"Are you fluent" Is Not the Right Question

A week or so ago I wrote on Facebook a micro-critique about the question a language learner usually gets asked when the topic of their language studies comes up in a conversation.

"So, are you fluent [yet]?"

Fluency is a highly subjective term that, for lack of any better measurement, gets tossed around as an awkwardly reductive and inaccurate way to assess a person's skill in a language. This post explores why this question doesn't work and suggests a more engaging way to talk about someone's language ability.

Interpersonal conversations and job applications are two common situations in which the question of fluency arises.

Interpersonal Conversations

Here's a summarized version of an exchange that I've encountered on more than one occasion:

Native speaker: So, I hear you're fluent in [insert language]
Me: Not really, I only speak it a little bit
NS: [Says something quick and obscure in shared language]
Me: I'm sorry, I didn't catch that.
NS: What? You don't know what that means? I thought you were fluent?

[awkward pause]

NS: What about [slang word].
Me: ...I don't know what that means.
NS: How can you say you speak my language if you don't know what [slang word] means?
Me:












Some native speakers like to ask the "are you fluent" question as an oversimplified way to see just how much of the language the language learner really knows. The native speaker engages in what they'd consider a perfectly fluent, normal conversation to probe the language learner's skill. Said conversation, however, may be nothing more than one to seven words consisting of colloquialisms, idioms, and slang, with some, if not all, of the words being obscure even to other native speakers.

Don't be this guy, please...

This exchange, as laid out above, results in the native speaker feeling triumphant; they were able to expose the language learner for what the native speaker thinks the language learner truly is, which is to say not actually as fluent as was originally claimed (I'll submit that the language learner probably didn't even profess themselves as fluent, it's others -- i.e. friends and family -- who tend to make the compliment on their behalf).

Conversely, the language learner walks away feeling sheepish for having endured yet another conversation in which their own efforts in learning the language are reduced to nothing more than the knowledge, or lack thereof, of a few obscure words shotgunned out at-will by the native speaker.

In this case, language is not used as a vehicle with which to share a common interest, but it is instead used as a measuring stick by which people can compare themselves to someone else in an almost "I'm better than you" manner.

I've seriously wonder if people (perhaps men in particular, considering I've seen this behavior mainly exhibited from my own gender peers) feel threatened when the topic of someone else's fluency in a language enters the conversation. This is, however, a completely separate topic that I will address in a later post.

Job Applications

Another time I hear, or, rather, "see" this question come up is when I'm applying to certain jobs that have a stakeholder base outside of the English language. Think banks, tech companies, manufacturing firms, etc.

Oh LinkedIn...

For example, an application question may have a short section that asks for a candidate's level of fluency in a language, and the only three options presented are "beginner," "conversational," and "native."

I don't even know why a company bothers putting this on their job application. Does said company take more interest in a person who commands a 101 level of Mandarin? Do they give a couple of extra consideration points to the person who can hold a 5-minute conversation in Spanish? What value does an option less than "native" have that warrants being asked on a job application?

I get that the scale is a helpful way for candidates to stand out and for companies to hire people who have the skill of language in addition to whatever hard (and other soft) skills they can bring to the table. Nevertheless, it seems odd that an employer would pay even a second's worth of attention to the "beginner" and "conversational" levels.

If an employer is looking for someone who can speak another language at a level that helps build relationships with clients, then why don't they simply put the binary option "I can navigate professional conversations like an educated adult?" However, that option is equally ambiguous and subjective. How do you define "professional," "conversation," "educated," and "adult?" Furthermore, if they're placing any level of measurement on this qualification, how can they test for it?

Misunderstanding Fluency

Generally speaking, I get the sense that many of us have a misguided view of language, one that manifests itself in the question "are you fluent?"

Fluency, at least in the way we've come to define it, in a foreign language is achievable by only a tiny few. If I actually wanted to become fluent in Vietnamese, then I'd have to convince Thuy to live with me in Vietnam for an undefined number of years so that I can be immersed in the language long enough to read, write, speak, and listen like a native. Fluency the way we expect it doesn't happen overnight, or even with a year of total immersion.

While foreigners can definitely become fluent, this term will still vary depending on who is asking the question. Take the comparison between me and my Korean classmates in my recent Level C Vietnamese Proficiency Exam prep course: A number of my Korean classmates have a much larger vocabulary than me, but I tend to have an easier and more natural experience actually speaking the language with other Vietnamese.

Who is more fluent, me or my Korean classmates?

My friend and former college, Jenn Adrian, gave another perfect example of just how pointless the question of "are you fluent" is when she commented that "my husband used to say I wasn't fluent when I admitted that there are topics I don't have the vocabulary to discuss. Then I pointed out that I don't know a carburetor from a radiator in English, either."

Change the Question

Instead of asking "are you fluent," consider asking something along the lines of “when did you start to feel comfortable speaking the language?"

I know that this doesn't have the same competitive measurement seen in the first case nor does it have the same language-as-a-tool intention seen in the second case. However, if we assume for a moment that fluency really is both subjective and rarely achievable, then the question "are you fluent" becomes somewhat moot.

Consider the following benefits that come by changing the question.

Native speakers who focus less on fluency and more on another person's comfort and experiences will create a far more entertaining and interesting conversation. If you want to include the topic of foreign language into your conversation when you network, make new friends, or strike up a conversation with that cute girl or guy you've been checking out from across the room, this new line of questioning will get you far more milage.

Job interviewers know full well that an open-ended question will create an opportunity to hear about a candidate's experiences that can give additional insights relevant to the job at-hand. Compare these two interview questions:

"Are you fluent? -Yes. [binary yes/no]

"When did you feel comfortable speaking Spanish?" -When I became comfortable making and learning from my mistakes. When I became more comfortable dealing with various types of interpersonal ambiguities. When I put in the extra effort to increase my knowledge of the language in a way to make my life easier. [open-ended]

When viewed from this perspective, the open-ended question surrounding a candidate's proficiency in a language clearly becomes the more useful tool in determining whether the candidate is a good fit for the organization.

After that, if you want to actually test the candidate's proficiency, then -- with advanced notice given to the candidate, of course -- bring in a native speaker to help test their ability, and set clear and transparent metrics to help the candidate prepare and deliver accordingly.

Language Beyond Words

It's easy to forget that learning a language is much more than memorizing a series of words that, when put together in a correct sequence, makes you understood by a completely different group of people.

When you learn a language, and especially when you learn it abroad, you inherently learn the culture, the society, and a new way of life. You learn more about yourself in the process. You navigate difficult situations, make mistakes, learn from those mistakes, make new friends, find love, gain new passions and interests...the list goes on and on.

Reducing all of these rich experiences down to a subjective measurement of how well a person can transact within a specific subset of vocabulary isn't doing anyone any justice. Instead, ask a question that will inspire a more thoughtful conversation, one that allows you, the inquirer, to swap fun stories and experiences, and learn more about the language learner beyond their vocabulary.

I encourage native speakers who want to engage the language learner in a conversation to do so in a way that isn't insulting or demeaning. While your "do you know this word" inquiry might be made in jest with no malicious intent, it's still frustrating and doesn't really get at the heart of why or how we've learned a language, and specifically, your language.

What salsa dancing may look like.

I equate this to the physical conversation that is salsa dancing. Ideally, an experienced lead who dances with a follow for the first time will spend the first few eight-counts getting familiar with the follow's skill and range of motion. He should start basic and work his way up. From those first few eight-counts, the lead can quickly figure out the follow's skill level, information that will allow the lead to calibrate their moves to make the follow feel as comfortable and as happy as possible.

When both the lead and follow are "in sync" in skill level, both the enjoyment between the lead and follow and the visual experience for the spectators is heightened.

I'd like to think that we can also apply this rule in conversations in a foreign language. Native speakers (obviously, the 'lead' in this analogy) who want to assess a language learner's level shouldn't go in gun blazing, but start basic and move up. Within the first minute, the native speaker can know 1) how skilled the language learner is, thereby having an answer to the question "are you fluent," and 2) how fast and complicated the native speaker can speak to the language learner. Make the conversation an actual conversation, not a display of who knows or doesn't know certain words.

In doing so, you get to the heart of learning a language: You're exchanging words to communicate feelings and ideas, and to make everyone involved have a fun and enjoyable life experience.