometimes in some places the last thing you want is to articulate what, say, a callow midwesterner with some itch (I’m from Chicago myself) would.

The question I have to ask myself, regularly, is how would some of my smoother Chinese friends deal with this situation in order to get the response they’re after? After all, the meaning of your communication is the response you get, regardless of “what you meant to say”.

In a Chinese context, this would be use of rhetorical tricks, allusions, idioms, reference to relative status and obscure obligations, etc, etc. Hell, sometimes it’s use of silence!

Anyway, that’s my $0.02. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.

BTW, I was directed here by Hao Hao and you’ve got my vote!

Thanks for your long comment. I’ll do my best to reply. First of all, I want to point out that nowhere in the post did I use the word “fluent.” I despise this term, and find it to be a grossly over simplified analysis of one’s language level, in no small part because of all the questions you posed in the second paragraph of your comment.

The qualifier I often use to define “learning” the language is a point which I call “occupationally functional.” In other words, you could work a basic white collar job in your second language, and not be impeded to a significant degree by your linguistic abilities. The main characteristic of being occupationally functional is that by this point, mastering the language necessary to complete one’s job (or relationship for that matter) is merely a matter of adding the necessary jargon and phaseology. This, compared with learning the nuts and bolts of a language, is a significantly faster process.

Take me for lack of a better example. I’ve been working now for about a year part time as a medical interpreter. After spending a year with Chinese people in hospitals, I could probably describe the ins-and-outs (pun not intended) of a colonoscopy or an electrocardiogram at about the same level as an educated Chinese. By the same token, I have Chinese friends here in Chicago who work in research labs who could explain the inner workings of mitochondrial DNA, in equal, if not more concise and intellectual English than I could.

No individual is ever going to reach that point where you no everything. But that point where you have the *capacity* to learn just about anything is what I would maintain you could learn in three years.

Now when you bring up “persuasion, tone, cultural literacy, performing, and crafting a message,” we are entering an entirely new realm of language learning, one that regardless of which language, very few individuals actually achieve. And on this, I will agree with you 100% that it takes much longer than 3 years to develop.

The thing is, for many language learners, they find they can achieve their linguistic goals, without ever reaching this far into the upper echelons of language learning. (not to say that there is no value in it) Additionally, and this supports your point I believe, learning the subtle nuances of language takes a lot longer than learning the more concrete aspects. People often find they have neither the time nor the need nor the desire to take their language to such a level, mainly because the payoff just isn’t worth the time commitment (in practical terms).

So I think in essence, we are in agreement. There certainly are higher levels of Chinese language learning which require more than three years. The real question is whether or not it is worth it to the individual to invest their time in taking their language skills to the next level.

After 3.5 years, can you pick up a novel and read it in 3 days? Can you discuss geopolitics and ancient boatbuilding techniques? Can you write a passable corporate report? Can you do Da Shan’s stupid dictionary commercial pitch in a Shandong twang? Can you invent passable sexual euphemisms on the spot without reference to English (日语 is one of my favorites)?

It’s definitely not a pissing contest, but man, at 3.5 years, I couldn’t do those things that are the defining marks of a fluent user of a language. I’m slowly, slowly learning to at 6 years of study. I still don’t feel completely unhobbled, like I can speak my mind in full, persuasively, and effectively in Chinese, but I feel like I’m nearing (not at) the place where further active improvements directly connected to the language on my part, like memorizing new vocabulary and rereading my grammar guides are diminishing returns.

It’s important to define what being “fluent” in a language means when you’re explaining how to make progress, because the ability to simply have an inquisitive conversation is not the be all and end all of language. There are things like persuasion, tone, cultural literacy, performing, and crafting a message for different personalities that 3.5, 6, and even 10 years of study will leave you woefully unprepared for if you’re not aware of them.

I really hate to be the wet blanket in these conversations, because I know how important progress is. It’s just that so often in these discussions of how easy or hard Chinese is, the ancillary functions of the language just get left out. But they’re by and large the real difference between someone who “can speak some Chinese” and someone who can just outright kick ass at it. And the attrition rate of students isn’t just at the tone level, it’s at the points that follow where no matter how hard you try to win an argument or make your point or get your girl/boyfriend to see things your way or tell that really funny joke even though you totally worked on tailoring a version of it in Mandarin in the car on the way to dinner, your efforts just. fall. flat. I’ve known a lot of people who give up there, too.

I’d love to hear a breakdown of what you think you can and can’t accomplish with 3.5 years of Chinese study. It’s a subject that just plain old doesn’t get enough treatment in Chinese or English media. Fluency and success in studying a language is in no way a black and white issue…even Da Shan sounds like a dork most of the time!

You are correct that Chinese tends to build permutations using simple character building blocks, but I think this actually makes it harder to remember the permutations. Because the word “plumber” is a unique word, you actually will spend a special effort trying to learn it — while in Chinese I can stumble through the meaning without actually paying special attention to remembering the word. So “the rapid expansion of vocabulary” doesn’t necessarily translate into rapid memorization and personal usability of the vocabulary — it may take the same amount of time if not longer.

The intonation is the first major stumbling block. The pictogram a second stumbling block, because the pronunciation and meaning are kept separating. Once you conquer these two, no it is not bad.

But a Chinese learner has a long way to go yet before he will start sounding more than an elementary student. The final stumbling block, which many Chinese also have trouble with, is learning ancient Chinese and all the idioms.