3-month language learning to fluency level - agree or disagree?

In my opinion and experience of learning a language, these things that claim you can learn a language to fluency level in 3 months seem totally ridiculous.

What is everyone's thoughts? Do you know of any articles available with 'what the expert linguists' say on this stuff?

My friend claimed that her sister learnt Turkish in 3 months to total fluency level whilst working a full-time job (In this country). This would be near impossible even if she went and lived in Turkey and devoted her entire time to learning the language the nearest I would say she could possibly reach is about A-Level standard in the language.

Thoughts???

I think the main issue here revolves around one's understanding of the term 'fluent'. Many people seem to think that 'fluent' is a synonym of 'perfect'. To my mind, it is not.

Someone on the last page posted something to do with being competent in a foreign language but struggling if someone mentioned a certain term relating to science or a specific sporting activity, and saying that this would indicate a lack of fluency. This is completely untrue. How many of you have ever come across a word in English or your native tongue that you didn't understand, even as an adult? All of you, I imagine. I consider myself erudite and articulate, but I know nothing about science or sport, so I lack lots of English vocabulary in these fields. So by this definition, I don't speak ANY language fluently! What an absurd notion. Of course my English is fluent.

I've studied Spanish for four years and lived in Mexico for a year. There is no doubt in my mind that my Spanish is fluent. It's a little rustier now than when I lived in a Spanish-speaking environment, but it's fluent. I can communicate in accurate and eloquent Spanish in a variety of situations about most topics without much strain. There are, of course, plenty of things that I don't know how to say in Spanish - if I had to talk about Olympic events I wouldn't know how to say "shot put" for example. However, I would have no problem communicating the idea...I'd just say "Esa disciplina de los juegos olimpicos donde tiran una pelotilla hecha de metal..." (That sport where people throw a big metal ball).

I think fluency is really when you find conversing and using the language in most situations second nature. When you don't have to translate mentally from your mother tongue. When you can manipulate the language, and don't have to rely on set expressions.

I would even argue that grammatical accuracy and accent aren't that important when it comes to fluency. For example, if an articulate foreigner spoke English with ease and said something like "We basked in the glorious sunlight which last two hours" - would the grammatical error render them "unfluent"? I'd argue not. Many English people's knowledge of English grammar is fairly shocking at best, let's face it.

To my mind, fluency is fairly simple. Can you communicate your message effectively in a foreign language at a normal pace and without struggling too much? If so, you're fluent to my mind. Not necessarily elegant. Not necessarily perfect. Not necessarily articulate. But fluent? Yes.

I think the main issue here revolves around one's understanding of the term 'fluent'. Many people seem to think that 'fluent' is a synonym of 'perfect'. To my mind, it is not.

Someone on the last page posted something to do with being competent in a foreign language but struggling if someone mentioned a certain term relating to science or a specific sporting activity, and saying that this would indicate a lack of fluency. This is completely untrue. How many of you have ever come across a word in English or your native tongue that you didn't understand, even as an adult? All of you, I imagine. I consider myself erudite and articulate, but I know nothing about science or sport, so I lack lots of English vocabulary in these fields. So by this definition, I don't speak ANY language fluently! What an absurd notion. Of course my English is fluent.

I've studied Spanish for four years and lived in Mexico for a year. There is no doubt in my mind that my Spanish is fluent. It's a little rustier now than when I lived in a Spanish-speaking environment, but it's fluent. I can communicate in accurate and eloquent Spanish in a variety of situations about most topics without much strain. There are, of course, plenty of things that I don't know how to say in Spanish - if I had to talk about Olympic events I wouldn't know how to say "shot put" for example. However, I would have no problem communicating the idea...I'd just say "Esa disciplina de los juegos olimpicos donde tiran una pelotilla hecha de metal..." (That sport where people throw a little metal ball).

I think fluency is really when you find conversing and using the language in most situations second nature. When you don't have to translate mentally from your mother tongue. When you can manipulate the language, and don't have to rely on set expressions.

I would even argue that grammatical accuracy and accent aren't that important when it comes to fluency. For example, if an articulate foreigner spoke English with ease and said something like "We basked in the glorious sunlight which last two hours" - would the grammatical error render them "unfluent"? I'd argue not. Many English people's knowledge of English grammar is fairly shocking at best, let's face it.

To my mind, fluency is fairly simple. Can you communicate your message effectively in a foreign language at a normal pace and without struggling too much? If so, you're fluent to my mind. Not necessarily elegant. Not necessarily perfect. Not necessarily articulate. But fluent? Yes.

I think the main issue here revolves around one's understanding of the term 'fluent'. Many people seem to think that 'fluent' is a synonym of 'perfect'. To my mind, it is not.

Someone on the last page posted something to do with being competent in a foreign language but struggling if someone mentioned a certain term relating to science or a specific sporting activity, and saying that this would indicate a lack of fluency. This is completely untrue. How many of you have ever come across a word in English or your native tongue that you didn't understand, even as an adult? All of you, I imagine. I consider myself erudite and articulate, but I know nothing about science or sport, so I lack lots of English vocabulary in these fields. So by this definition, I don't speak ANY language fluently! What an absurd notion. Of course my English is fluent.

I've studied Spanish for four years and lived in Mexico for a year. There is no doubt in my mind that my Spanish is fluent. It's a little rustier now than when I lived in a Spanish-speaking environment, but it's fluent. I can communicate in accurate and eloquent Spanish in a variety of situations about most topics without much strain. There are, of course, plenty of things that I don't know how to say in Spanish - if I had to talk about Olympic events I wouldn't know how to say "shot put" for example. However, I would have no problem communicating the idea...I'd just say "Esa disciplina de los juegos olimpicos donde tiran una pelotilla hecha de metal..." (That sport where people throw a little metal ball).

I think fluency is really when you find conversing and using the language in most situations second nature. When you don't have to translate mentally from your mother tongue. When you can manipulate the language, and don't have to rely on set expressions.

I would even argue that grammatical accuracy and accent aren't that important when it comes to fluency. For example, if an articulate foreigner spoke English with ease and said something like "We basked in the glorious sunlight which last two hours" - would the grammatical error render them "unfluent"? I'd argue not. Many English people's knowledge of English grammar is fairly shocking at best, let's face it.

To my mind, fluency is fairly simple. Can you communicate your message effectively in a foreign language at a normal pace and without struggling too much? If so, you're fluent to my mind. Not necessarily elegant. Not necessarily perfect. Not necessarily articulate. But fluent? Yes.

Actually, I do have a personal little goal of mine - until I see it happen I will not consider myself "fluent" in any foreign language. You see, I have the kind of face that is pretty nondescript - it's the sort of face that no one would take a second glance at on the street. So, I'd like to go to my target country and improve so much so that people don't outwardly realise they're speaking with a foreigner. I'm not talking about mastering the language to the point of native fluency, but if I meet someone and they don't compliment me on how good my language is because it is just so obvious, I'd consider that a success! Though, if they start believing my little fibs (eg. me saying I'm Taiwanese/Latin Asian/Kazakh/Japanese etc.) that would be my ultimate dream come true. That dream is still a long way away though

+rep, great post Jonny.

Someone also mentioned Benny Lewis "The Irish Polygot" but I can not stand him at all. I find him very annoying as a person, he strictly controls every comment on his website/blog and always dodges claims about his language abilities by saying "I never actually said I was going to achieve fluency in 3 months". Well then, why did he call the website "fluent in 3 months"? Also, his German pronunciation is terrible. I think the only reason he has such a short timeframe for each language is that it keeps people interested and drives up internet revenue through traffic numbers. I also absolutely loathe it when people refer to tips as 'hacks'. It sounds so horribly childish. People are much more likely to remain interested over 3 months, than 6 months. I think if he had 6 months in a language with his methods, he may be able to say that he is vaguely fluent but I still wouldn't care because of how annoying I find him.

I think the only reason he has such a short timeframe for each language is that it keeps people interested and drives up internet revenue through traffic numbers.

People with an addiction to self-promotion, who make big claims and sell expensive products, have existed long before we were born and will exist long after we're both dead. In this particular case, you'd think his inability to get anywhere close to fluency after 3 months of learning Chinese would discredit him, but I've no doubt he'll come up with some justification for continuing to attract readers and money (and be successful in doing so).

I think the main issue here revolves around one's understanding of the term 'fluent'. Many people seem to think that 'fluent' is a synonym of 'perfect'. To my mind, it is not.

Someone on the last page posted something to do with being competent in a foreign language but struggling if someone mentioned a certain term relating to science or a specific sporting activity, and saying that this would indicate a lack of fluency. This is completely untrue. How many of you have ever come across a word in English or your native tongue that you didn't understand, even as an adult? All of you, I imagine. I consider myself erudite and articulate, but I know nothing about science or sport, so I lack lots of English vocabulary in these fields. So by this definition, I don't speak ANY language fluently! What an absurd notion. Of course my English is fluent.

I've studied Spanish for four years and lived in Mexico for a year. There is no doubt in my mind that my Spanish is fluent. It's a little rustier now than when I lived in a Spanish-speaking environment, but it's fluent. I can communicate in accurate and eloquent Spanish in a variety of situations about most topics without much strain. There are, of course, plenty of things that I don't know how to say in Spanish - if I had to talk about Olympic events I wouldn't know how to say "shot put" for example. However, I would have no problem communicating the idea...I'd just say "Esa disciplina de los juegos olimpicos donde tiran una pelotilla hecha de metal..." (That sport where people throw a little metal ball).

I think fluency is really when you find conversing and using the language in most situations second nature. When you don't have to translate mentally from your mother tongue. When you can manipulate the language, and don't have to rely on set expressions.

I would even argue that grammatical accuracy and accent aren't that important when it comes to fluency. For example, if an articulate foreigner spoke English with ease and said something like "We basked in the glorious sunlight which last two hours" - would the grammatical error render them "unfluent"? I'd argue not. Many English people's knowledge of English grammar is fairly shocking at best, let's face it.

To my mind, fluency is fairly simple. Can you communicate your message effectively in a foreign language at a normal pace and without struggling too much? If so, you're fluent to my mind. Not necessarily elegant. Not necessarily perfect. Not necessarily articulate. But fluent? Yes.

Depends. Of you have to learn it, then you'll learn it quickly. I know there is a place in France where nuns teach you classes and then after saying at the plae for a month you're fluent in the language, apparently...

Although near where I live there was a little girl who moved from China speaking no English, and after 4 months at my cousins' primary school she was fluent 100%.

I think the main issue here revolves around one's understanding of the term 'fluent'. Many people seem to think that 'fluent' is a synonym of 'perfect'. To my mind, it is not.

Someone on the last page posted something to do with being competent in a foreign language but struggling if someone mentioned a certain term relating to science or a specific sporting activity, and saying that this would indicate a lack of fluency. This is completely untrue. How many of you have ever come across a word in English or your native tongue that you didn't understand, even as an adult? All of you, I imagine. I consider myself erudite and articulate, but I know nothing about science or sport, so I lack lots of English vocabulary in these fields. So by this definition, I don't speak ANY language fluently! What an absurd notion. Of course my English is fluent.

I've studied Spanish for four years and lived in Mexico for a year. There is no doubt in my mind that my Spanish is fluent. It's a little rustier now than when I lived in a Spanish-speaking environment, but it's fluent. I can communicate in accurate and eloquent Spanish in a variety of situations about most topics without much strain. There are, of course, plenty of things that I don't know how to say in Spanish - if I had to talk about Olympic events I wouldn't know how to say "shot put" for example. However, I would have no problem communicating the idea...I'd just say "Esa disciplina de los juegos olimpicos donde tiran una pelotilla hecha de metal..." (That sport where people throw a little metal ball).

I think fluency is really when you find conversing and using the language in most situations second nature. When you don't have to translate mentally from your mother tongue. When you can manipulate the language, and don't have to rely on set expressions.

I would even argue that grammatical accuracy and accent aren't that important when it comes to fluency. For example, if an articulate foreigner spoke English with ease and said something like "We basked in the glorious sunlight which last two hours" - would the grammatical error render them "unfluent"? I'd argue not. Many English people's knowledge of English grammar is fairly shocking at best, let's face it.

To my mind, fluency is fairly simple. Can you communicate your message effectively in a foreign language at a normal pace and without struggling too much? If so, you're fluent to my mind. Not necessarily elegant. Not necessarily perfect. Not necessarily articulate. But fluent? Yes.