even better than fluent !

< Previous | Next >

AFrenchGuy

Member
France, french
Hello everybody.

Let's say I speak and write English better than no one else. ( :p )
What should I write on my resume ?

"- Outstanding mastering of spoken and written English." ?
 
  • Dimcl

    Senior Member
    Canadian English
    I don't see that mastery comes in various grades, e.g. outstanding, mediocre and poor.
    In this context, you can have mastered something without being outstanding at it. I've mastered the art of juggling three balls in the air but although I can keep them going, it's not a thing of beauty and my mastery of juggling is pretty mediocre.
     

    Nymeria

    Senior Member
    English - Barbadian/British/educated in US universities blend
    I would not put "Outstanding mastery of spoken and written English" on a resume. I find it redundant and affected.
     

    pickarooney

    Senior Member
    English (Ireland)
    No, it's a terrible thing to write on a CV. 'Proficiency' is a better word, but should only be used if you really are better than fluent, i.e. you know the difference between 'anyone' and 'no-one' ;)
     

    AFrenchGuy

    Member
    France, french
    Are you sure? According to this thread, fluent is better than proficient.

    And just to ease all your minds, it's just curiosity, I would never write something like that on my resume. :D
     
    Last edited:

    ewie

    Senior Member
    English English
    I'd put something a bit less (erm) boastful too: Proficiency in spoken and written English to native standard ... or similar.
     

    ewie

    Senior Member
    English English
    I think it depends on whether or not you qualify it, AFG. Notice that my version says proficiency ... to native standard.

    I agree that proficient on its own does sound a bit crap:)
     

    AFrenchGuy

    Member
    France, french
    It sounds crap to you, really ?

    So if I write on my resume that I am "Proficient in both spoken and written English", it doesn't mean much?
     

    pickarooney

    Senior Member
    English (Ireland)
    I disagree. 'Proficienct' by definition means well advanced in an art or occupation. 'Fluent' refers only to a spoken language; you could be fluent in German but not be able to write it at all.
     

    ewie

    Senior Member
    English English
    It sounds crap to you, really ?

    So if I write on my resume that I am "Proficient in both spoken and written English", it doesn't mean much?
    Well it doesn't sound brilliant, AFG. It doesn't sound to me any better than (e.g.) good.
    At least, it doesn't sound brilliant to me.
     
    Last edited:

    AFrenchGuy

    Member
    France, french
    Thank you Sowka.

    I'd like to point out that I was just curious about what could be better than fluent, but obviously I am not going to claim that I am. :p
     

    Alxmrphi

    Senior Member
    UK English
    Better than fluent.... hmm I'm not sure if you can be really.

    "I'm fluent in English" means that you have native-like proficiency.
    For a CV I'd suggest "Excellent command of the English language", or if you wanted to extend it "Excellent command of both written and spoken English".
     
    Last edited:

    xqby

    Senior Member
    English (U.S.)
    I think fluency caps out at fluent. You could add qualifiers, as in "Fluent in English; published three articles in a peer-reviewed English-language journal" to prove that you are capable of communicating fluently at the highest level. Tacking on superlatives sounds insecure to me though.

    "Excellend command of both written and spoken English".
    I am pretty sure this falls under Muphry's Law.
     

    Gwan

    Senior Member
    New Zealand, English
    Even natives speak English to different levels of proficiency and vary in their command of orthography, vocabulary, grammar, style etc. etc. so I'm not sure I agree in principle that there is nothing better than 'fluent'. However, in practice I agree that 'fluent in English' and the other suggestions above should suffice for a CV.
     

    JamesM

    Senior Member
    I think fluency caps out at fluent. You could add qualifiers, as in "Fluent in English; published three articles in a peer-reviewed English-language journal" to prove that you are capable of communicating fluently at the highest level. Tacking on superlatives sounds insecure to me though.



    I am pretty sure this falls under Muphry's Law.
    (I think you meant "Murphy's Law". ;) Murphy strikes again. :) )

    I agree that fluency needs no qualifier and sounds a bit silly when you add one.

    (Just as a note to the original poster -- as someone has already pointed out, the question mark in English is written right next to the last letter in the question. It is one of the differences between French and English. A word to the wise? :) )
     

    Gwan

    Senior Member
    New Zealand, English
    I know, isn't it great! I only came across it a couple of weeks ago myself :)

    So even native speakers are always learning (<-- feeble attempt to return to the topic at hand :))
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top