fluency vs accuracy

Can you be fluent in a language without having 100% accuracy? Think about times when you didn’t accurately follow the rules of your native language, but you were still perfectly understood by others. It happens more than we realize right? :grin: But this does not mean we should forget the importance of accuracy. How about you? In your opininon, what is more important? fluency or accuracy?

Basically, accuracy is the ability to produce grammatically and lexically accurate sentences, while fluency is the ability to produce language in a coherent, effortless way. That being said, someone learning a language can become fluent but would take a whole lot more time to reach the level of accuracy a native possesses. 

If you're learning a language solely for everyday conversation purposes, then fluency will matter to you more. Of course someone learning it for educational purpose will go deeper than the person learning just because.

I think so, there are native English speakers butchering the language but for the most part they are understood

However... If a foreigner who spoke no English went to that part of England and hung around those groups of people they would become fluent in chattin like dat bruv innit they would have fluent comprehension but not of English

Don't they come hand in hand? I mean, how can you be considered fluent if your use of the language is not correct/accurate?

I think only those you are around and yourself would consider it fluent, it's too incorrect to be accurate

ikaymoreno wrote:

Don't they come hand in hand? I mean, how can you be considered fluent if your use of the language is not correct/accurate?

I agree with this comment, but I think OP meant "you know like 90% of a certain language but you struggle with the other 10%"? 

Maybe this pertains more on language acquisition versus language proficiency? Things like... your language acquisition on a second language could be high but your level of proficiency is way behind the A+.

dragonsky wrote:

ikaymoreno wrote:

Don't they come hand in hand? I mean, how can you be considered fluent if your use of the language is not correct/accurate?

I agree with this comment, but I think OP meant "you know like 90% of a certain language but you struggle with the other 10%"?

I don't get it. Hahahahaha!

ikaymoreno wrote:

dragonsky wrote:

ikaymoreno wrote:

Don't they come hand in hand? I mean, how can you be considered fluent if your use of the language is not correct/accurate?

I agree with this comment, but I think OP meant "you know like 90% of a certain language but you struggle with the other 10%"?

I don't get it. Hahahahaha!

This is an example why I avoid using the term "fluent". There is no universally accepted definition of the word, so no matter which one you support, there are going to be people who disagree with you or get confused by your definition. But to answer the OP, I think accuracy and fluidity are both very important and I don't think one is more important than the other. But it's definitely possible to be more fluid than accurate and vice versa.

ikaymoreno wrote:

Don't they come hand in hand? I mean, how can you be considered fluent if your use of the language is not correct/accurate?

This may sound logical, but what I was trying to say is, accuracy is the ability to produce grammatically accurate English sentences, while fluency is the ability to produce language in a coherent and effortless way. I mean you can express yourself clearly eventhough your language is not accurate :) I hope it makes sense haha! 

Jade.Xuereb wrote:

I think so, there are native English speakers butchering the language but for the most part they are understood
However... If a foreigner who spoke no English went to that part of England and hung around those groups of people they would become fluent in chattin like dat bruv innit they would have fluent comprehension but not of English

And that reminds me of another discussion in the forum: should teachers always be native speakers?