How many hours to fluency?

[delpino]

Are there any studies out there how many hours it would take to achieve Mandarin Chinese fluency?

I came across this one from the "Foreign Service Institute" which estimates it to 2200 hours:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Language_Learning_Difficulty_for_English_Speakers

It would obviously depend on your own native language and talent, but I'm just looking for a rough

estimate so I can integrate the value into my learning system over at http://www.chinese-course.com/

(with a learning progress indicator). So would you say 2200 hours is a good estimate for an English native?

(not including how to learn stroke order for instance, this is just about fluency). Thanks in advanced!

[Shelley]

I am not sure you can put a figure on it. I also hesitate to apply the word fluent to Chinese. One may be proficient but without including learning characters, I don't think you can use the word fluent.

The web site "Foreign Service Institute" also says half of the 2200 hours should be spent in the country that you learning the language of. If you don't ever do this you may never be fluent because you lack the immersion factor .

I would hesitate about putting any kind of number on something which can vary so much from person to person for any number of reasons.

As the "Foreign Service Institute" website also says don't let the number of hours put you off ......the reward is better for it being harder. This may not be what you would want to put across to your users.

Like the website, keep up the good work.

[Olle Linge]

I'm afraid this boils down to the same old "what do you mean by fluent" question. Do you mean "can string together sentences without pausing too much" or do you mean "near-native ability"? Or something in between perhaps?

[muyongshi]

It also goes beyond what you mean by fluent as 2200 hours implies that fluency can be achieved in one year's time with something like 8 hours a day. My personal experience is fluency only comes through extensive (prolonged) exposure to a language in that environment. That may not be scientific and is only my opinion but to really understand a language, time beyond the simple learning of words and grammar is necessary. Granted an extremely gifted person in an immersion setting with formal instruction may have fluency or mastery in a year.

[tysond]

According to the referenced site:

It must also be kept in mind that students at FSI are almost 40 years old, are native speakers of English and have a good aptitude for formal language study, plus knowledge of several other foreign languages. They study in small classes of no more than six. Their schedule calls for 25 hours of class per week with three or four hours per day of directed self-study.

If you studied intensively like this (about 8 hours a day), then you can make rapid progress. Sounds like they already know how to learn languages having done it before and I am guessing they are earning a salary while learning. One year to some sort of fluency sounds possible (up for debate *how* fluent you would be, but you could certainly have that debate in Chinese with them).

[JustinJJ]

to really understand a language, time beyond the simple learning of words and grammar is necessary.

I've had a similar experience also. I find that with learning new words there's a process from first exposure to the word, learning the word, remembering what the word means when exposed to it and finally using and feeling confident using the word in a natural-sounding way.

With the commonly used words which make up lets say 90% of spoken Chinese, it is easy to get mass-exposure so these words so they can be learnt quickly, however the last 10% are less frequently used and cover a much broader range of words so it takes much more time to hear/read these words often enough to become comfortable using those words. So to be really comfortable in the language perhaps it would take quite a few years.

[WestTexas]

+1 on 'What does fluent mean'.

I think the estimate might be a little low for a typical learner, to be honest. Someone with properly structured classes who picks up languages quickly could do it, especially if they are in China the whole time, but I think for others (not great with languages, poor learning material, not in China), more time would be needed.

I mean come on, we've all met people who got Chinese degrees in the U.S. and can't understand the TV or carry a meaningful conversation. They probably spent a good chunk of time getting that degree. Maybe not 2200 hours all on Chinese (have to take other courses, too), but still a good deal of time.

[Demonic_Duck]

In what sense do you intend to "integrate the value into [your] learning system (with a learning progress indicator)"? I can see this potentially having the effect of being demotivating. It'd be a lot more motivating to have people set themselves short-term, realistic goals, and set their own time limits for them (e.g. "read X book within the next month", "be able to carry out Y routine task which I am currently unable to do by date Z" etc.) That way they can see themselves making measurable progress, rather than inching away at some far-off goal without really having much idea if it'll be attainable within the timeframe or not.

[Ruben von Zwack]

Fluency is such a vague and problematic term. Maybe I misunderstand, but to me, fluency has a touch of speaking fast and confident. And I know so many people who speak a second language fast, confident and terrible. I wonder if "fluency" is a buzzword from these blogs where people keep track of how they learn 5 languages in 1 year. It all seems a bit dubious to me.

For motivation, my psyche is very simple. When I learn, I need instant gratification. If you tell me, I need to study for 2.000 hours, I will be shocked and demotivated and wonder - so does that mean, 1.500 hours of my life spent, and I will still be a total failure?

But if you tell me, study for this short and easy period of time, and you'll be able to have simple daily-life converstations and buy groceries, I'm all motivated.

I have no illusions about being "fluent" though and (because as I said I find the term problematic) I don't really care

[WestTexas]

Measurable progress is one reason I like SRS/Anki so much. It's very easy to see how big your deck is and your mature recall rate and think "Yeah, I learned 3000 words last year."

[WestTexas]

I wonder if "fluency" is a buzzword from these blogs where people keep track of how they learn 5 languages in 1 year. It all seems a bit dubious to me.

Yeah, or the guy who claims to be fluent in language X and then, when people who actually speak language X show up, he can't hold a conversation.

It's just a vague term and, IMO, certain people tend to grossly overestimate their competence in a given language. There was that hyperpolyglot who supposedly spoke 60 languages. One of them was Russian and another was Polish or something. He went on a TV show where they tested him and they asked him 'what day of the week is it' in Russian and he answered a completely different question in a different language. Something like that, and he was claiming fluency in both languages... couldn't even answer 'What day of the week is it?' nor identify what language it was.

I met a guy who answered 'yes' to the question 'Do you speak Chinese?'. All he knew were numbers and 'How much?' I feel like the right answer would have been 'a little' or 'no'.

[Shelley]

I think a sensible, working meaning of fluent is: indistinguishable from a native speaker. I know of only one person who fits this definition Da Shan (there are probably more but not that I am aware of).

He is able to converse with natives at a native level and speed. He is also the only westerner I have seen to be able to hold his own with chinese comedy.

This is what I would consider fluent.

[renzhe]

I think a sensible, working meaning of fluent is: indistinguishable from a native speaker.

I really don't want to get into a "fluency" discussion, but I think that this is unreasonable. A person who is indistinguishable from a native speaker IS a native speaker.

This discussion, like all fluency discussions will revolve around subjective definitions of what "fluency" is.

I don't think that you can put a definite number on it. Not only because people learn at different speeds, but also because they have different expectations. Fluency when chit-chatting with in-laws is different from fluency when talking about particle physics.

[querido]

With regard to the problem caused by the word fluent "I have a most wonderful solution but unfortunately the margin of this paper is too small to contain it."

[Shelley]

Ahh, querido's last theorem. Let that be the end of the fluency problem

[WestTexas]

I think a sensible, working meaning of fluent is: indistinguishable from a native speaker.

I don't think this is what most people mean when they say fluent. Not at all. It's a bad criterion for a variety of reasons.

For my 2 cents, I think 'fluent' is equivalent to about C1 on the CERF. C2, the highest level, still isn't defined as 'indistinguishable from a native speaker'.

[Silent]

I met a guy who answered 'yes' to the question 'Do you speak Chinese?'. All he knew were numbers and 'How much?' I feel like the right answer would have been 'a little' or 'no'.

I tend to agree, however he is perfectly right in saying yes. He speaks Chinese even if his vocabulary is extremely small. The problem of skill level self assesment is an issue in every field.

I think a sensible, working meaning of fluent is: indistinguishable from a native speaker.

Absolutely disagree! This would discount people from being fluent because they make different mistakes then natives do while the overall languageskills may adhere more to the official standards and vocabulary may be bigger then that of the average native speaker. Fluent refers to flow, not to accent. Most advanced speakers are identified as non-native due to accent and (somewhat) different choice of words. I think fluent has more to do with the flow of words, that words come naturally and that there are no pauses due to processing of the language.

I strongly doubt any meaningful number can be given for the hours needed to become fluent. Apart from the definition of fluency there are a huge number of factors that play a role in language acquisition ranging from natives/previously learned languages and personality to environment and the distribution of the study hours (22 weeks 100 hours a week is likely to have a different outcome from 44 years 1 hour a week).

[Ruben von Zwack]

What is a native speaker, anyway? George W. Bush Junior or Richard Dawkins? (Yes, I know, one is American and the other is British, but I can't recall a famous British illiterate right now). And both probably spent roughly the same number of hours practising English

I agree to Silent's definition - the word for fluent, regarding language, in my mother tongue is also "liquid", literally. In an ideal world, that should be because you can process thoughts quickly. But what annoys me is the way to fake fluency by fillers and phrases and commonplaces.

I also can't put numbers on it (and I'm still far from fluent). I know I sat through some hundred hours at uni but they weren't so effectively spent. A "stupid" activity like watching a Chinese series helps me a lot at the moment though, because often I take mental notes on sentence structure and how you can word things differently, and sentence intonation.

I think one hour spent leisurely at something that personally interests and motivates you is as good as, or better, than 3 hours spent sweating on an exercise you find boring.

[JustinJJ]

I think a sensible, working meaning of fluent is: indistinguishable from a native speaker. I know of only one person who fits this definition Da Shan (there are probably more but not that I am aware of).

He is able to converse with natives at a native level and speed. He is also the only westerner I have seen to be able to hold his own with chinese comedy.

This is what I would consider fluent.

I think your standards are very lofty. I'm a native English speaker and I would have no hope at holding my own in English comedy, at least I wouldn't be able to make people laugh. In a way perhaps it's easier for a Westerner to hold their own in Chinese comedy since a foreigner speaking Chinese comedy while dressed in traditional clothing is in itself a bit 'funny'.

My girlfriend says that although unquestionably good, she can 听出来 Da Shan's foreign accent, so I guess that would make him not fluent by that definition.

I don't think that you can put a definite number on it. Not only because people learn at different speeds, but also because they have different expectations. Fluency when chit-chatting with in-laws is different from fluency when talking about particle physics.

I also think it's more about the topic. If someone started a conversation with me in English about particle physics, I'd have nothing to contribute other than the fact that I'm 外行. In a group setting of native speakers the people who don't know enough about a topic being discussed (vocab / knowledge, etc) tend to just stay quiet, but this is because they don't have enough knowledge/interest about the topic not due to lack of fluency in the language.

I'm afraid this boils down to the same old "what do you mean by fluent" question.

Maybe it could be defined as "the level needed to impress people on chinese-forums.com"

[mulans]

What does fluent mean.

I was able to speak and read novels in English after one year of study. But I only learned recently that the word "its" exists, I thought everything was "it's". Does that mean I wasn't fluent in English? I don't think so.

It's a very subjective word.

I think everyone is pretty good at any language after a year of good study. After that you just keep learning and it doesn't require the same level of study anymore, you just pick up new vocabulary along the way.

I think getting the base down is the hardest part of any language. Once you understand movies or TV shows you learn very fast and the amount of effort it requires to learn new words decreases.

You sort of roll into a language at some point. HEY! I can actually understand what they're saying. After that you just keep soaking up words really easily.

At least that's what happened with English for me, I'm sure it's the same for people who are at a good level of Chinese.