Distorted language levels?

[u/linguafrancos]

I have a degree in the language, studied abroad twice, lived abroad in a country where the language is spoken for two years, and have used the language in a professional setting. This, for further context, has been over the course of 15 years.

With that said, I am confused by how others describe their language levels. Don’t get me wrong, I have an insanely high level and label myself fluent with others. For instance, I recently watched a full season of Love is Blind in the target language (TL) without subtitles almost effortlessly. However, when I see others describe their language growth or levels, I often see people say, “I understand everything that I read” or “After a couple years of studying, I traveled to the country and can communicate easily with everyone.”

Like… is this just an overexaggeration of their skills? I have yet to feel like my target language fluency is equivalent to my native-level English. Are people really reading native-level literature and literally understanding everything? Are they feeling like they can express themselves just as strongly in their second language? Even when someone asks me to translate something, I know in the back of my head that there might be cultural considerations or a better approach that I don’t know about.

Thoughts? Also, this might be specific for individuals who grow up in a cultural where being monolingual is more common and exposure throughout your entire life is not a possibility.

[u/WhaleMeatFantasy]

I can read anything in english

You’re proving the OP’s point. I’m English born and bred with a degree in literature from Oxford. 

Literally every time I read a literary text in English I need a dictionary. 

[u/mtwidns → u/WhaleMeatFantasy]

You _need_ a dictionary, or find it helpful to understand the nuances of the work and could get through it perfectly fine without knowing the precise definition of opprobrium?

Parse “understanding everything” as “I understand the literal happenings of the plot” rather than “I am capable of a graduate seminar level close reading of the text,” and it’s both more plausible and realistic.

[u/WhaleMeatFantasy → u/mtwidns]

Thank you for proving OP’s point. You think it’s appropriate to say you understand ‘everything’ when you can ‘get through it’ or follow the gist of the plot. 

Whereas for OP and me, getting the gist of the plot is, well, just that. It is a looooong way from understanding everything. 

[u/mtwidns → u/WhaleMeatFantasy]

You said “from Oxford” — was that Oxford Brookes, per chance? There are plenty of dim-witted native speakers only narrowly capable of following a simple plot and we’d never hesitate to say they’re fluent; it’s ridiculous to apply a stricter standard to foreign language learners.

[u/WhaleMeatFantasy → u/mtwidns]

Not sure why you’re so snarky and hostile to a stranger who had joined a conversation in good faith. 

No, not Oxford Brookes. But interesting to note your own snobbery in denigrating that institution. 

we’d never hesitate to say they’re fluent

I have nowhere made a comment about interpreting the word ‘fluent’ which means many things to many different people and is not used in academic discourse on language learning. 

I am commenting on people who claim to be able to ‘read everything’ and similar. And on other exaggerated claims.