February 2026 Vol 8 Issue 2

Tell Your Story Newsletter

Teaching English to economic immigrants

and internationally educated, non-native speaking academics

Let us help you succeed in English!

Welcome Mid-February, 2026!

As I write this month’s issue of “Tell Your Story Newsletter” (TYSN), we are returning to arctic cold after two weeks of a greatly premature spring: unseasonable warmth and sunny days have made life feel lighter, except from occasions of freezing rain and the subsequent ice-laden sidewalks and roads that have challenged pedestrians and drivers.

At the mid-winter “mixer” of the Saskatoon chapter of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) that I thoroughly enjoyed on February 5th,  several wondered aloud about this atypical winter (i.e.”Didn’t February used to be the coldest month of the year?!”).

Others engaged in the other, rueful topic across our country–Canadians’ collective worry and rage about the hair-raising politician (“melon felon”) at the helm, south of the Canada/US border.

While not bracketing off these concerns, I discuss in “Article One” this month, I return to my English-as-a-Second Language services; one of most central issues to language learning and teaching is what we mean when we refer to “fluency.” Finnish scholar, Pauliina Peltonen, weighs in. What does “fluency” really involve and how can we teach it?

In “Storytellers’ Corner,” I share some nerdy jokes in English, some of which (I hope) may be new to you, good readers.

And in “Shop News,” I name some of the folk who make my freelance teaching and writing life supported and possible.

As we begin the third week of February, I wish for you, good readers, that you will continue to find meaning and purpose in your work; and that you’ll find the blessings that still grace our lives, even in these challenging times.

Happy mid-February!

Sincerely,

Elizabeth

Principal

Storytelling Communications

www.elizabethshih.com

+++++++++

IN THIS ISSUE:

 ARTICLE ONE: What does linguistic “fluency” mean? 

STORYTELLERS’ CORNER:  English language jokes 

SHOP NEWS

ABOUT US

+++++++++

Article One: What does linguistic “fluency” mean?

Those who teach and who study English-as-a-Second Language (or English-as-a-Foreign Language or English-as-an-Additional Language, as it’s sometimes called in Europe), we tend to think that the goal of such study is “fluency.”

And by that, we usually mean some version of “smooth and effortless speech” (Peltonen), or a general proficiency in a language (in a research tradition that dates to the 1970s and 80s).

But in a 2023 article called “Fluency Revisited,” Finnish English language specialist Pauliina Peltonen shares much wider and subtler connotations of what “fluency” involves and points to practices that we as language teachers can use, to help learners develop it.

More recent research into second language acquisition (SLA), a narrower sense of the term has developed that relates to “temporal aspects,” like the speed of the learner’s talking and how/whether they pause. Here, “fluency” is associated with a “natural,” relatively fast rate of speech, without frequent pauses as one develops one’s thoughts in words.

In 2010, one researcher posited a three-part concept of fluency, as measured by (1) “utterance fluency,” (2) cognitive fluency and (3) perceived fluency.  What are these and how might they help contemporary English language learners?

“Utterance fluency” is measured by the speed of one’s speech, breakdown (pausing) and repair (corrections). “Utterance fluency” is enabled by underlying cognitive processing that is fast and efficient, and called “cognitive fluency.”

“Cognitive fluency” forms the basis for listeners’ impressions that a speaker is fluent—i.e. “perceived fluency.”

These three distinctions are based on a concept of “fluency” that is individualistic and thought-based. Such theory tends to be judgmental, however, and blames the learner for their shortcomings in attaining “fluency.”

The 21st century has seen new ways of conceptualizing the term, as developing from interactional settings, as a social process and as a collaborative activity, rather than the sum of two people’s individual abilities.

This has been termed “interactional fluency,” evident in learners’ minimizing silences between their individual turns, collaboratively; and evident in how speakers create linkages across the turns they take, such as through body language and small gestures.

In contemporary times, Peltonen says that “fluency” is built through three themes that pertain to how we teach language and assess it, and how learners learn it: (1) there is fluency in interaction; (2) there is a continuum between fluency and disfluency (even native speakers slide into disfluency, depending on the speaking partner and subject matter); and (3) there is one’s first language speaking style that is a factor that can influence second language fluency.

Peltonen writes that the old pedagogical perception that separates “fluent” from “disfluent” speech is now seen as oversimplified. Some aspects of speech that have historically been classified as signs of “disfluency” are often strategies used by learners to secure time to think, to avoid long silences, and so, to serve fluency (e.g. repetitions, pauses filled by “uh,” “um,” and “you know,” etc.)

Therefore, contemporary researchers (including Peltonen) have established that there is a “continuum” between “fluency and disfluency.” Disfluencies can occur in one’s native language and not only in a second one. Speech doesn’t have to be “perfect,” or “without so-called disfluencies.”

This continuum has allowed more recent language researchers to identify that the speaking style of one’s native language can influence one’s fluency in a second language, instead of comparing second language learners to native speakers of English.

Researchers who take into account a speaker’s (native language) speaking style (formal, informal, academic, etc.) can customize individual learning goals and exercises for studying their second language.

Peltonen concludes by saying that there are three major realities that are important both to learners developing fluency, and to those who teach them: (1) both individual and interactional fluency develop in language teaching; (2) teachers and researchers should reconceptualize “disfluencies” as potentially fluency-maintaining strategies (an “um” is less important than the speaker’s overall comment that follows it); and (3) teachers and researchers should help to raise awareness of learners’ individual speaking styles to facilitate the development of their second language fluency.

How can learning strategies used by native speakers of Spanish, Mandarin, Hindi or Urdu (etc.) help to meet learners’ goals for English fluency? Learners may not achieve, for instance, a fully idiomatic speaking style; but they may develop more idiomatic competency alongside other factors toward fluency, so that they can be easily understood and integrated into their communities.

So if we are developing a more realistic set of ideas around “fluency,” how do we best teach or coach learners to get there?

Unless declined by a learner, I practice not starting language classes with grammar, but instead start with the practical task of reading aloud. I’m influenced in the pragmatic approach of my own mentors, Steve Cavan and Monica Kreuger; and by the Italian language coach (active on Linkedin), Teresa Lara Pugliese.

I’m in favour of a more capacious understanding of what “fluency” involves, since a language is never really learned by starting with traditional categories and rules (some of which international language testing systems use). Instead, as Teresa Pugliese writes, “[language] is learned by entering real, meaningful situations.”

Students are sometimes surprised when (during the first, “discovery” class) I ask about the contexts in which they live and work. They express curiosity about how we’ll proceed from there.

“In that space, between surprise and curiosity,” Pugliese says, “a language stops being a system of rules and becomes a living, usable experience.”

She wrote recently over Linkedin:

“Children do not learn through grammar. They live the language first; only later do they become aware of its structures. . . . With adults, the process is different, but not in the way we often assume. Full immersion, as in childhood, is rarely realistic; but that does not mean the adults I work with, need to accumulate, memorize or cite abstract rules.

Adults need functional, usable language. Language that allows adults to act in real contexts; to take part in meetings, to handle professional conversations, to move confidently within a cultural environment.

And to do that, language alone is not enough. Learners equally need to have cultural understanding”  (Pugliese).

This is where I too focus my teaching. I draw on the actual personal and professional situations that challenge learners. After I learn about the settings they work and live in, I guide learners to communicate effectively in them.

When contexts are clear, we can purposefully focus on grammar, style of speaking and pronunciation that underpin what they already know they need to express.

Like Pugliese, I find that no two learning paths (classes or meetings) I cultivate with and for my learners are ever the same.

And that’s how it should be.

If you are a language learner, does this strategy sound more clearly applicable to your language learning needs?

And do you agree with a more spacious and flexible view of fluency in either your native or additional language?

If you’re an economic immigrant or second-language academic who struggles with English, please message me to learn how I can help you achieve practical fluency that will meet your goals! 

++++++++

STORYTELLER’S CORNER: Words, Stories, Riddles

and Jokes on Writing and Editing . . .

This month: twenty-five English language jokes

From “@weareteachers,” some laughter to lighten the “cognitive load” you’re carrying:

(1)   “Your dinner” vs. “You’re dinner.” One leaves you nourished; the other leaves you dead.

(2)   A misplaced modifier walks into a bar owned by a man with a glass eye named Ralph.

(3)   Last night, someone broke into my classroom and stole all of the dictionaries. I’m at a loss for words.

(4)   The passive voice is to be avoided.

(5)   Double negatives are a big no-no.

(6)   Eight vowels, 11 consonants, an exclamation point and a comma appeared in court today. They are due to be sentenced next week.

(7)   Irony is when someone writes, “Your an idiot!”

(8)   I gave a theatrical performance about puns—it was really just a play on words.

(9)   Never leave alphabet soup on the stove when you go out: it could spell disaster!

(10)   Autocorrect has become many writers’ worst enema.

(11)   I avoid cliches like the plague.

(12)   Thanks for explaining the definition of “many.” It means a lot.

(13)   I wrote a song about tortillas. It’s a wrap.

(14)   When two English majors got married, the pastor said, “I now pronouns you, he and she.”

(15)   He was a surgeon with bad punctuation. He got fired for leaving out a colon.

(16)   Seven days without a pun makes one weak.

(17) Every time you make a typo, the errorists win.

(18) The past, present and future walked into a bar. It was tense.

(19) It’s raining cats and dogs out there and I just stepped in a poodle!

(20) Why are so many people bothered by grammatical errors? I couldn’t care fewer!

(21) English is a trying language to learn. It can be understood through tough, thorough thoughts, though.

(22) A mixed metaphor walks into a bar, seeing the handwriting on the wall but hoping to nip it in the bud.

(23) “Let’s eat grandma!” “Let’s eat, Grandma!” Punctuation saves lives.

(24) “I” before “e,” except when you run a feisty heist on a weird, beige, foreign neighbour.

(25) “I like cooking my family and pets.” Commas matter.

Do you have a story, riddle or joke on any aspect of the English language? Please share it with me; I’d be delighted to use it in an upcoming issue. 

+++++++

The “shop” has felt somewhat quieter this month, since the glow of December’s “holiday scene” has long gone dark. But my sometimes solitary days of work have been happily punctuated by new students, and by visits with (and messages) from fellow creatives (writers, editors, designers, photographers). The latter were featured in the first official meeting of my nearly 15-year-old writers’ group, under the new name of “Saskatoon small business group.” We are currently and very ably led by Ashleigh Mattern.

Special thanks (in no particular order) to the new students I’m teaching/ coaching and learning from; and to local editor, Dawn Loewen; communications director, Aasa Marshall; fundraising communications expert, Richard Kies;  photographers, Debra Marshall and Tara Kalyn; entrepreneurial and governance leader and director, Monica Kreuger; China-Canada trade and business expert, William Wang; the U of S International Medical Graduates’ Support Program coordinator, Leah Buschmann, and administrative coordinator, Carlie Russell; and IT “whisperer,” Jordon MacKenzie.

And in my wider community of friends (with whom I keep “fluent”) — Erin Watson, Nial Willems, Beth Brimner, Sharon Wiseman, Rev. Roberto and Heather De Sandoli, Laura Van Loon, Martha Fergusson, Barbara McEown, Fafali Ahiahonu, Janet Okoko and Trung Nguyen.

Long-distance friends (now in BC) are Christel Jordaan-Schlebusch and Dewald Schlebusch. (Apologies to any I may have missed!)

+++++++

There are always other writers, editors, coaches, entrepreneurs, businesses and programs to promote in Saskatchewan.

Please  write me to share your stories . . . . 

But for now, this is a wrap for mid-February!

+++++++

The legendary B2B Copywriter, Bob Bly (whom I was delighted to meet in the US in 2012), recently blogged on the topic, “Is training AI to write like you a fool’s errand?”

Bly is a lifelong writer, so, he objects (first) that he would never outsource his craft at all, much less to a force whose processes he does not know. (“Why would I want to use ChatGPT . . . when I both enjoy [writing] immensely and do it reasonably well?”). He quotes the writer, Ben Settle, as saying, “The joy of writing is not in speed or style . . . it is in the bleeding, constant rewriting, and burgeoning floodgates of thoughts that can only come from battling the blank page.”

Secondly, Bly says, some marketers and communication-types argue that AI can “take care of the grunt work.”

Bly argues that “writing is not grunt work.” That “Human writing is anything but. . . Essentially, the core of writing is thinking.” And he quotes Plato: “Thinking is the talking of the soul with itself.” Do we really want to give up the fundamentally human processes of thinking and feeling?

True “grunt work,” Bly writes, inheres in prompting and “fixing up” bad ChatGPT prose!

Last year, in conversation with (the brilliant) English copywriter, Nick Usborne, in his “Futureproof Copywriting” course, learners (including me) felt happiest when AI would perform “grunt” background work for us (e.g. researching and retrieving sources, critiquing weak areas in our drafts.) But each of us still absolutely wanted to stay in the driver’s seat of our own writing. We aspired to be “the human in the loop.” One year later, that plan rings utterly naïve.

Copywriters have very little control over how (and how much) they use AI.  Our clients or clients’ companies, including the investors and political players that control them, dictate that.

Thirdly, Bly observes, in his response to the current wave of heavy AI use, few AI writers actually make real money with AI (even under the Amazon book-generating industry). Most of the marketers in this area make money “by creating, teaching and selling ‘how to write with AI’ courses.”

Fourthly, he rejects that anyone should “get AI to write like [they] do.” He says: “I have no desire to train AI to write like me, because I already write like me . . . and have spent 45+ years learning how to do so.” One of Bly’s colleagues observes that “the funny thing about even trying to use AI to do this,  is you will spend more time trying to get AI to do anything right, style-wise, than you would writing the damn thing yourself.”

Even if you can speed up copy generation, “when you’re done, you will find that AI doesn’t write all that well—and doesn’t sound much like you, either.”

Writers who use AI extensively are spending “more time than ever . . . and publishing LESS,” one of Bly’s colleagues has complained to him.

Instead of reckoning with a blank page or screen (something long ago overcome by making “mind-maps” [as writers Ed Gandia and Daphne Gray-Grant have long lauded]), “now [writers] stare at ChatGPT output, wondering how to fix it.”

Fifthly, Bly reminds us that many readers and publishers don’t want to read AI writing. More and more mainstream book publishers are rejecting books that they suspect were written using AI. (The sad dispute over whether writers use em-dashes points to mainstream publishers’ anxieties over AI use.)

Sixthly (and finally, for this round of the AI debate), Bly disputes that AI’s “speed” outpaces its “performance.” Many AI training courses promote how to learn “to use AI to write your book for you in days.” But he intones this logic shows sadly that “what matters most today is how fast you can write rather than how well you can write” (my emphasis).

Bly acknowledges that in many genres and media (such as daily newspapers), writing quickly is valuable when tight and “frequent deadlines” are required. But, he adds, “in other channels and types of writing, quality trumps speed every time.” In Bly’s homegrown territory of copywriting, he says, “clients value landing pages that double revenues much more than those that could be written in half the time, but [which] hardly move the sales needle.”

Now, AI enthusiasts might be tempted to label Bly a curmudgeon and traditionalist. But after earning millions of dollars over more than 40 years of copywriting (including over 100 books on topics including copywriting, all written by himself, and none by AI), we should not dismiss his rebuttal too fast.

As the “Godfather of AI,” Geoffrey Hinton, argued (when accepting the Nobel Prize two months ago today), many of us have become anxious because danger inheres in our building AI that are smarter than we are—and not only in our writing. The manipulation of supra-human technology is easily attained by authoritarian rulers and governments (e.g. the US, Russia, China, North Korea and more). Such regimes can and will–if unbridled–bring the annihilation of any humanity with values and decency.

So “training AI to write like you” is not only a “fool’s errand,” as Bob Bly writes. Training AI to write in place of us (implied in the question)—is to usurp our legitimate space in the creative processes of reading, thinking and writing. Such an overthrow allows AI to outsmart us—it is already doing so (and faster than ever before).

Given the state of our world in the 21^st century, that’s not only a “fool’s errand” but a fool’s demise.

Since the “cat is already out of the bag” in this reality, it behoves us creatives to lament all that can be (and is being) lost, before the loss overtakes us all.

And now it’s your turn: what are the implications of the ways you use AI? How do you picture the future of humanity in an AI world?