THE CHARACTERISTICS OF JAPANESE which should influence the design of
a Japanese course for English-speaking students
The Dominant Role of Verbs and Adjectives
Unlike their counterparts in European languages, Japanese verbs and adjectives
have much in common with each other. Verbs also function as adjectives,
while adjectives incorporate the verb "to be" and inflect like verbs.
Most importantly, whereas European languages link ideas or sentences using
words (conjunctions/relative pronouns) specifically for that purpose, in
Japanese, the linking of ideas more naturally depends on inflections to verbs
and adjectives.
Instead of using this last function, the first linkages typically taught
to students of Japanese are those using [soshite] and [ga] which can be used
between two clauses in the same way as "and" and "but" in English.
In Japanese, by far the most natural and common way to join two sentences
related in the way which would be expressed by "and" is to modify the verb
or adjective at the end of the first clause. e.g.
machi ni itte kaimono shita.
I went to town and did some shopping.
The link between the two Japanese sentences is made by using the " -te form"
of the Japanese verb [iku] meaning "to go", but while this method of linking
the two ideas would have to be considered by far the most natural, inevitably
what students are first taught is: e.g.
machi ni ikimashita soshite kaimono o shimashita.
in which construction the function of “soshite” coincides neatly with that
of "and". The "-te form" of adjectives is used the same way and frequently
also carries the additional implication of a reason or cause for what is
said in the second clause. e.g.
yasukute yokatta ne.
It was good because (or that) it was cheap
wasn't it?
atsukute neraremasen deshita.
It was hot and I couldn't sleep. I could not
sleep because it was hot.
Not to teach the most common and natural link first, creates a habit which
many student have difficulty in breaking, but moreover, it creates the impression
that sentence linking is basically arried out in the same way as in European
languages. I believe the creation of this impression is an unnecessary
impediment to subsequent progress.
2 THE LAZINESS OF JAPANESE NOUNS
In European languages, nouns may be singular or plural or quantitative or
collective, masculine or feminine or neuter or common, and may inflect depending
on whether they are subject, object, lenitive etc. On top of that they may
require adjectives and verbs to agree with them.
When teaching or learning a European language therefore, it seems reasonable
that a main focus of attention in the early stage is on nouns. The
result is the archetypal "That is the pen of my aunt."
Japanese courses start in exactly the same way and I question the wisdom
of this for many reasons:
- Japanese nouns do not inflect for gender nor for number nor for case.
- They do not influence the form of the verb or adjective.
- Nouns, especially in the subject and object position, are naturally
omitted when previous reference to them has occurred, and there is little
possibility of misunderstanding. For example, in Japanese, the statement:
"I will give this to you." requires only one word, the verb. The three
nouns "I" "this" "you" are often clearly unnecessary. In English, for
example, it is not generally possible to omit the subject of the sentence,
nor the object either if the verb has one. In Japanese it is natural
to do so and often unnatural not to. But most students have great difficulty
in being Japanese and laboriously repeat nouns, especially personal pronouns,
when the Japanese is so much briefer and more efficient in this respect.
I believe the noun-oriented initial introduction to the language carries
a major responsibility for the difficulty students have in adapting to this
characteristic of Japanese.
- The most compelling reason to my mind for a change in approach also
involves nouns. The use of nouns requires the use of particles which
indicate, amongst other things, the relationship of the nouns they follow,
to the verb or to the sentence as a whole. This relationship may be
syntactical. For example, the subject or object of the verb will be indicated
by the appropriate particle, but their use is certainly more complex than
that.
The choice of particle to follow a particular noun also involves a judgment
of context akin to the decision as to whether to use the definite or indefinite
article or neither, in European languages.
As if this were not enough, one of the particles, “wa” can be used several
times in one sentence to give nouns either one of two categories both of
which are quite different from any syntactical function typical of European
languages. The Japanese word followed by “wa” will, in the equivalent
English expression, have a specific grammatical role. It may be subject
or object, or be part of an adverbial phrase expressing time, for example.
But the effect of using a noun with “wa” is precisely to isolate it from
any specific grammatical relationship with the rest of the sentence, in a
way that, though not totally impossible in English, requires considerable
imagination, or possibly bad grammar to find a rough equivalent.
To complicate the matter further, “wa” is frequently used in the same sentence
more than once and with two different functions, a difference which is typically
ignored, or at best blurred in Japanese courses for foreigners. “wa”
is used to imply a contrast between like matters or things in such situations
as would require vocal stress in English to make the same implication.
For this reason, text books frequently explain the use of “wa” by saying
it indicates that a particular noun is to be stressed. But in the other
use of “wa”, namely to indicate what is called the “shudai” in Japanese,
it is quite wrong to say that the particular word is to be stressed.
Quite the opposite would be a correct explanation. The following examples
will illustrate what has been said in this paragraph.
e.g. watashi wa atama ga itai.
The noun followed by [wa] in an equivalent English sentence, may be either
a possessive adjective, as in: "My head hurts." Or, it could be a pronoun
subject as in: "I have a headache."
In ano hito wa benkyo ga suki desu similarly, the noun before
“wa” will be the subject of the English, "He likes studying." but, in both
cases the Japanese subject is the word followed by the particle “ga” not
the one followed by “wa.”
In the following, “wa” occurs more than once in the same sentence and
in each case the later “wa” indicate that a contrast is being made.
e.g.
watakushi wa sake wa nomimasuga tabako
wa suimasen,
I drink but I don't smoke.
The first “shudai” has again become the English subject, while the nouns
attached to the following “wa” have become absorbed into the English verbs.
If one somewhat unnaturally forced them back into the English however, both
of them would become English objects: I drink alcohol, but I don't smoke
cigarettes.
However the role of “wa” is not ever to indicate any particular case, and
in the above, the later “wa” indicate that a contrast is being made or implied
between similar things or situations.
In the following examples, the underlined “wa” indicates a “non-contrastive
shudai”, the last “wa” indicates something is being contrasted with a similar
item, while the “wa” in the middle could be treated either way depending
on context.
e.g.
watakushi wa ashita wa asoko e wa ikanai.
Tomorrow, I won't go there. (But I will go somewhere else.)
watakushi wa asoko e wa ashita wa ikanai
I won't go there tomorrow. (But I will go there on another
day.)
The roles of the “wa” phrases in the above, are partly fulfilled by the English
subject, by adverbial phrases of time, and by adverbial phrases of place.
But in addition, when “wa” carries the implication of contrast the
English adds vocal stress to the word in italics. It can not be said
that it is always clear whether a particular “wa” is indicating a contrast.
However, when there is more than one “wa” in the same sentence a “wa” at
the beginning of the sentence will indicate a non-contrastive “shudai”, while
the later a “wa” comes in a sentence, the more clearly is it a contrastive
“wa”.
The purpose of the above examples is not in fact to confuse the reader but
to show how great is the potential for confusion if the particles are introduced
too early, as I consider they generally are. The student's chances
of properly understanding the use of the particles are further reduced by
the practice of choosing to introduce from the first lessons, sentence patterns
based on the
{noun+[wa]+verb} structure,
followed shortly after by the introduction of the grammatical object in the
{noun+[wa]+ object+[o]+verb} pattern.
Inevitably, in the sentences chosen to be presented first to the student,
the Japanese noun followed by “wa” turns out to be the subject of the English
sentence given as its equivalent. I have even seen “wa” introduced
as actually indicating the subject. I quote: "“wa” = a particle indicating
the subject of the sentence, combines with the preceding word to form the
subject of the sentence." But even without misleading instructions,
the association of “wa” with the subject is quickly formed, especially by
those students who actually know that sentences have subjects. Then,
the next particle introduced, “o”, is the proper particle to indicate the
Japanese object, and the wrong association of “wa” with the grammatical subject
is mentally confirmed.
When subsequently, the subject particle “ga” is introduced, the student feels
the carpet has been pulled out from under this very neat arrangement and
the resulting confusion is at best a significant set back to progress in
becoming proficient in Japanese, but for many, the particles are doomed to
remain an unfathomable mystery, confirmation of the myth that the Japanese
are anyway, inscrutable so it is not surprising if their language is ineffable.
However one presents them, the particles are a difficult challenge for both
teacher and student. Nevertheless, I think that the typical confusion in
the minds of those learning Japanese, is to a considerable extent created
by the method of presentation. It is my conviction that a better way
exists.
In English and some other European languages one can not normally avoid using
nouns in forming a sentence. If Japanese were the same, one would be
forced to expose the complete beginner to the use of particles. But,
by good fortune or a benevolent whim of the god of language, it is not only
possible, but for the reasons already explained, I think it is better to
begin Japanese by avoiding the use of nouns in the subject, object or topic
positions. Instead, by concentrating on the functions of verbs and
adjectives one avoids the need to introduce the particles until such time
as the student has the skills to make it possible to introduce the three
particles “ga” “o” “wa” simultaneously, and to introduce them in "sentence
pairs" which clearly illustrate the difference between the use of @"o" as
against “wa”, or of “ga” as against “wa”.
I find it effective, if from the beginning the student can realize that grammatically
speaking, if the object particle “o” is correct in a particular sentence,
then "wa" also is possible. Similarly, if “ga” is correct because the
word preceding it is the subject, then it too can be replaced by “wa”.
It should be made clear to the student that the choice between “o” and “wa”
or between “ga” and “wa” is not a matter of right and wrong in terms of grammar,
but is based on a decision requiring a judgment about the context or situation.
In English the same thing could be said of the choice between: "I bit the
dog." and "I bit a dog."
In summary, considering the frequency with which “wa” appears in Japanese,
the cavalier manner in which its use is generally explained, ignored, or
its separate functions blurred, seems to me a remarkable phenomenon, only
partly explainable by the fact that the Japanese themselves, expert and lay
alike, are far from agreement as to how to define just what “wa” properly
does. It is my contention, however, that even if it were explained
with great care and detail, the explanation would make little sense to the
student in the very first lessons in Japanese where “wa” has always been
introduced, because the student simply does not yet have the equipment in
the language to handle the contrasts and contextual implications which the
use or non-use of “wa” carries.
3. THE PRESENTATION OF VERBS
Where European languages are concerned, it is merely a matter of course that
verbs are referred to, presented and learned in their infinitive. It
would be inconceivable to do otherwise, as it is from the form of the infinitive
that one identifies the verb according to its class so that the student knows
how it is conjugated into its various tenses and moods. Furthermore,
it is in its infinitive form that any verb will appear in a dictionary.
Japanese verbs also have classes and conjugate in the regular pattern of
the class to which they belong. Although they don't strictly have an
infinitive with the same functions as say French, German or English, they
do have finite forms called "shushi" (pronounced shuushi) and the present
tense of this is identical to the form which appears in dictionaries, and
according to which, its type, and therefore its pattern of inflection can
be known.
This form can be referred to as "the dictionary form" or jishokei
or genkei.
The "shushi" is a finite form of the verb and is the form most commonly
used to end a sentence when a degree of formality is not required.
Each tense of a Japanese verb, both positive and negative has two forms,
"plain" or "dearu-cho" and "formal" or "desu/masu-cho."
e.g.
iku and ikimasu,
ikanai and ikimasen,
itta and ikimashita
ikanakatta and ikimasen deshita.
(The latter in each case being the "desu/masu-cho" which is used only in
more formal situations.)
The meaning of the dearu-cho or "plain form" is not different from the desu/masu-cho
or "formal form, but the decision to use one or the other implies something
about the relationship of the speaker to those being spoken to. A whole
sentence will be formal if the final verb is in the desu/masu-cho,
even if subordinate verbs inside the sentence are not in the desu/masu-cho.
The form which appears in a dictionary is in appearance the same as the present
tense of the "shuushi" or the "de-aru-cho" though its name is different (viz.
"jishokei" or "genkei." In spite of the fact that this form of Japanese verbs
exists and functions as the identifying or basic form of the verb in the
same way as does the infinitive of European verbs, and in spite of the fact
that the various forms other than the desu/masu-cho have a multitude of uses
in structuring sentences, and that their use far outnumbers that of desu/masu-cho,
the practice persists of introducing and referring to verbs by their "formal
present" or desu/masu-cho.
(By the way, "da" and alternatively "de aru" are the dearu-cho of the verb
"to be" which you have probably learned already as "desu." In written Japanese,
"de aru," "de atta" are more common sentence endings than
"da" "datta." You may already have learned the negative of "da" namely,
"dewa arimasen " or jya arimasen," or "jya nai." In other words, the "-te
form" of "da" combined with the verb "aru" is a very common alternative to
the verb "da" by itself.)
I have been suggesting till now that Japanese courses have followed a method
of presentation based on that which is common in European second language
teaching, but that this is basically inappropriate for Japanese. It
seems ironic therefore, that in the one area where it would have been totally
appropriate to have followed European practice, the peculiar convention of
presenting verbs in the "formal present" was chosen and has persisted.
This would be somewhat akin to referring to verbs in European languages by,
for example, the third person singular of the present tense while at the
same time refusing to tell the student the infinitive with which the might
classify the verb and find it in a dictionary. The most common complaint
of students who have learned Japanese formally and then find themselves in
Japan, is that the Japanese they hear and read in Japan, is based on the
"plain forms" and seems like a different language from the one they have
learned, and they feel they have to learn it all over again.
It may be have been that the convention of presenting and using verbs in
the formal form, arose out of the strong desire to present the best "face"
to the outside world. I would also admit that there is often something
distasteful when one hears foreigners of any breed speaking one's own language
with slang or with an inappropriate degree of informality, especially if
the speaker's real language ability is not such that he can distinguish between
what is and is not suitable. But even if such cultural sensitivity
had been the reason, and I can think of no other, the continued concentration
on the use of the formal form of the verb can hardly be justified on the
same grounds now that Japan and the West are consciously trying to learn
and accept the realities about each other.
From the point of view of language teaching, the convention of presenting
verbs in the formal form, and of using them initially only in those forms,
seems to make little sense. Japanese children don't learn verbs that
way. The desu/masu form" is relatively much less useful and much less
used than other verb forms, and even if one needs to be formal, only the
last verb in the sentence will be in the desu/masu form. It is easy
to learn the desu/ masu or formal form of the verb as part of the overall
pattern of changes based on the natural starting point, the jishokei or dictionary
form. On the other hand it makes no sense to start from an isolated
corner of that pattern. We would not consider doing it with French,
German or Spanish verbs, and in the Japanese education system, verbs are
taught from the "jishokei" as a matter of course. It is common sense,
and there are clear advantages to the foreign student of Japanese to have
verbs presented not just as an isolated word, but as a pattern based on the
"Dictionary Form".
This, in a nutshell, is starting point of "Understanding Japanese Verbs &
Adjectives," and from this starting point also, the other important features
of the course develop in a way that I believe is logical and consistent.
THE FEATURES OF "Understanding Japanese Verbs & Adjectives"
This way of teaching and learning has two main goals, the earliest possible
understanding of and ability to use complex sentence structures, and the
earliest possible independence of the learner from teachers and texts.
In my experience, many who decide to learn Japanese do so, not because it
is a compulsory or a traditional subject, but because they have a motive
and plans to use the language. However, it is very frustrating to communicate
in philosophical "monosyllables" joined, if at all, by "and" or "but".
Nevertheless this is how the student of Japanese typically finds him or herself
constrained because the necessary skills come in dribs and drabs and often
very late in the learning process. This course is designed in the belief
that there is no particular reason why the normal order can not be reversed
so that the student first learns how to construct relatively complex sentences,
and decides for him or herself on the vocabulary that will be useful to express
what is of interest or what circumstances demand.
(1) "Understanding Japanese Verbs & Adjectives,"
starts with the aim of developing the ability to manipulate verbs and adjectives.
In the process the student quickly learns to link ideas into complex sentences
in a way, using the appropriate forms of verbs and adjectives.
(2) It begins by introducing verbs in the form which is
the equivalent of the infinitive of European language studies. It is
variously called: "genkei", "jishokei," or "dictionary form".
(3) From the "Dictionary Form" of the verb, the student
must first learn to classify all verbs into types, [ichidan] or "1-row verbs",
[godan] or "5-row verbs" etc. Then, using the patterns typical
of each type, the student learns from the beginning to conjugate or
change verbs into forms and tenses that other courses do not introduce until
later and in many cases, very much later. After the verb types are
introduced, adjectives are presented in the same manner. With the knowledge
thus acquired, a wide variety of satisfying forms of expression can
already be constructed. The student can expect to attain early mastery
of sentence-linking skills which are typically Japanese, which do not use
conjunctions as European languages do, and which avoid the "Europeanization"
of Japanese typical of language courses in their initial stages.
(4) The first exercises train the student in how to return
to the "Dictionary Form" from any form of the verb. As the inflections
of adjectives follow similar patterns to that of verbs, the student thus
develops the skill needed to find any verb or adjective in a dictionary,
regardless of the form in which it may have appeared in a context.
This skill which we would take for granted in European languages is not available
to students learning Japanese under current methods.
(5) "Understanding Japanese Verbs & Adjectives," does
not start with such sentence patterns typified by: "What is this?", "That
is a pen.", "What did you buy?", "I bought a book."
This approach emphasizes nouns, subjects, objects and complements.
When nouns are used with these functions in Japanese, they must be followed
by particles. The correct use of particles is difficult to grasp at
any stage, but the possibility of understanding is much greater if
the use of particles is delayed until the student has the language
ability to interchange and compare their use. Moreover, by initially
avoiding the use of nouns in subject/object positions, in
addition to avoiding the need to use and explain the particles, "Understanding
Japanese Verbs & Adjectives" accustoms the student from the beginning
to the natural Japanese tendency to do the same, namely,
not to mention the subject/object/shudai unless understanding requires it.
(6) "Understanding Japanese Verbs & Adjectives" does
not require of the student a heavy load of vocabulary learning. On
the contrary, it keeps vocabulary to a minimum. Instead, the focus
is on the goal of the earliest possible mastery of sentence construction
and sentence-linking skills. Relatively "advanced" sentence patterns
and the verb forms that make them possible are introduced at the beginning,
whereas the same forms typically may not appear until after some months or
even years of study. The policy of minimizing the vocabulary learning
requirement should not be taken to imply that this is considered unimportant,
merely that is distracts from the defined goals of this course, and that
the learner should take more responsibility for choices in this respect.
(7) Vocabulary acquisition for most students requires
effort and memorization. Memorization is quicker if the words are relevant
to the student's interests. The author of a Japanese course will feed
in new vocabulary at times and rates judged by that author to be appropriate,
and the course has to be confined to using only what has been introduced,
a task complicated vastly by the role played by Kanji. But no course
can please all of its students all the time in its choice of vocabulary.
This is especially so when, for example, an American text is used in another
English-speaking country where both custom and forms of expression are different.
Plain annoyance and resistance to learning can in fact be created by an author's
decisions in regard to the introduction of vocabulary.
I believe there is much to be gained by off-loading the task and choice of
vocabulary acquisition on to the student, or onto those teaching in a particular
linguistic and cultural climate. Japanese nouns are easy to look up
in a Japanese-English dictionary. Japanese nouns are very lazy.
They have no inflections for singular, plural, or for case, they have no
gender. They just sit where they are put. But on the other hand,
Japanese verbs and adjectives inflect and so finding them in a dictionary
requires skill. It is precisely this skill which Japanese courses traditionally
have not provided at least until very late, because they "drip feed" the
inflections of verbs and adjectives into students over a long period.
"Understanding Japanese Verbs & Adjectives" starts with an overview of
the patterns of verbal and adjectival inflections and aims to give the student
the skills necessary for the task of acquiring independently the vocabulary
that is useful to him or her.
(8) The minimal vocabulary required for "Understanding
Japanese Verbs & Adjectives" makes it compatible with other Japanese
courses. While the aim of this course is to give the student a different
kind of start with emphasis on Japanese sentence structure, this still leaves
a lot to learn about what to put into that structure. For this purpose,
I highly recommend as a companion text, and frequently refer the student
to, "A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar", by Seiichi Makino and Michiko
Tsutsui (Japan Times). I recommend this text not just because of its
contents, but because of its lay-out as a dictionary. In other words,
the student does not begin at Lesson 1 and proceed lesson by lesson, but
refers to it according to the topic needing clarification, thus providing
exactly the scope for self-motivation and flexibility compatible with "Understanding
Japanese Verbs & Adjectives".
(9) "Understanding Japanese Verbs & Adjectives" can
only be followed in the Japanese script. If the student does not yet
know hiragana and katakana, the Japanese phonetic scripts, the author has
produced "WATCH, READ & WRITE - a Video Kana Course," which
shows how the two phonetic scripts were developed, how they are written and
how they are used in combination with kanji (the borrowed Chinese characters)
in modern Japanese.
Source:
“Understanding Japanese Verbs & Adjectives”
Paul Knight (JapanEd) May 2002
ISBN 0-473-08509-7