How, on a resume, should I describe language level which is above what's commonly described as fluent, but it's not my native language?
It's a language I speak at home, and have been doing so for 10 years.
-
1@jcmeloni: not a duplicate, I've already look at it before posting question and it doesn't answer my question. – vartec Jun 21 '13 at 22:32
-
That's why it says "possible" duplicate. :) FWIW, if I were to answer this question in a general (e.g. not localized) way, my answer wouldn't be any different than my answer on the other one. – jcmeloni Jun 21 '13 at 23:03
-
What is above fluent? – thursdaysgeek Jun 21 '13 at 23:04
-
In other words, as a native English speaker, I would describe my proficiency in English as fluent. – thursdaysgeek Jun 21 '13 at 23:05
-
1Hi Vartec, I'm voting to close this as a duplicate to the linked question because I agree that the answer to this question can be found in there. "Fluent" is really the highest level that I know of for a language, and I would expect it to mean the person speaks the language as well as a native speaker, with the possible exception of some slang terms. If there is a term used for beyond fluent, I've never heard of it, and think that question would be more appropriate for English.SE than on The Workplace – Rachel Jun 22 '13 at 13:27
Personally, I consider "fluent" to be the top, and anything else to be "not fluent". I would caution against being too accurate/cute.
That said, something like "expert" might be unambiguous enough or "bi-lingual in X and Y" as being a clear indication that you are equally awesome at both.
-
1+1 for "bi-lingual". That's a good way of putting it if "fluent" is being misused a lot in your area of the world. – Rachel Jun 22 '13 at 14:25
-
Fair enough. The reason I had doubt about fluent is that it's abused by people who's level I'd describe as barely communicative. – vartec Jun 23 '13 at 18:18
