Can Westerners become fluent in Chinese?

[rezaf]

B)

[renzhe]

Something to keep in mind is that you need a variety of speakers to really learn a language. This is the main reason why simply getting a partner will not really work. One person will very quickly get used to the exact vocabulary and language patterns you use (and vice-versa), and you'll find yourself stuck in a rut, using a very small part of the language, and not progressing. They'll also used to your strange tones, and other things, and will often not correct everything. You will understand everything this person says, because he/she will say it in the right way for you to understand -- usually unconsciously. The same goes for in-laws, if you talk to them much.

The more speakers you are exposed to, the better. You get exposed to a wide range of language, in a wide range of situations, with a wide range of accents. That's why immersion is so important.

[Theodora]

I'm curious, then, as to approximately how many non-Chinese adults think there are who have native-speaker fluency, AKA, could pass for a native during an hour or two on the phone while speaking Chinese at a level that's equivalent to their own level in their native language? Which would mean making native-speaker-type slip-ups, rather than foreigner-type slipups?

10-50? 50-100? 100-500? 500-1000? 1000-5000? 5000+?

[Guest realmayo]

That's a very high bar. How many people without German as a mother tongue could do the same in German? In fact, how many Germans could do the same in English?

[li3wei1]

I've met speakers of English as a second language who could correct my grammar and occasionally throw in words I don't know or don't normally use. But make the same mistakes I make? That's hard.

You might also ask what percentage of the Chinese population could pass this test in Mandarin, i.e. talk for a few hours without revealing that their mother tongue is actually a 方言。

[gato]

About 317. :-)

[Scoobyqueen]

What do you mean by native slip ups? Things like "he should have saw" " I was stood at the bus stop" "I was sat in the garden.." to name but a few common examples. If you mean that type of mistakes I think if you are a (have been )learner you will probably have been taught correct grammar.

[li3wei1]

Those don't sound native to me. Native mistakes would be things like "There's too many books to fit in my bag, we should of taken out less".

I've seen 'should of' in a letter written by a conveyancer (in the UK, a few steps down from a lawyer, specialising in real estate transactions), I've seen less/fewer in advertising campaigns, and people use 'there is' for 'there are' all the time. Also popular is "Me and John went to the . . ." and its equivalent, "are John and I invited?".

[Theodora]

What do you mean by native slip ups?

Hmmm.... I guess I mean make the same types of slip-up that you, for your level in your home language, might make in your home language -- when speaking, we all make inchoate sentences, because we'll start with one construction and then change halfway through. Rather than a foreigner error. But as to how to define this -- I think Liwei's suggestion is better.

I've met speakers of English as a second language who could correct my grammar and occasionally throw in words I don't know or don't normally use.

That would be a better test, agreed.

How many people without German as a mother tongue could do the same in German? In fact, how many Germans could do the same in English?

Yeah, maybe it's too high a bar. I know various Germans, and Dutch, who speak English as grammatically accurately and with almost the vocab and idiom that I have, but there's always a "tell" in the accent, or something that doesn't ring quite right in some indefinable way that marks them as not British.

[gougou]

and its equivalent, "are John and I invited?".

Isn't that correct?

[陳德聰]

Awkward, I thought from Theodora's post that she was not a native speaker of English.

Also popular is "Me and John went to the . . ." and its equivalent, "are John and I invited?".

Do you mean "They forgot to invite John and I." or something like that? Looks like you accidentally picked a grammatically correct "equivalent"

I have always just considered fluency to mean that everything you could ever possibly want to express in that language, you can. Perhaps that's a bit of a high bar for fluency...

[Theodora]

Awkward, I thought from Theodora's post that she was not a native speaker of English.

Yeah, don't know how I missed "people" out of that first sentence. I suspect that's a native, not a non-native, typo, though, FWIW.

[Theodora]

I have always just considered fluency

That, on the other hand, is a non-native slip, I suspect. One of the things I mean by an "indefinable tell", a slightly odd placement of "just".

[陳德聰]

Haha I suppose we can play this game all day, I am a native speaker of English.

[Theodora]

Well, there you go... Clearly native versus non-native slips are not immediately obvious.

[gato]

Uh oh, it's a slippery slope from native to non-native slips.

[roddy]

I don't see that its much use for the definition of fluent. Fluent doesn't mean you don't make mistakes, or that you only make a certain type of mistake. It just means the mistakes you make are not particularly intrusive and do not interfere with whatever it is you're trying to get done.

And two hours talking on the phone - who does that? Ok, apart from outliers, who does that? It's like judging a footballer by asking him to play football for seventeen hours straight.

[Theodora]

And two hours talking on the phone - who does that?

Showing my age!... I guess I put it that way so that I could remove the visual element of not looking Chinese from the equation, but what I meant was the equivalent of two hours in a pub and not obviously being foreign -- does that make sense at all?

Though looking foreign is a slippery slope. My son has five Koreans and now a Russian in his Harbin CFL class. According to him, three of the Koreans look like what he'd think of as Korean based on other Koreans he's met, which would be my visual recognition of them also. The other two and the Russian look "north-eastern Chinese or Korean", AKA Manchurian.

Fluent doesn't mean you don't make mistakes, or that you only make a certain type of mistake. It just means the mistakes you make are not particularly intrusive and do not interfere with whatever it is you're trying to get done.

That's a good definition, in my ignorant opinion, where a mistake doesn't trip the interlocutor up, or slow them, or pause them for thought, or make you switch your brain back to the native language to translate and fanny around with that. So... how many are we talking?

The reason I ask is that this is the only language I've come across where, for example, an English-native businessman who does business in China and is based in HK and has been actively studying Mandarin for 30 years is STILL working with his tutor twice a week to improve, or, for another example, a guy who has been in China for five years, is married to a native speaker, does business in Chinese and socialises in Chinese STILL talks about his comprehension in terms of percentage comprehension (80-85%), or, for another example, a guy who is of Chinese descent, based in Beijing, actively studying Chinese, speaks reasonable Chinese and is still studying flashcards, or, for another, a guy who is a Chinese major, has lived in China for five years and studied Chinese for 30 years, and is STILL LEARNING.

I've not come across that with other languages, although I have no Japanese. My impression is that normally you hit a certain level and then, well, you're there and build on it organically. Obviously you improve, but you're not really learning.

[li3wei1]

Do you mean "They forgot to invite John and I." or something like that? Looks like you accidentally picked a grammatically correct "equivalent"

Yes, that's it exactly.

[li3wei1]

My impression is that normally you hit a certain level and then, well, you're there and build on it organically.

What's different, I think, is the disconnect between writing and phonetics that is (almost) unique to Chinese. With most other languages, you can pick up new words in conversation, and have a pretty good idea of how to spell them, so that when you see them written down you'll recognise them. Same in the other direction: you come across a new written word, you'll know how it's pronounced, you can use it in a conversation. That's growing organically. In Chinese, you pretty much need a dictionary to go from written to spoken, and if you're going the other way, you have to ask people how to write what they just said. Both of these look suspiciously like 'studying'.

Also, it could be that most learners of other languages are motivated by the desire to communicate, and when they reach a level where they can do that, they're satisfied. With Chinese, many people are motivated at least in part by a fascination with the language itself, and even if they can communicate, they will continue to learn for the rest of their lives, simply because there is more they can learn.