+- kanji koohii FORUM (http://forum.koohii.com)
+-- Forum: Learning Japanese (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Japanese language (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-10.html)
+--- Thread: Subordinate Clauses (/thread-13469.html)
Subordinate Clauses - LarsSoderbergh - 2015-12-17
Hello all,
I'm new to both this community and forums generally, so I apologize if this thread/ the question it poses are redundant. I've recently finished Genki 2 and have proceeded to Tobira, managing to cross the gap fairly gracefully. One thing I'm hung up on is subordinate clauses, specifically whether their modification of a noun is restricted to the equivalent of the English "that", or whether it can also function as the equivalent of "in/by which". For instance, a sentence in Tobira: これは、相手の気持ちを大切にする日本人の考え方が日本語に表れている表現のーつです
If one can only use the subordinate clause to modify a noun as "that", then the sentence reads something like (to me, and I may be missing something totally obvious haha) "as for this, the manner of thinking of Japanese people, who value the good feelings of their speech partner, is one of the expressions that appear in the Japanese language". The subject becomes "the manner of thinking of Japanese people" which can't, to my mind, itself be an "expression". If, however, subordinate clauses can modify the noun (in this case 表現) as "in which/ by which" the topic marked with "は" becomes the implicit subject, generating the much more logical reading "as for this (the conversational use of 「...」), it is one of the expressions by which the manner of thinking of Japanese people that places a high value on the feelings of their speaking partners appears in the Japanese language."
Is my inference regarding the extension of subordinate clauses to modify a noun like "as/by which" correct? Am I just misreading the passage/ making it more complicated than it actually is? Any insights, feedback, or mentions of similar encounters with confusing subordinate clauses would be greatly appreciated
Thanks all!
RE: Subordinate Clauses - pm215 - 2015-12-17
Firstly, you're right that in this sentence 表現 is being modified by the entire clause 相手の気持ちを大切にする日本人の考え方が日本語に表れている. I'm not sure that trying to think in terms of the functions of English "that" is very useful here, but there are two different kinds of relative clause which the Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar distinguishes:
(1) relative clauses where the 'head noun' would be a part of the "standalone" sentence that was clause-ified to combine with the main one. For instance in ジョンが食べたステーキ the head noun is ステーキ and that is the direct object in the standalone sentence "ジョンがステーキを食べた . (This corresponds neatly to the English "the steak that Jon ate" which derives from "Jon ate the steak" in a similar way.)
(2) relative clauses where the 'head noun' was not a part of the "standalone sentence". An example DoBJG gives is 魚が焦げるにおい ["the smell of burning fish"], where the "standalone sentence is just "魚が焦げる".
About (2) they say: "The relationship between the 'relative clause' and the 'head noun' is as follows: suppose that X is the 'head noun'. Then, X is something which was brought about by the event expressed in the 'relative clause', but is not something which was explicitly stated. For example, the 'head noun' /nioi/ is something brought about when fish burns, but is not an explicit part of the original sentence."
Your example is a type (2) I think, but notice that it's not a 'by which' kind of relationship, though a naturalistic English translation might end up paraphrasing it something like that.
If you like grammatical explanations of things (as opposed to just winging it) then I recommend the Dictionary of Basic/Intermediate/Advanced Japanese Grammar books as reference material.
RE: Subordinate Clauses - bertoni - 2015-12-17
I am not completely sure what you are asking, but, for example, 相手の could in theory be modifying 考え方 or 表現 or even 一つ. 相手の日本じん is a bit too weird to contemplate for me, but otherwise possible in theory. Subordinate clauses are very flexible, and "that ..." is wrong in a lot of cases.
RE: Subordinate Clauses - vix86 - 2015-12-17
Speaking on relative clauses. Does it make sense to attempt to turn all English sentences into a comparable relative clause in Japanese? Or does it make sense to reword some sentences differently when interpreting into Japanese?
I barely understand relative clauses in English, so I've never been able to adapt a feeling for them in Japanese to really know.
RE: Subordinate Clauses - LarsSoderbergh - 2015-12-17
(2015-12-17, 5:42 pm)pm215 Wrote: Firstly, you're right that in this sentence 表現 is being modified by the entire clause 相手の気持ちを大切にする日本人の考え方が日本語に表れている. I'm not sure that trying to think in terms of the functions of English "that" is very useful here, but there are two different kinds of relative clause which the Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar distinguishes:
(1) relative clauses where the 'head noun' would be a part of the "standalone" sentence that was clause-ified to combine with the main one. For instance in ジョンが食べたステーキ the head noun is ステーキ and that is the direct object in the standalone sentence "ジョンがステーキを食べた . (This corresponds neatly to the English "the steak that Jon ate" which derives from "Jon ate the steak" in a similar way.)
(2) relative clauses where the 'head noun' was not a part of the "standalone sentence". An example DoBJG gives is 魚が焦げるにおい ["the smell of burning fish"], where the "standalone sentence is just "魚が焦げる".
About (2) they say: "The relationship between the 'relative clause' and the 'head noun' is as follows: suppose that X is the 'head noun'. Then, X is something which was brought about by the event expressed in the 'relative clause', but is not something which was explicitly stated. For example, the 'head noun' /nioi/ is something brought about when fish burns, but is not an explicit part of the original sentence."
Your example is a type (2) I think, but notice that it's not a 'by which' kind of relationship, though a naturalistic English translation might end up paraphrasing it something like that.
If you like grammatical explanations of things (as opposed to just winging it) then I recommend the Dictionary of Basic/Intermediate/Advanced Japanese Grammar books as reference material.
Thank you! This addresses precisely what I was asking about. It's so cool to be arriving at parts of Japanese grammar that don't have a direct equivalent in the English language, instead requiring approximations. I'll certainly check out the Dictionaries you've recommended. Thanks again
RE: Subordinate Clauses - LarsSoderbergh - 2015-12-17
(2015-12-17, 5:45 pm)bertoni Wrote: I am not completely sure what you are asking, but, for example, 相手の could in theory be modifying 考え方 or 表現 or even 一つ. 相手の日本じん is a bit too weird to contemplate for me, but otherwise possible in theory. Subordinate clauses are very flexible, and "that ..." is wrong in a lot of cases.
RE: Subordinate Clauses - LarsSoderbergh - 2015-12-17
I think the tell-tale break is offered by を, at least that's how I've been deciphering things: when the direct object particle follows something, it makes the things before it self-contained, if that makes sense.
Subordinate clauses do seem to stray from a simple "that" equivalent. I understand why Genki introduces them as changing the noun with "that", but I sure wish they'd made a footnote about other types.
RE: Subordinate Clauses - pm215 - 2015-12-18
On deciphering, you might consult appendix 8 in the DoBJG which discusses what they call "extended sentential units" which are modified-headword plus the clause that is modifying it. Also the 'Anticipation' chapter in Jay Rubin's book "Making Sense of Japanese" is good and basically a worked example of dissecting a complicated sentence starting at the beginning. (I strongly recommend that book for its easy to read take on a number of the trickier bits of basic to early-intermediate grammar: it's not a reference, but once you've learned them somewhere else the author's view on them is a very helpful one IMHO for crystallising things you kind of knew but didn't entirely get.)
RE: Subordinate Clauses - bertoni - 2015-12-18
(2015-12-17, 8:37 pm)LarsSoderbergh Wrote: I think the tell-tale break is offered by を, at least that's how I've been deciphering things: when the direct object particle follows something, it makes the things before it self-contained, if that makes sense.
I don't think that's necessarily true. If I have some time, I'll look for some counterexamples.
RE: Subordinate Clauses - anotherjohn - 2015-12-18
Hi LarsSoderbergh, welcome to the forum
これは、相手の気持ちを大切にする日本人の考え方が日本語に表れている表現のーつです
これは X の一つです
This (something mentioned previously) is one kind of / example of X.
Where X is a 表現, an expression.
What kind of expression?
日本人の考え方が表れている表現
An expression expressing the way of thinking of Japanese people.
What language is the expression in?
日本人の考え方が日本語に表れている表現
An expression expressing in Japanese the way of thinking of Japanese people.
What about the Japanese people?
相手の気持ちを大切にする日本人
Strictly speaking his is ambiguous. It could mean "Japanese people who value the feelings of their interlocutor", i.e. the subset of Japanese people with that property; or "Japanese people, who value the feelings of their interlocutor", i.e. drawing attention to a (putative) characteristic of Japanese people in general. In this instance the intention is the latter, i.e. to suggest that caring about their 相手's 気持ちs is something particular about the Japanese.
Overall translation:
This is one example in which the way of thinking of Japanese people, who are sensitive to their interlocutor's feelings, is expressed in Japanese.
RE: Subordinate Clauses - jmignot - 2015-12-19
(2015-12-18, 7:33 pm)anotherjohn Wrote: This is one example in which the way of thinking of Japanese people, who are sensitive to their interlocutor's feelings, is expressed in Japanese.
Or perhaps, more literally (for the sake of grammatical accuracy):
"This is one of the phrases by which the way of thinking of Japanese people,who are mindful of their interlocutor's feelings, is expressed in Japanese".
RE: Subordinate Clauses - jmignot - 2015-12-19
Along the same line: how about considering that the basic construction
na-adj + na + noun
and perhaps even
i-adj + noun
are just special cases of subordinate clauses since, if I remember correctly, "na" is just another form of the copula (becomes na-adj + datta in the past tense)—and i-adj also have some kind of verbal flavour (conjugation, etc)?
I am not an expert in grammar, so this is just a naive question…