<p>I've read some posts on why taking classes in a foreign language in college would make one a better candidate if "you never reach [. . .] fluency." </p>
<p>I thought that after taking six semester long classes would make me a fluent speaker, I guess not??</p>
<p>Has anyone become fluent?</p>
<p>That depends on what you mean by "fluent". If your mean able to carry on normal conversations, watch movies, and read simple newspaper articles than yes, depending on your language, you can reach that level of fluecy.</p>
<p>The arguement comes when you define fluent to be "native/native-like". I.e. being debate political issues, give speeches on scientific/technical subjects, and read any written material without a dictionary all while being indistinguishable from a native speaker. This level of fluency is NOT achievable with six semester courses, and many times not achievable in six years of in-country residence (i.e. living in whatever country is home to your foreign language).</p>
<p>That being said, there ARE people who have reached this kind of level (and they get paid big bucks to interpret/translate). However, they are for the most part from a bilingual upbringing or spent considerable time in a foreign country.</p>
<p>Much depends on what language you're taking, as it usually takes a native speaker of English longer to reach a certain level of proficiency in Chinese than say French. <a href="http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/november/learningExpectations.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/november/learningExpectations.html</a></p>
<p>^^ agreed. People's definition of fluency is often very warped, and they're frequently under the idea that fluent=native, when it's not. You can definitely become fluent in the language through courses (or even on your own); you simply have to try hard: expand your vocabulary, understand and study grammatical structures, and construct sentences with those elements/principles in the four modes of language (reading, writing, listening, speaking). It's not a herculean task.</p>
<p>That definition of fluent seems a little bit much to me.</p>
<p>My cousin, for example, is in his 50's and has lived and worked in Italy for 30 years and would fit into your definition, I have been told by native speakers of Italian that you almost cannot tell that he is British when he speaks, which would fit that definition, yet it has taken him a few decades to achieve this; he also never had any formal training. </p>
<p>However, there are plenty of people who can speak a foreign language good enough to carry on an intelligent conversation but still may have a "thick" accent, which according to that definition they would not be fluent. I would consider someone fluent, if they can carry on a conversation with someone in any subject such as business/politics it should not matter that they do not have a "native" accent to be considered "fluent".</p>
<p>Yeah, accent has nothing to do with fluency, though those who are fluent tend to have good accents anyway.</p>
<p>It depends on the language that you are learning, and you're dedication to become fluent. I'm learning two other languages right now, and one I have become fluent in. Having someone to speak in that language with is a big help. Enlist a friend!</p>