Fluent In Thai?

[wilko]

I normally start by saying I can't speak Thai very well.....making that announcement is usually enough to get the attention or cooperation of the person I wish to communicate with....it also tunes them in as it were to my farang accent.

the truth is that most of the time they simply don't expect you to speak any Thai at all

Edited May 19, 2008 by wilko

[qwertz]

English, Thai, it doesn't alter the fact that many Thais have a limited attention span anyway.

[wilko]

English, Thai, it doesn't alter the fact that many Thais have a limited attention span anyway.

Now THAT was unhelpful.

[grtaylor]

English, Thai, it doesn't alter the fact that many Thais have a limited attention span anyway.

Now THAT was unhelpful.

Agreed - this should not turn into a Thai-bashing thread . . . .

On your other point Wilko, yes, its a good idea to say something in Thai at the beginning of a conversation to establish with the listener that they know they're hearing Thai, before getting onto the main point of the conversation. I do that too.

My main problem is that, being a musician/singer by training, and therefore with a good ear for sounds (e.g the tones), my accent tends to lead people to think I'm much more fluent than I actually am!!

G

Edited May 20, 2008 by grtaylor

[samran]

level 6: (Basic Thai level): one can hold conversations as long as the topic is general. When not knowing a certain word, the speaker can explain the word in a different way. When listening, non understood words meaning is made up from the context.

level 7: (TVnewsThai level): the level where you can actually understand 80% of the Thai tv news. a major benchmark

level 8: (More advance Thai level): here you can also discuss specific topics (politics, although maybe not a good idea), you can explain the doctor how your allergy affects your sleep pattern etc, and the dentist you need root canal treatment of your molar tooth

I think this scale gets rather out of whack in the 6 to 8 range. For one thing I think there is a huge jump in fluency in going from 6 to 7. The ability to understand 80% of a Thai News broadcast takes far more comprehension than that needed to simply hold a conversation on a general topic. And why would conversing on a general topic (such as the weather for example) be any more difficult than talking on a specific topic (such as politics) as long as one knows the necessary vocabulary for either subject? Besides, I couldn't imagine myself going in and telling my dentist I needed a root canal. The dentist is the one who should be telling ME that. But I digress. I first came to Thailand in 1988 and I have been trying to learn Thai on my own ever since using only courses intended for self study and by practicing with Thai people in everyday life. I am a merchant seaman and have had the good fortune to be able to travel to Thailand 2 or 3 times a year for the last 20 years. I eventually got to where I can speak well on most any subject (providing I know anything about it of course ) and can read and write on an elementary level. I can read things such as public notices, advertisements, and children's books, but am lucky to understand anything more than the general subject of newspaper articles. I routinely use the Thai text messaging function on my mobile phone for both sending and receiving messages in Thai. Still, I wouldn't consider myself to be on much more than an intermediate level in Thai particularly because I have a hard time comprehending rapidly spoken idiomatic Thai. Two years ago I started going to AUA on Rachadmri Rd. in Bangkok. When I went into the office the first time I only spoke thai with them so they could get an idea of what level I should start out in. They put me in AT5 which is the highest level. If you are at all familiar with AUA you will know that they use what they call the "natural" method. It has been praised by few and maligned by many, but I have found it helpful. I wouldn't recommend it to someone starting out from scratch though. Basically each class is simply two native speaking Thais (the teachers) talking or roll playing on a particular subject and all the students do is sit there and absorb as much as they can. Asking questions is discouraged but once in a while the teachers will ask questions of the students. I'm not sure if this is to try to determine how much the student is comprehending or if it's just to keep them awake. Anyway, I usually understand the big majority of what is being discussed in class and often become quite encouraged that I am improving in comprehension only to turn on the television later that night and get really depressed because I have no f#*k#*g idea what they're saying. So where this puts me on the above scale I don't know but I do know that without formal study in a reputable school or with a good tutor the road to becoming truly "fluent" is a long one. I may never fully get there but have have thoroughly enjoyed trying.

great post.

I think you are right in that it goes a bit out of whack, or maybe the scale increase the level of difficult expedentially! Probably.

I'd rate myself as a 6.7 but able to do an 8 on various topics....Reading OK, writing <deleted>.

The 7 is a bit of a blackhole. News speak tends to be one of the more difficult aspects of Thai. I can understand the news talk shows, interviews shows with ministers etc, even the business section of the news, but the actual news bulliten itself is hard, as it requires a level of background knowledge for things to click.

I find I understand the Thai news the best when I've been following a particular topical story say in the Nation or BKK post for a few days. Then, the news segment on that particular topic becomes alot more comprehensable.

[wilko]

English, Thai, it doesn't alter the fact that many Thais have a limited attention span anyway.

Now THAT was unhelpful.

Agreed - this should not turn into a Thai-bashing thread . . . .

On your other point Wilko, yes, its a good idea to say something in Thai at the beginning of a conversation to establish with the listener that they know they're hearing Thai, before getting onto the main point of the conversation. I do that too.

My main problem is that, being a musician/singer by training, and therefore with a good ear for sounds (e.g the tones), my accent tends to lead people to think I'm much more fluent than I actually am!!

G

yes, it can be a bit on an all or nothing thing....the listen often either assumes you can't speak a word or are fluent.

[fabianfred]

Using my own case as an example......I think that if you try to learn Thai by doing some kind of course...either with instructors or just on your own from books and tapes...then we tend to place more emphasis upon acquiring a reasonable amount of vocabulary than upon fluency in the tones. Compared to one who is plunged into the language without any previous exposure, such as an exchange student, who will probably learn the natural way and get more fluency but with less vocabulary.

Not forgetting, as other posters have mentioned, that each language is made up of many different sections, and our requirement to know each section and its vocabulary, depend upon our type of proffession or hobby or interest. For example golf has all its own set of terms and slang, as has every other part of life and so no person could hope to know all of the words in a single language.

I can follow a Thai soap opera quite well, whereas the news is less understandable to me because I don't know the names of poiliticians or organisations to which they refer. Since I enjoy reading Thai buddhist books, I am pretty knowledgeable about that, but reading the headlines of a newspaper is more of a problem. But a story about a person being murdered and the background is quite comprehensible.

[sabaijai]

Came up in another post but I thought it was a bit off topic.....

What efforts HAVE you made to learn Thai?

How far have you got?

The U.S. State Department's Foreign Service Institute long ago developed a scale for relative fluency is spoken and writted languages, it's copied below, along with my Q&D (that's "Quick & Dirty") redifinition of it below it.

FYI, I did test at S-2+ at one time lo these many years ago in Lao and same in Thai about 1979.

Mac

FSI Language Scale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILR_or_Foreig...bility_measures

ILR Level 1 - Elementary proficiency

Elementary proficiency is the first level in the scale. This level is sometimes referred to as S-1 or Level 1. A person at this level is described as follows:

able to satisfy routine travel needs and minimum courtesy requirements

can ask and answer questions on very familiar topics; within the scope of very limited language experience

can understand simple questions and statements, allowing for slowed speech, repetition or paraphrase

has a speaking vocabulary which is inadequate to express anything but the most elementary needs; makes frequent errors in pronunciation and grammar, but can be understood by a native speaker used to dealing with foreigners attempting to speak the language

while topics which are "very familiar" and elementary needs vary considerably from individual to individual, any person at the S-1 level should be able to order a simple meal, ask for shelter or lodging, ask and give simple directions, make purchases, and tell time.

[edit]

ILR Level 2 - Limited working proficiency

Limited working proficiency is the second level in the scale. This level is sometimes referred to as S-2 or level 2. A person at this level is described as follows:

able to satisfy routine social demands and limited work requirements

can handle with confidence, but not with facility, most social situations including introductions and casual conversations about current events, as well as work, family, and autobiographical information

can handle limited work requirements, needing help in handling any complications or difficulties; can get the gist of most conversations on non-technical subjects (i.e. topics which require no specialized knowledge), and has a speaking vocabulary sufficient to respond simply with some circumlocutions

has an accent which, though often quite faulty, is intelligible

can usually handle elementary constructions quite accurately but does not have thorough or confident control of the grammar.

[edit]

ILR Level 3 - Professional working proficiency

Professional working proficiency is the third level in the scale. This level is sometimes referred to as S-3 or Level 3. S-3 is what is usually used to measure how many people in the world know a given language. A person at this level is described as follows:

able to speak the language with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabulary to participate effectively in most formal and informal conversations on practical, social, and professional topics

can discuss particular interests and special fields of competence with reasonable ease

has comprehension which is quite complete for a normal rate of speech

has a general vocabulary which is broad enough that he or she rarely has to grope for a word

has an accent which may be obviously foreign; has a good control of grammar; and whose errors virtually never interfere with understanding and rarely disturb the native speaker.

[edit]

ILR Level 4 - Full professional proficiency

Full professional proficiency is the fourth level in the scale. This level is sometimes referred to as S-4 or level 4. A person at this level is described as follows:

able to use the language fluently and accurately on all levels normally pertinent to professional needs

can understand and participate in any conversations within the range of own personal and professional experience with a high degree of fluency and precision of vocabulary

would rarely be taken for a native speaker, but can respond appropriately even in unfamiliar situations

makes only quite rare and unpatterned errors of pronunciation and grammar

can handle informal interpreting from and into the language.

[edit]

ILR Level 5 - Native or bilingual proficiency

Native or bilingual proficiency is the fifth level in the scale. This level is sometimes referred to as S-5 or level 5. A person at this level is described as follows:

has a speaking proficiency equivalent to that of an educated native speaker

has complete fluency in the language, such that speech on all levels is fully accepted by educated native speakers in all of its features, including breadth of vocabulary and idiom, colloquialisms, and pertinent cultural references.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Level 1, Able to get into trouble

Level 2, Able to get out of trouble

Level 3, Would not have gotten into trouble in the first place

Levels 4 & 5, Unatainable for us normal beings

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

whereas one can obviously be fuent in a language without literacy, I would interpret the US scale as requiring that by scale to, as it says something about performing office work etc....can't see anyone getting by in Thai there without a good standard of writing.

I guess they didn't figure on a different writing system.

That ILR scale is for oral proficiency, not written. There are separate ILR scales for reading, writing, listening and translation performance.

This thread is very similar to a long one in the Thai Language subforum, 'Fluent Speakers, How fluent are you?'

[steveromagnino]

English, Thai, it doesn't alter the fact that many Thais have a limited attention span anyway.

maybe that is based on your personal experience and maybe what you say has limited interest to many Thai people

Maybe.

Edited May 21, 2008 by steveromagnino

[DtemJai]

English, Thai, it doesn't alter the fact that many Thais have a limited attention span anyway.

maybe that is based on your personal experience and maybe what you say has limited interest to many Thai people

Maybe.