If you're fluent in a language do you have to read and write the language as well as speak it?

Answer 1

yes you have to understand all aspects of the language in order to be considered fluent- reading, writing, listening and speaking. if you can only speak the language you can say you have conversational spanish, rather than being fluent

Answer 2

No, you don't. Fluency has to do with Communication and how easy it is in making that communication. Merriam Webster Online defines Fluent as 2 a : capable of using a language easily and accurately.
Now, I'm going to show you that you can be fluent and not know how to read or write in a language. Also, one can be fluent without knowing how to speak it as well, but that's the rarer case.

Firstly, written language hasn't existed forever. There isn't a writing system, yes there is still a language, would you say that the speakers of said language weren't fluent? I'd say they were.
Secondly, until the last 3 centuries or so, I would say a majority couldn't read or write at all (there are still people have have problems with that even now). If you can't read and write, yet you understand, does that mean you aren't fluent? I would say you are fluent.
Thirdly, many languages until the last 100 years or so, with the big boom of Anthropology didn't even have written forms. Are the people who speak these languages not fluent of their own language? I would say they are, even though they don't even HAVE a system to read or write.
Fourthly, Some languages still don't have a written form, per se. Look at Sign Languages, they don't have a written form as we know it, they use our language for that. It's something to consider.
Lastly, what about acient languages such as Anglo-Saxon, Latin, Ancient Greek, Ancient Egyptian, Indo-European, and others, which are all dead languages, yet people can read them fluently. Now some people have "pronounciation" for but most of that is based on theories, and I bet that some are even wrong in some points. The biggest example is Latin. The church speaks a form of Latin, I call Church Latin, which is basically Italian based Latin. That is it's Latin pronounced as if it were Italian. Then there is Classical Latin, which has different forms, and of course vulgarisms. There other note on that is that the written language was probably more strictly written than the spoken language....so how much can we be sure? Now we have lots of scources about it, and we get a good idea, but remember language always changes. Nevertheless, many people claim to be fluent in those languages, but can only read (and maybe write) them...

So to answer your question on whether you HAVE to read and write a language to be fluent in it, no. Now for languages that are used commonly and you want to be really fluent in it, it certainly helps, and in fact it's not that hard once you get the patterns, however, like I said, you don't HAVE to. Remember What you're asking, there is a difference between the term Fluent as it is defined, and how it is truely perceived. If it is perceived as to having to have literacy, then that's how they will respond.

Answer 3

Generally if someone said they were fluent in a language, it would be understood that the person could speak, read, write, and listen to the language with general ease.
If the person can't read and write the language but can speak and listen to the language, it would be clearer to distinguish that he or she is fluent in the spoken language but not fluent in the writing system, or vice versa.

Answer 4

If you're fluent in a language you don't have to read and write the language as well as speak it.

There are lots of native speakers fluent in a language, but don't know how to write or read. They can speak the language only.

But, if you are a student you have to read and write as well as speak it.

Answer 5

No.

Most language tests, including those given by the United States government and the military, separate spoken fluency from fluency in reading and writing.

The test of fluency is whether or not you can communicate in that language. It is definitely possible to be able to communicate well orally, yet not be proficient at writing, for example. Generally, based on personal experience and without any sources or other reason for saying so, I think spoken fluency generally comes first, then reading, then writing.

Ideally, I think you should try to be fluent in all three.

Answer 6

Despite Timothy's long answer I agree with the previous posts, in our modern world where people are expected to be literate fluent means you can speak, read and write fluently. If you are only fluent in spoken language you have to say so.
As for fluent in written language only it can happen when people have been taught in schools where spoken skills are considered much less important than rules and writing.

Answer 7

According to the dictionary, fluent means to express oneself readily and effortlessly.

That does not infer in which form, so in my opinion I would have to say that in order to be "fluent" in any language it would require that you speak, read and write "readily and effortlessly".

Answer 8

you dont have to but it would be nice to read and write as well as speak the language

Answer 9

If you don't, you still will be fluent in spoken language,
but, alas, illiterate, too...not much glory in it.

Answer 10

Yes.