Fluent Speakers

[Bobcat]

I am often surprised to hear some people say that they speak Thai fluently after living in Thailand for only short peiods of time - 5 years or less. Many times, after hearing these people actually speak Thai, I am reminded that we all have different ideas about what it is to be fluent in a language. I would rate my Thai as quie good but far from fluent. I have done the Bor 6 exam and am quite comfortable in most situations - but I would never call myself fluent. This fact is reinforced to me when sometimes I see a complex political or scientific discussions and understand very little of what is being said.

Does anyone think that true fluency in Thai can be obtained in short peiods of time, say 2-5 years - or ever for that matter - by non-native speakers?

Cheers,

Bob

[Spee]

Does anyone think that true fluency in Thai can be obtained in short peiods of time, say 2-5 years - or ever for that matter - by non-native speakers?

Depends on what is meant by "true fluency."

I would interpret this to mean fully capable of speaking, understanding speech, and read/write Thai script. Probably should include the major Central Thai dialect and at least one or two minor dialects (e.g., Issan, Phuan, etc.).

IMHO, this could be very difficult at or before the short end of your time frame (2yr), but should be entirely possible at the high end (5 yr) or earlier. Depends on how hard one is willing to work at it, and what kind of resources they have at their disposal.

From personal experience, I've been working at it moderately hard for the last 6-8 months with several books and CD's, including partial immersion being around a lot of native Thai speakers for much of that time. At this point, I have borderline marginal speaking skills, quite a bit less skill in understanding speech, and very little in the way of read/write skills. I don't think I'll ever get the hand of reading and writing Thai script until I get some formal instruction with it.

IMHO, gaining "true fluency" in a 2-5 year timeframe, is possible on the verbal side only through total immersion (and probably some classroom work as well). On the written side, I'd have to guess that at least some classroom work is going to be essential.

On the other hand, once learned and acquired, I think it's a bit like riding a bicycle. I used to be semi-fluent (maybe 25%) in Spanish for both speech and read/write. If I want to start speaking or reading it again, then I have to rethink eveyrthing and it takes several days to get all the gears oiled and turning again.

Restarting with Thai might be difficult because of all the tonalities in the language. Hard to say without the experience.

Just my own wrong opinion ...

[Crocs]

I believe fluency in any language can be gained within 2-5 years of intensive study and immersion. I base this on my own experience of living in Asia and learning 2 Asian and 2 European languages. A tonal language if of course more difficult and therefore fluency would take longer (3-5 years perhaps)

As pointed out, however, the big question is what constitutes "fluency". In my twenties I considered fluency = almost native speaking ability, and often refused to admit I was fluent, whereas now I can see that I was. Nowdays I regard "fluency" as the ability to converse freely about general topics and to make oneself understood on specific topics. The test is "does the language flow".

[bina]

my father always said that if a person can understand the humor in an other language, then ,and only then are u fluent because humor includes all the social cultural etc aspects of the language, puns, slang, etc.

I say: if u can answer well while giving birth in the second or third language without getting languages confused or insulting the midwife,then you are fluent... i speak from experience....

[p1p]

Do not know about fluency. I do not regard myself as fluent although I have been speaking Thai for well over forty years and reading it for twenty five plus. (My writing is still like that of a five year old! But then, my English script is not much better.)

I certainly speak enough to get by, and can frequently pass for a Thai on the telephone. But I still find I have days when my vocabulary, and particularly my tones, go to pot.

[sas_cars]

I also think i m fluent.coz i talk to thais everyday in thai.got thai atmosphere all around me and nobody speaks english here.I can claim that i can understand 99 % thai spoken.I m in surin province.But as the original thread poster said,if we indulge in a scientific discussion or something which is not spoken in daily life.I will stutter there as I will surely know little about these words.or easily,If u wanna check your fluency,go and try to read a thai newspaper.The newspaper also include a billion of words which i dont know the meanings.

[Dancali]

I think one can learn to be basically fluent in the 2-5 year time frame you've given. If you're serious, have a brain, and immerse yourself in Thai, you'll be able to converse in most normal situations in a year. I would say you'd be fluent in 2-3 years.

[Boon Mee]

The farang who starts learning Thai in his/her 20's will pick it up much faster than one in their 40s. I'm here to testify to that fact - big time! When I did live in LOS full-time it was coming right along. Could even get by on the phone although the other speaker knew I was farang.

Agree with pip - to be fluent, you never get your tones wrong and that's an almost impossibility for a farang who was not born and grew up there.

[Crocs]

Seems like some of the old-timers have also picked up some Thai modesty - I am sure you all speak Thai fluently by my simple standards ! Is tonality encompassed in fluency - hadn't fully considered that - my guess (as I'm not a linguist) is that minor tonal infractions can be equivalent to minor grammar infractions in a European language, and so not a disqualification from "fluency".

[sabaijai]

"Fluent" is a pretty inexact word in English. Let your Thai acquaintances be the judge. If they can understand what you're saying well enough, then you're เก่ง (excellent); if your tones are a pretty reasonable facsimile of the real thing, then they'll say you พูดชัดมาก (speak very clearly). And if they think you're fluent, then it's พูดไทยคล้องเลย (speak Thai completely fluently).

Then deduct a few points for friendly Thai flattery ...

[tatom]

Only thing is, its hard to get a Thai to be honest. Thay are so polite, as soon as you say "sawatdee krap", they tell you how well you speak Thai.

Ive been speaking Thai, Lao, Issan, for 25 years and I dont speak well, but I dont know how good or sh!tty I really am. I can have a good conversation with someone and then the next person who comes along, I cant understand a dam word he says!

Its much different in Issan. Many people will speak Thai to a farang, thinking that is all he will know. Older people will speak Lao, and many middle age people will speak Issan. The middle age men, in my opinion, are the hardest to understand. They speak Issan very fast and when asked to slow down, they dont. If you ask a woman to slow down, she speaks tttooooo---ssloooooooow.

And its very true about age. It becomes more dificult as one gets older. In the US, a Cambodian family came to live with us for 2 years. The parents studied English every day, but couldnt learn. The 12 year old daughter never studied. She just played with other kids and in 3 months was nearly fluent. Our son grew up in the US and is fluent in Lao just from playing with Lao kids!

All I ever wanted was to be able to speak well enough to travel, eat and find a toilet. But, it looks like learning Thai will be a life long project.

[meadish_sweetball]

Exactly - what IS fluent?

We all seem to have different ideas about this, making it difficult to judge. My hunch is that linguists do not use this term, but would instead try to rate speaking and understanding abilities on some type of scale... but I do not know. Maybe the talented linguists that sometimes visit this forum could shed some light on the state of the art?

After three years' university education in Thai, outside of Thailand, and three years living in the Kingdom, my Thai is good enough to pass as native on the phone during simple conversations, and sometimes good enough to have Thai people ask if I am "luuk khreung"... which is stretching it a bit as I have zero Asian traits...

I can read well enough to understand contemporary novels and newspaper articles within the subjects I am skilled and interested in, but as soon as a text deals with a subject new to me, I am virtually lost...

The greatest difference between learning Thai and another European language is that there is a common base among European languages, harking back to Christianity, the Roman empire and the Greeks, and to some extent the Germanic traditions in the north of Europe (if you speak a Germanic language, at any rate). These denominators help us in being able to quickly acquire advanced/scientific vocabulary in another language (therapy - therapie - terapi etc.), as well as to remember everyday vocabulary (sun - sonne - soleil - sol). You just have to learn how the speakers of the new language pronounce Latin and Greek, and any local inclination patterns relevant to these words. There are no such freebies when you learn Thai, but on the other hand, Thai lacks the extreme proliferation of verb forms, cases and tenses so common to many European languages.

I would say one is not fluent in Thai unless one has a decent (although not perfect) grip on 1. the tonal system and 2. the difference between aspirated and non-aspirated consonant sounds, 3. The imporance of vowel length to the meaning of the word - but since "fluency" is so broad a definition, I am sure many of you disagree.

[Boon Mee]

One more difinition of fluency from a farang who is studying hard but has a long way to go.

When I first started learning with AUA, the benchmark was to pass the Pratom 4 test. You were then considered to have achieved a level to where you could read/write/speak basic Thai. I've noticed now that the bar has been raised to the P6 level and from reading through the sample questions to pass that exam I would consider myself to be "fluent" enough if I can score well.

Again too, fluency might just apply to spoken Thai?

[sabaijai]

Exactly - what IS fluent?

We all seem to have different ideas about this, making it difficult to judge. My hunch is that linguists do not use this term, but would instead try to rate speaking and understanding abilities on some type of scale... but I do not know. Maybe the talented linguists that sometimes visit this forum could shed some light on the state of the art?

After three years' university education in Thai, outside of Thailand, and three years living in the Kingdom, my Thai is good enough to pass as native on the phone during simple conversations, and sometimes good enough to have Thai people ask if I am "luuk khreung"... which is stretching it a bit as I have zero Asian traits...

I can read well enough to understand contemporary novels and newspaper articles within the subjects I am skilled and interested in, but as soon as a text deals with a subject new to me, I am virtually lost...

The greatest difference between learning Thai and another European language is that there is a common base among European languages, harking back to Christianity, the Roman empire and the Greeks, and to some extent the Germanic traditions in the north  of Europe (if you speak a Germanic language, at any rate). These denominators help us in being able to quickly acquire advanced/scientific vocabulary in another language (therapy - therapie - terapi etc.), as well as to remember everyday vocabulary (sun - sonne - soleil - sol). You just have to learn how the speakers of the new language pronounce Latin and Greek, and any local inclination patterns relevant to these words. There are no such freebies when you learn Thai, but on the other hand, Thai lacks the extreme proliferation of verb forms, cases and tenses so common to many European languages.

I would say one is not fluent in Thai unless one has a decent (although not perfect) grip on 1. the tonal system and 2. the difference between aspirated and non-aspirated consonant sounds, 3. The imporance of vowel length to the meaning of the word - but since "fluency" is so broad a definition, I am sure many of you disagree.

I would't disagree. It's such a broad category, "fluent", that really it's pretty much up to how an individual defines it. Certainly if it were clear what "fluent" meant, we wouldn't be discussing it.

In applied linguistics the terms "proficiency" or "competency," as measured on a point scale, are preferred to "fluency." . Several scales have been devised to rate proficiency. In the USA and Australia the most common one is a 5-point scale, first developed by the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) in the USA for testing the language proficiency of foreign service officers. The scale has been adapted for use by many other organisations, schools, universities, etc.

Here's the original ILR scale for speaking:

Speaking 0 (No Proficiency)

Speaking 0+ (Memorized Proficiency)

Speaking 1 (Elementary Proficiency)

Speaking 1+ (Elementary Proficiency, Plus)

Speaking 2 (Limited Working Proficiency)

Speaking 2+ (Limited Working Proficiency, Plus)

Speaking 3 (General Professional Proficiency)

Speaking 3+ (General Professional Proficiency, Plus)

Speaking 4 (Advanced Professional Proficiency)

Speaking 4+ (Advanced Professional Proficiency, Plus)

Speaking 5 (Functionally Native Proficiency)

Those who administer the 5-point oral proficiency tests have to be carefully trained. For a detailed explanation of each of these levels, see

ILR speaking scale

or for all the scales for speaking, reading, writing and listening check:

IRL home

Needless to say, it's possible to score higher in one area than another.

Here's the kicker. Testing scholars agree there's a phenomenon known as "the terminal twos," meaning most people studying a foreign language never go beyond a 2 or 2+ rating.

I used to be acquainted with some of the Thai language teaching staff at the US Peace Corps office in Bangkok, and was told that most PC volunteers -- who are tested for language proficiency three times during their two-year term: once at the end of the initital language training, again during the one-year Thai refresher course, and a third time when they finish their two years -- leave Thailand after two years with a score of 2+ or 3.

There are always a few prodigies around however. There was a former PC vol named Jerry Gainey (sp?) who stayed on in Thailand for several years after his term was over, and kept up his Thai studies while also learning Khmer. At one point he took the national Thai language test given to those seeking admission to Thai university, and scored higher than any Thai ever had in the history of the exam. I don't know whether his record still holds, that was back in the late 70s/early 80s as I recall. He died a few years ago in a tragic accident involving a refrigerator.

Studies show that people who study the ILR proficiency criteria, and then rate themselves, have a better-than-average chance of matching the rating a professional examiner would give. A study of 20 New Zealanders who had studied Maori, for example, showed that the self-ratings matched those of trained examiners for 12 of the subjects; of the 8 who didn't correlate, seven over-rated their proficiency and one under-rated his/her proficiency.

[ChiangMaiThai]

I think you've got to be careful about fooling yourself into believing you speak better than you do, especially if most of your speaking is directed at the same Thai people. This is because they get used to your accent and get used to completley incorrect pronounciation so much so that they understand what other Thais wouldn't. Also, when speaking to you, they tend to tailor vocab to your level. So in this situation, its easy to start to believe that 'wow, I'm nearly fluent'. But you're just fooling yourself.

Until you can watch the news and a Thai movie and follow it all, you're not even approaching fluency.

While I speak Thai all day everyday, I still can not follow everything on the news. If I watch one of the dramas, I can follow conversations and plots, but often miss key words. So I would be a useless translator.

[Crash999]

Here's the kicker. Testing scholars agree there's a phenomenon known as "the terminal twos," meaning most people studying a foreign language never go beyond a 2 or 2+ rating.

I used to be acquainted with some of the Thai language teaching staff at the US Peace Corps office in Bangkok, and was told that most PC volunteers -- who are tested for language proficiency three times during their two-year term: once at the end of the initital language training, again during the one-year Thai refresher course, and a third time when they finish their two years -- leave Thailand after two years with a score of 2+ or 3.

Very interesting... I'd say I am between a 2+ and a 3 but I'm most definitely at a plateau and can honestly say I haven't improved much (maybe a bit on the vocab side) in the past two years, despite having girlfriends with whom I only speak Thai.

I've hit a plateau because I can 'get by' in most situations and if I can't say something directly I can usually find a way to get the meaning across. Improving would mean going back to school and learning properly.

Wouldn't call myself fluent unless I could understand virtually everything on the news or in conversations around me.

[Richard W]

Here's the original ILR scale for speaking:

Speaking 0 (No Proficiency)

Speaking 0+ (Memorized Proficiency)

Speaking 1 (Elementary Proficiency)

Speaking 1+ (Elementary Proficiency, Plus)

Speaking 2 (Limited Working Proficiency)

Speaking 2+ (Limited Working Proficiency, Plus)

Speaking 3 (General Professional Proficiency)

Speaking 3+ (General Professional Proficiency, Plus)

Speaking 4 (Advanced Professional Proficiency)

Speaking 4+ (Advanced Professional Proficiency, Plus)

Speaking 5 (Functionally Native Proficiency)

Those who administer the 5-point oral proficiency tests have to be carefully trained. For a detailed explanation of each of these levels, see

ILR speaking scale

How would a Thai from outlying parts (e.g. Isaan) without a secondary education typically rate? Level 4 on the spoken scale?

[wolf5370]

###### I'm angry. Just write a really good reply and the screen crashed - lossing my post

I agree with Richard's sentiments. Fluency comes in many flavours. Special;ist language is specific to proffesions and areas of interest. Someone interested in Ornathology, could speak about birds perhaps using terminology that uninterested nationals could not understand.

My brother-in-law (farang) is Irish. He left school at the first opportunity and works on a building site. He is not thick, but is also not educated. English is his mother tongue, so he is fluent. However, put him in a room full or doctors, scientists or IT specialists, and he'd be lost.

My cousin is an interpreter by proffesion (political for the Italian Gov). She was at Uni until her late 30's. She speaks 11 languages well enough to interpret between them, and states she knows 5 fluently. To her, "fluently" means she can think in that language and converse and understand freely without having to translate in her head. She probably would not be able to translate medical terms (she possibly would not know them in her own mother-tongues - Italian and English). God I envy her her language skills!

Some Thai I do not have to translate to myself, I just know it. Sometimes I find myself thinking using Thai words, but many times I have to search my brain for the Thai word (or grammar) to say something. Or find myself guessing unknown words in the context of a Thai sentance in order to fully understand what has been said.

[Narachon]

In applied linguistics the terms "proficiency" or "competency," as measured on a point scale, are preferred to "fluency." . Several scales have been devised to rate proficiency. In the USA and Australia the most common one is a 5-point scale, first developed by the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) in the USA for testing the language proficiency of foreign service officers. The scale has been adapted for use by many other organisations, schools, universities, etc.

Here's the original ILR scale for speaking:

Speaking 0 (No Proficiency)

Speaking 0+ (Memorized Proficiency)

Speaking 1 (Elementary Proficiency)

Speaking 1+ (Elementary Proficiency, Plus)

Speaking 2 (Limited Working Proficiency)

Speaking 2+ (Limited Working Proficiency, Plus)

Speaking 3 (General Professional Proficiency)

Speaking 3+ (General Professional Proficiency, Plus)

Speaking 4 (Advanced Professional Proficiency)

Speaking 4+ (Advanced Professional Proficiency, Plus)

Speaking 5 (Functionally Native Proficiency)

Here's the kicker. Testing scholars agree there's a phenomenon known as "the terminal twos," meaning most people studying a foreign language never go beyond a 2 or 2+ rating.

I for one, would be quite happy if I can someday achieve at least Speaking Level 3!

Narachon:

Currently between Speaking Levels 0+ and 1

[Padkapow Guy]

I always thought if you could speak enough of a language to get drunk and laid you were fluent!

[penelope]

I think we should remove the word "fluent" from the discussion.

I prefer, are you "situationally functional".

In Thai, for my requirements(everyday reading writing speaking listening), I am functional. If I was to go to a Thai chemistry convention I would not be functional, but this is not part of my situation.

Same in English.For my situations I am fine.But my astrophysics English is limited.

[p1p]

I think we should remove the word "fluent" from the discussion.

I prefer, are you "situationally functional".

In Thai, for my requirements(everyday reading writing speaking listening), I am functional. If I was to go to a Thai chemistry convention I would not be functional, but this is not part of my situation.

Same in English.For my situations I am fine.But my astrophysics English is limited.

Penelope, I'm afraid I disagree with your wish to remove "fluent" from the discussion. It seems to provide the most pertinent descriptor regarding one's ability with a language.

The Oxford English Dictionary's definition: fluent • adjective 1 speaking or writing in an articulate and natural manner. 2 (of a language) used easily and accurately. implies exactly what you suggest in your, IMHO, horrible newspeak phrase, "situationally functional".

[penelope]

I think we should remove the word "fluent" from the discussion.

I prefer, are you "situationally functional".

In Thai, for my requirements(everyday reading writing speaking listening), I am functional. If I was to go to a Thai chemistry convention I would not be functional, but this is not part of my situation.

Same in English.For my situations I am fine.But my astrophysics English is limited.

Penelope, I'm afraid I disagree with your wish to remove "fluent" from the discussion. It seems to provide the most pertinent descriptor regarding one's ability with a language.

The Oxford English Dictionary's definition: fluent • adjective 1 speaking or writing in an articulate and natural manner. 2 (of a language) used easily and accurately. implies exactly what you suggest in your, IMHO, horrible newspeak phrase, "situationally functional".

I am hearby inventing a new word :

Flupish ,def : "situationally functional".

I will make it my life quest to get it into the Oxford Dictionary.

[bina]

actually for real psychological definitions: active daily living (ADL) is what doing anything daily, fluently, is called as is used for learning diabilitied children, or partially handicapped people, etc., as in : my daughter has a decent ADL level even if at age ten she still cant read well, or tell time, she can get by for most daily living situations... in language, its called, fluent.

In israel, fluency in arabic for special unit army situations means that when you are shouted at in hebrew, with a gun pointed at you, you still dont break your cover as 'arab' and u answer in street arabic, not literature/classic arabic; when u are drunk or injured, u maintain the same level of language, including colloquiallisms, idioms etc.... i.e. live it, breath it, eat it, etc.

i can say that at around 21:00 everynite, my hebrew disintergrates even after 21 years of speaking, reading, etc., i speak to my kids in hebrew, just easier but they correct me often...