On Bilingualism: Outside-In

The cherries have nearly disappeared from the trees already...

Wow--the last post on bilingualism prompted loads of *fascinating* comments that made my brain run off in a hundred directions...hence my lateness in replying.  Had to go chase my brain down:-))  (Actually, three sick boys are my excuse for my absence--hopefully that won't happen this week). 

Before I head down some of the *very* interesting rabbit holes brought up in the comments, I'd like to tell you about what my experience with languages (German, French, and Japanese, specifically) is so everybody knows where I'm coming from:-))  Ought probably to have done that first, but...anyway, off we go!

When I learned both German and French, I learned them "Outside-In", as I've come to call it.  That means, I learned them first from the "outside", so to speak, in a foreign language classroom (starting in the ninth grade for German, and the eleventh grade for French, for a total of four years of High School German and one year of French--I had a busy schedule:-).  I learned them using textbooks, memorizing vocabulary and declensions and verb tenses, with a bunch of other students whose L1 was the same as mine.  The L1 (first language) of the teacher was also the same as that of her students.  This kind of language-learning is "outside"--by which I mean "non-immersion".  You are learning it outside the country and culture where the language is spoken (full-immersion schools could also be included here).  Class time is usually spent learning the phrases a traveler would use, and vocabulary is often presented in daunting lists.  A disproportionate amount of time is spent using the students' L1 to talk *about* the language--to explain the past tense...the passive voice...strong and weak adjective endings...count and non-count nouns... 'ser' and 'estar' or 'por' and 'para'... the Preterit versus the Imperfect (I had lots of Spanish teacher-friends, so I picked up all the hard bits in Spanish kind of by osmosis;-))

I don't mean to imply that language classes are a waste of time, or that one doesn't learn anything.

I rocked at that stuff in German.  I was the Grammar Queen.

I certainly learned plenty of vocabulary and grammar--enough to test into 300-level German classes as a college Freshman.

And after six years of studying German (four in High School, and two more at university).... I went to Hamburg, Germany for a year-long study-abroad program. 

Six years.  And when I opened my mouth... no words came out.  I was Scared. To. Death.  Scared to speak--scared of making a "mistake".  Curiously, it was as though all the German I'd learned in 6 years of study wasn't.... real.  As though all the grammar and all the vocabulary I'd learned lived only inside my textbooks ("Wir, die Jugend";-).  As though I couldn't believe that real people really used those words.  Did real Germans actually say "Tschuss"? 

I was about to find out-- and about to start learning German... from the Inside-Out.

Stay tuned-- mata asobou, ne!

On Bilingualism: What Is Fluency?

I have so many more experiences with this flower now in Japan (and therefore in Japanese), that "Ajisai" is the first word that comes to mind.  I usually have to think for a minute to pull "Hydrangea" up out of storage...

...And with this post I feel I've jumped into the frigid waters of Lake Superior, bound for the other side, with little confidence in my ability to swim that far.   Ma, yaru shikanai.  Gambarimasu.  (Nothing to do but to do it.  I will do my best:-))

What is 'fluent'?  The first thing that pops into most people's heads, I think, is "like a monolingual native speaker" or "would be taken by other native speakers to be a native speaker".

Well, that's nice, isn't it.  What does it mean? Exactly?  Does it mean that all native speakers are purely fluent?  The process of being raised and educated in a particular language environment confers completely equal fluency on all?  Are all native speakers equally fluent?  Is there any such thing as 'pure fluency' ?  Chris addressed that idea in his comment to the last post  on this topic, which was so nicely expressed that I'll just save myself the trouble and quote him:-))

I think the only concrete thing I'm willing to say is that there is no such thing as pure fluency, that is, fluency meaning absolute, unencumbered communication. I can think of so many times when I've had to clarify something myself (or had to ask someone else to clarify for me) when speaking with a native speaker of the same language and dialect, even of the same general background (age, sex, etc.).

Thanks, Chris--well said!  Clearly, there is wide variation in how well native speakers express themselves, make themselves understood, and how well they understand what others are saying or asking.  As Chris points out, native speakers do not express themselves with equal clarity (ooh-- there's another thing it means!).  Plenty of misunderstandings happen among native speakers, so 'pure fluency', as such, is probably a myth.   Sarah Palin is a good example of what I mean.  Her effusions are often so incomprehensible that, were it not for her accent, one might take her to be a non-native speaker.  Maybe we should demand that she produce her birth certificate...

Accent-- is that part of it?  Well, I think most would agree with me that Henry Kissinger expressed himself more 'fluently' (here meaning 'clearly') than Mrs. Palin, albeit in a heavy German accent that forever marked him as a non-native speaker of English.  No one, though, would accuse the former Secretary of State of lacking fluency in English.  I think most people recognize that accent isn't really the determining factor in fluency, though they might, all other things being equal, call a non-native speaker with a near-native accent (or no accent) more 'fluent' than someone with a heavy accent.

There are those who have "reading knowledge" of a language-- but they tend not to describe themselves as 'fluent'.  'Fluency', in most people's minds, pertains to the speaking and listening modalities.  Fluency in the reading\writing modalities tends to get called 'literacy'.  You can be 'fluent' in a language without necessarily being literate (which applies to native speakers, as well).

I'm having to rein myself in here, by the way, because this topic bleeds into so many others concerning bilingualism (or tri- or multilingualism), that my mind keeps running off in all directions.

Let's go back to "monolingual native speaker" for a minute.  What is it that  they do, or don't do, that makes us call them fluent? 

• They don't make grammatical mistakes except when they are children--and the mistakes native speaker children make are predictable and often show understanding of grammar, as when they make overgeneralization mistakes (saying "goed" instead of "went", for example, shows that the child understands how to form the past tense of regular verbs... unfortunately, child is more logical than his language;-))  So-called grammar "mistakes" such as saying "he don't " instead of "he doesn't" are recognized by everyone but English teachers as a legitimate part of a dialect where inflections are gradually being dropped.  Of course, it's also perfectly acceptable if you are singin' the blues.  Saying "I doesn't" instead of "I don't", however (unless you are a child) , makes people prick up their ears.  Languages tend to evolve toward regularity and inflection loss, not the other way.  You can think of English as ungrammatical German with a bunch of sound shifts:-))  Making der/die/das mistakes in  German instantly brands an English-speaker as non-native.  Making a/the mistakes in English (using the wrong one, or leaving it out when it should be used, or sticking one in where it doesn't go) instantly marks someone as a speaker of an Asian language like Japanese or Chinese (neither language has articles-- definite or in).  
• Use filler particles and words-- in English, these are "uh", "um", "actually", "like", "y'know", "basically", and so on.  In Japanese, "eh to", "eh to ne" "nan dake" "nan to iu no" and so on.  It surprises me that more foreign language teachers don't teach students how to pause for thought in the language they're learning.  Being able to use filler words (and sounds) is a major component of sounding "fluent".  It's also easier, ultimately, to stay in one language than to shift mental linguistic gears to say "uh".  Compare:   "I like... eh to.. nan dake... red!"  to "I like...ummm...what's that called... red!"  (this is actually related to the last point made below).
• Can understand most of what's said to them... at speed.  Native speakers don't really talk that fast-- they just "unhear" most of what's being said when they're listening.  That means, they don't have to listen to every single word being said in order to understand-- just the main bits.  Those lacking fluency are trying to listen. to. every. single. word. and. probably. translate. in. their. heads. to. their. L1. at. the. same. time.  No wonder it sounds fast:-))  (So--give new learners a break. Don't turn up your volume, just slow down--like you do for kids.  And simplify;-)
• Can understand new words or phrases in the language defined with other words in that language.  The ability to circumlocute (talk around words you don't know) is crucial.  Native speakers do this *all* the time--from the time they are children, in fact.  You know you've gained a significant level of fluency when you can describe something for which you lack the right word... and a native speaker says "oh--you mean (x)!"  Native speakers do this constantly themselves.  "You know that thing, that thing that goes like this (makes noise and flaps hands)".  In fact, if you can say it like that--you'll sound 'fluent', oddly enough;-))
• Which brings me to the main point:  Native speakers don't translate into or out of anything else in their heads while speaking or listening.  This is exactly the point of a joke my sister and her friend used to tell each other during German class when they were feeling overwhelmed with grammar and floundering in 'conversation' exercises:                                                                    Sis:  Why don't they just speak English?                                                     Friend:  Yeah!  Ya know they're thinkin' it!
  Honest and for true-- native speakers only have one language in their heads while speaking:-)  (Well, apart from what Steven Pinker calls 'mentalese', which isn't technically in *any* language... but I won't get into that in this post).   If you're learning another language, you must pry yourself out of the habit of translating everything you say from your L1 (first language) in your head into the L2 coming out of your mouth.  Fluency in another language is getting a new language stuck in your head in *exactly* the same way you can get a song stuck in your head.  Language is very much like music--each language has it's own prosody, it's own rhythm.  The only way to learn to sing it is to listen to it-- a *lot*.  Factoid:  by a child's third birthday, they've spent roughly 13 thousand hours listening to their first language (assuming they sleep 12 hours and are awake 12 hours).  That's where all that fluency comes from.  Double that figure and add a bit more for a 6-year-old.

So--to sum up-- fluency is speaking more or less grammatically, understanding at speed, being able to make yourself understood by circumlocuting and correct use of fillers, understanding words or phrases defined in the language, and having the same language inside your head as is coming out of your mouth.

Upon reflection, I think a useful way to think about fluency and fluency 'ranking', if you want to call it that, is to speak in terms of Child Level fluency, Elementary (school!) Level fluency, Secondary (school) Level fluency, and Adult Level fluency.  Nobody attains Adult Level fluency after a year or so of language instruction--not even in a language immersion situation.  I'm at Elementary School Level fluency in Japanese-- I routinely tell people I'm in 5th grade, with Koshi, my 10-year-old.  I figure our fluency is roughly equivalent.  Elementary level is, I think, the level from which other people (including native speakers) will call you 'fluent'.  That level includes all those points I mentioned above.  Note that I don't think those levels of fluency that I defined are equivalent to "First Year (Spanish)", "Second Year (French)", or the typical Elementary-Advanced Elementary-Intermediate-Advanced levels of high school and college language courses.  And I will just stop right here before I start ranting about.... before I start ranting.  Lest I not sound...wait for it... fluent;-)


Upcoming topics in this series are "Who is Bilingual?" and "Inside-Out/Outside-In".

Mata asobou, ne! 

p.s.-- just for kicks, 'cause it's so funny.  Daz  found this:-))  Thanks, Daz!

 

On Bilingualism: Are You Fluent?

This is the first post in  what I hope will be a series exploring bilingualism.

The hardest question for me to answer concerning my bilingualism is, naturally, the one I am asked most frequently:

     Are you fluent in (X)?

Such an obvious question, so innocently asked, but without an obvious or easy answer.  I know that the person asking it usually doesn't have the faintest idea how hard it is to answer, nor am I under any mistaken impression that people who ask me want Linguistics 101 for an answer.

You lot, though--all you Internet Folks-- you get Linguistics 101.  And for FREE! (if I understood Dan Airely's Predictably Irrational correctly, saying 'FREE!' like that should make you desperately want what's on offer, whether you actually do or not;-))

So-- am I fluent in Japanese?

Yes.  No.  There!  Gosh, that was easy!  (Sorry)

I'll go out and come in again.

Under the 'Yes' column:  I can understand and make myself understood....

• in restaurants
• in supermarkets and stores
• at doctor's and dentist's offices
• in train stations (directions and the like)
• at parent-teacher meetings
• with friends
• with random strangers who ask me what I'm looking at when I'm hanging half upside-down, apparently taking photos of grass.  Or concrete. 
• reading short articles, recipes, things that come home from school
• writing notes to my kids' teachers or filling out vaccination forms and the like

Sometimes I still have to look up words or circumlocute on the spot (that means "talk around" what I'm trying to say using simpler words and hope the other person gets it and gives me the word I need.).  I mostly understand what people say to me, unless someone is speaking *very* quickly, mumbling, or using excessively polite "Keego" (High-level Polite Japanese, where almost all the words are different from everyday words).  I get the gist of what telemarketers are saying--enough, at least, to figure out that the person on the phone *is* a telemarketer, what they're selling, and to say "no thank you".   When someone comes to our door, and I answer the interphone, they usually assume I'm Japanese (leading to funny shocked looks when I open the door;-).

In the'No' column-- I...

• still stink at 'Keego' (polite language)
• fail to understand some things my kids say to me
• have a hard time sometimes following TV news (depending on the topic-- but especially business/econ, and trying to follow the news about the Fukushima reactors made me tear my hair out)
• can't really read a newspaper, beyond the basic gist of what an article's about
• can't write most Kanji reliably correctly (after about 3rd grade level)
• still haven't passed Level 2 of the Japanese Proficiency Test

That last thing is the result of never having formally studied Japanese, instead learning it on the fly.  By the seat of my pants.  In context.  *Really* in context.  As in, "in the delivery room" kind of context--

Nurse:  Suute... haite!  Suute... haite!  Oshite!
Me:  what??
Yokohamapapa:  She said "Push!"
Me:  Oh!  (uhnnnnnnn....)

Srsly.  That's what has made taking (or, rather, attempting to take) the Proficiency Exam so frustrating for me.

I can speak! (mostly.)  I can understand!  (mostly.)  I can read the Kanji for "Monosodium Glutamate" and "Inoculation"!  I know how to say "umbilical cord", "uterus", "episiotomy", and, for crying out loud, "enema" in Japanese!

And I can't pass that test.

I can sing just about any children's song you care to name.

And I can't pass that test.

I can read and follow a recipe... and get it right.

And I can't pass that test.

Japanese people who talk to me tell me they think I speak 'pera-pera' (fluently), which I take to mean that I speak idiomatically and naturally (mostly).  I sound like a Mom, in other words.

And I still can't pass that damn test.  According to the test-givers, I'm not fluent.  A friend I knew in Tokyo, though, who had studied Japanese at school and could read a newspaper but couldn't talk... and passed the test.  Gosh, I wish they'd test me on the words I know.  To date, though, neither "episiotomy" nor "enema" has appeared on the Proficiency Test...;-))

This is not meant to sound like sour grapes.  I used to teach German at the high school level, and have been frustrated before by the difficulty in giving a paper-and-pencil test to determine 'fluency'.  I have been frustrated, in fact, by the whole exercise of defining what, exactly, constitutes 'fluency'.  As soon as one begins, it proves to be a very slippery concept.  What, exactly, is meant by 'fluent'?  What, exactly, is the definition of 'fluent'?  Is there a single definition of 'fluent'?

I'll leave you to ponder that 'til next time... (next post:  What is 'fluency'?)