Measure of Fluency in Japanese

[nhk9]

I think that while it's good to know many words, at the end of the day it's whether you can understand things that counts. I think only if you've done the following would one be considered to have achieved native level fluency:

Understand at least 90 percent of manzai shows (the performers tend to speak very fast)

Understand at least 75 percent of all dialogue in jidaigeki shows

What do you guys think about the criteria?

 

[leonmarino]

What do you guys think about the criteria?

How about we lift the bar to: "understand all that is said in a Rakugo show"? Now then you can call yourself truely fluent methinks.

No but seriously, isn't more important to measure it according to how much you understand of things like news/magazines/political debates? I find those the hardest things to understand.

 

[Glenn]

How about what you're able to say, and how you're able to say it? It isn't all passive.

 

[Mike Cash]

I think only if you've done the following would one be considered to have achieved native level fluency:

Understand at least 90 percent of manzai shows (the performers tend to speak very fast)

Understand at least 75 percent of all dialogue in jidaigeki shows

What do you guys think about the criteria?

I think it shows you're one of the millions who fail to make a distinction between "fluency" and "proficiency".

 

[KirinMan]

Understand at least 90 percent of manzai shows (the performers tend to speak very fast)

Understand at least 75 percent of all dialogue in jidaigeki shows

Which are much easier to understand than the Sunday morning political discussion programs.

I think it shows you're one of the millions who fail to make a distinction between "fluency" and "proficiency".

Which shows that once again you are the "man"

 

[Glenn]

I think it shows you're one of the millions who fail to make a distinction between "fluency" and "proficiency".

Well, I guess it's possible to have fluent listening skills.

 

[KirinMan]

Well, I guess it's possible to have fluent listening skills.

But is the listener proficient at understanding what they are "hearing"?

 

[Glenn]

That's the difference I was thinking of. A fluent listener would be good at picking out the words, but not necessarily at understanding them all. But I could be full of @&%!.

 

[yukio_michael]

I think it shows you're one of the millions who fail to make a distinction between "fluency" and "proficiency".

This is really a point that needs to be hammered home. I don't know how often I've been asked if I am "fluent" in Japanese, where the real answer is semi-proficient.

ed: I'll add that even native Japanese have problems with instantly translating the rapidity of Japanese pop music (or otherwise)--- I know that in some music, words can be obfuscated, but I think that this is a separate issue.

 

[Pachipro]

Quote:Originally Posted by nhk9

I think only if you've done the following would one be considered to have achieved native level fluency:

Understand at least 90 percent of manzai shows (the performers tend to speak very fast)

Understand at least 75 percent of all dialogue in jidaigeki shows

What do you guys think about the criteria?

I think it shows you're one of the millions who fail to make a distinction between "fluency" and "proficiency

It was once said that one could be considered proficient in a language if they could conduct all of their daily business while living in a particular country with no help from the natives. This would include going to the bank, doing their shopping, buying train tickets to various destinations, going out drinking alone, dining at restaurants, watching TV or listening to the radio, conversing in the native language, etc. This would entail not only speaking the language, but a fair amount of reading and writing ability.

Therefore, one need not be "fluent" in Japanese to live there comfortably. One only needs to be proficient.

 

[KirinMan]

It was once said that one could be considered proficient in a language if they could conduct all of their daily business while living in a particular country with no help from the natives. This would include going to the bank, doing their shopping, buying train tickets to various destinations, going out drinking alone, dining at restaurants, watching TV or listening to the radio, conversing in the native language, etc. This would entail not only speaking the language, but a fair amount of reading and writing ability.

Therefore, one need not be "fluent" in Japanese to live there comfortably. One only needs to be proficient.

If this is the case I know quite a few Japanese that are "only" proficient in their native language.

Then again there are plenty of so called native English speakers that are less than proficient in their language as well.

 

[yukio_michael]

Therefore, one need not be "fluent" in Japanese to live there comfortably. One only needs to be proficient.

Well, we all know how this statement translates NOW...

I had a difficult time mostly with using positive words in a negative sense, when people asked me if I needed ohashii, a straw or something, I would say various phrases that I forget at the moment.... but it took me a bit of time get the hand gestures and facial expressions needed to communicate that I DIDN'T need them...'

I avoided words like iya, because it sounds too much like ii, but doubling daijoubu with a hand motion does wonders for expressing that it is okay, that you don't need something.

 

[nhk9]

I think that while it maybe possible for those who acquire a massive vocabulary to become capable in expressing whatever that they want to say in any given situation, if they do not have the proper listening comprehension skills to go with their other skills such as their essay writing or conversational skills, they could not say that they have possessed skills that are at par or superior to the natives. I think one can claim he/she has acquired native skills when he/she can do anything that the natives can do, or more.

I didn't expect to discuss English here but from what I know, in this case while the word "proficient" maybe a more proper word for some individuals, I think that "fluent" can be used here as well. Below is taken from Yahoo! dict.

fluent: 〈言葉・文体が〉流暢(りゅうちょう)な, よどみない；〈人が〉（言葉に）堪能な((in ...))；すらすら書ける, 達筆な；口のうまい

proficient: [形]（…に）上達［熟練］した, （…が）うまい((in, at ...)). ⇒SKILLED[類語]

In 〈人が〉（言葉に）堪能な((in ...)), The word 堪能 has a meaning of "深くその道に通じていること。また、そのような人や、そのさま."

In English, 堪能 can be translated as "good ((at)); skillful [skilled] ((in)); proficient ((in))." (goo.ne.jp)

〈人が〉（言葉に）堪能な((in ...)) may then be translated as "a person who is proficient in languages", using the definitions above.

I apologize for digressing.

 

[Karamuucho]

I avoided words like iya, because it sounds too much like ii, but doubling daijoubu with a hand motion does wonders for expressing that it is okay, that you don't need something.

Using "Daijoubu" in a term of "No I'm fine thankyou" meaning is really just verbal translation of an English phrase, most Japanese wouldn't really use it in the same sense. "Kekkou desu" (or "Enryou shimasu") would be more appropriate.

(I know you didn't ask, but I figured it might be useful for others who might be posed with the same problem)

 

[dark_secrester]

To know enough kanji and how they are read in different contexts, be able to structure sentences properly, know enough 'everday' words and phrases, know some business speech, be able to unterstand 90% of all shows etc.

I know it isn't part of the language, but I would class general trivia about Japanese culture and business/politics to be able to understand the Japanese way of thinking. If you can do that, then you can start to integrate into the society better.

Of course, this may be wrong, but it is what I would like to achieve someday...
XD