+- kanji koohii FORUM (http://forum.koohii.com)
+-- Forum: Learning Japanese (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: General discussion (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-8.html)
+--- Thread: What do you consider "basic" grammar? (/thread-2164.html)
What do you consider "basic" grammar? - vosmiura - 2008-11-28
tibul Wrote:Reading aloud is not the same thing as speaking. Going from reading aloud to being able to use those same kind of words in speech is a big step. I still don't do so well in speaking, even though I read out loud all the time.Dragg Wrote:I'm curious as to whether or not you are practicing verbal speech at all, and if not, at what point and how do you plan on incorporating it? Some, but not all, of AJATT adherents have a very rigid view as far as refusing to speak Japanese much at all for a long time. I understand that mistakes are probably more easily ingrained early on, but good textbooks and audio series often encourage output within limited structure that make such mistakes unlikely. Accent problems are also unlikely when the textbooks have accompanying audio CDs.I seem to have seen this a few times around the forums that people say the AJATT way of doing things involves not much speaking even though the Kaz guy himself wrote on his site that you should read "aloud" every sentence that you do so really there is alot of speaking involved with the AJATT method just like all the other methods.
What do you consider "basic" grammar? - Dragg - 2008-11-28
vosmiura Wrote:@TobberbothI recommend supplementing a good textbook with the Japanesepod series because it often has parallel formal and casual tracks for the same dialogues.
In my experience, some slang is needed. My wife is Japanese, so most often I hear or participate in conversations with family or close friends, and I often trip on very casual/slang speech.
All textbooks I've seen don't even teach simple casual talk like "~chau" that's used all the time.
But you are right. That is a typical problem with textbooks.
What do you consider "basic" grammar? - mentat_kgs - 2008-11-28
@Dragg
I agree that maybe mining from manga won't be as helpfull if you intend to use the language in real life.
But it is self sustainable.
The vocabulary learned from manga is used again and again in the same series.
I feel very confortable reading the series I'm following. For the manga I'm already used, I don't need the dictionary and I can understand them allmost completely (90%+).
Maybe this aspect works the same way as the simplified speach that parents use with children.
What do you consider "basic" grammar? - alyks - 2008-11-28
mentat_kgs Wrote:I agree that maybe mining from manga won't be as helpfull if you intend to use the language in real life.Well yeah, who wants to read manga all day? I mean, one day I may be interested in my manga, the another day I might only want to sit back and watch doramas. If you follow your interests and are in tune as to when something gets boring, you will naturally diversify your sources.
What do you consider "basic" grammar? - kazelee - 2008-11-28
alyks Wrote:Sorry Kazelee, but this is really starting to irritate me. It's "ALYKS".Oh... forgive... me....
What do you consider "basic" grammar? - mentat_kgs - 2008-11-28
Young padawan, there is allways a new manga that you haven't read.
What do you consider "basic" grammar? - mattyjaddy - 2008-11-29
So, Tobberoth, I'm not quite sure I understand your viewpoint. Is it the act of speaking or the input received when you speak with others that makes learning happen faster? If it's the latter, then it puts the emphasis on input and puts the purpose of learning to speak fast for getting more exposure through conversations out of reach of people not in Japan or without access to Japanese people. So perhaps is something advisable for those people but not everyone.
As far as exposure vs. textbook students dealing with slang/dialect upon arriving in Japan, I?m not sure I agree that they would fare equally. Though on this point I don't have any evidence, more so just a feeling. Given that most who study through exposure use at least two (usually more) different types of sources, I think they will acquire a feeling for what parts of a language are changeable and which remain more or less constant across genres, registers, dialects, etc. Textbook students are most accustomed to "standard" language with the possible occasionally side note about a common dialectal variant or conversational usage. I have a feeling their minds won't be able to handle slang/dialect as well when they encounter them for the first time. But without any evidence here, I'll move on.
You are constantly mentioning MnN in your posts, and I finally get why after your recent explanation. Many of us probably have a certain idea of how a textbook is designed and utilized (perhaps an introductory paragraph/dialog/vignette/etc. using grammar points that are then explained followed by exercises and drills that practice said grammar mostly out of context (language through explicit knowledge). What you described seems to be quite different from that. Some explicitly learned grammar but lots of support through input. It seems we are talking about the same thing for the most part. Getting some explicit information about the language and then using input to make it stick. The explicit information is indeed vital to expediting the function of input. Where I find fault with any textbook, even one set up as described, is that they generally require learning of grammar according to a mostly arbitrary syllabus. Input (according to Krashen) works by allowing language learners' brains to acquire things when they are ready (more meaningful stuff to less meaningful stuff) while the textbook tries to change this order.
I don't really have a problem with textbooks in and of themselves being books that collect and present language in bit-sized chunks. It seems that MnN is a really good one (one I wish I had known about when I was starting out). But I do have a problem with using them to force language into one's/a language learner's head. I also have a problem with most of the types of exercises I've seen in texts. (I don't know MnN so I can't speak to it.) They often require simple manipulation of conjugated/declined forms which requires no understanding. Exercises that require meaning and understanding for completion are superior for language acquisition.
What do you consider "basic" grammar? - phauna - 2008-11-29
Outputting is a skill which requires practice, it won't magically occur when a certain critical mass of input is acquired. Practising speaking improves your speaking, who would have thought it? Input makes it easier to output but cannot replace it. Input before output, but when you are ready then output like a mother.
What do you consider "basic" grammar? - Tobberoth - 2008-11-29
Wow, so many interesting posts, so much I want to give my opinion on. Feels like I missed the window on a lot of it though, so I'll let it pass.
vosmiura Wrote:@TobberbothSure, I agree. If you want to understand perfect native Japanese, you need to know slang. I'm just talking about basic fluency, like being able to ask a question about something without making any errors. Not using the best words for the situation maybe. Maybe not using the 100% perfect grade of keigo. Still, conversing in proper correct Japanese about pretty much anything. For this, you don't need slang. Japanese people don't expect you to use it, and most of them will probably tone it down when they notice you aren't using it. If they do, the chance is high that you will understand anyway since you're steering the conversation by being a part of it. If you don't, you ask and understand their explanation instead.
In my experience, some slang is needed. My wife is Japanese, so most often I hear or participate in conversations with family or close friends, and I often trip on very casual/slang speech.
All textbooks I've seen don't even teach simple casual talk like "~chau" that's used all the time. EDIT: I'd be curious if MnN did.
As for slang being brought up in MnN... not really, and I wouldn't expect it to. The teachers did though (we had REALLY awesome teachers), we had some exercises outside of the book where we got a manga with some phrases left blank and our job was to come up with what phrase it was. Stuff like 行ってく etc. Slang is usually not any harder than learning any other vocabulary, you simply learn that you can remove the i in -iru etc. Since you already know how to conjugate verbs, it's easy to use right away. Dialects are worse, especially stuff like how the conjugate verbs differently in kansai etc.
mattyjaddy Wrote:lots of stuffBOTH the act of speaking and the input you recieve enhances your learning. The input does it by exposure of course, you learn that these sentences are commonly said etc etc. But it's also very much your own act of creating output as you converse. It puts grammar patterns and vocabulary VERY firmly into your active memory. It brings up all the problems of creative output, you want to say something and realize you can't. This lets you know that you need to learn those words, that pattern etc. It lets you know your current weaknesses, unlike someone who ONLY does input.. All they know is how to say this and that, not that they CAN'T say other things. (Unless they do output like essays etc).
Everyone has access to Japanese people. lang-8 is just one of the many many sites where you can come into contact with Japanese people. mixi.jp is another. I'd say that getting decent output quick has advantages for everyone who has the the will to put the effort into it.
I give slang and dialects a much smaller part in Japanese than you do.. maybe I just had luck with all the people I met (then again I lived in Tokyo so yeah, there isn't much slang and dialects) but I never felt people use slang. Not anymore than saying ねぇ instead of ない and other really obvious stuff like that. I really don't think you will sit and not understand anything because of it, it will be more along the lines of a slang coming up a few times in a conversation, not every sentence. I really don't think it's important to put any focus on, it will easily come from exposure in said conversations.
Maybe your right about MnN being a bit different (which is why I always claim it's the best). From what I've seen, Genki has a fair share of "real Japanese" as well, not to the same extent as MnN though.
I'd say that most exercises do rely on understanding. Again, my experience is with MnN so I can't speak for Japanese for Busy People etc, but the most common exercise when learning to conjugate verbs is of course to get a sentence with a non-conjugated verb. Your goal is to conjugate it. How could this be anything other than understanding? You must understand the sentence so you understand what conjugation is needed. Then you have to conjugate it into that conjugation. The only part which is memory heavy is the actual conjugation of the verb, something which relies on your understanding of both the sentence and the verbs purpose in it.
What do you consider "basic" grammar? - mattyjaddy - 2008-11-29
Phauna - Output does occur when enough input has been achieved. No, it's not magic. It's the direct result from enough comprehensible input. The act of speaking serves to make the output come out more fluently. I feel it's important to state that speaking ONLY serves to improve fluency in speaking because it highlights that it has no effect on adding to one's grammatical competence.
Tobberoth, I thought our ideas were getting closer and closer, but I see they are still far apart in several ways. Your description of what outputting language does matches pretty much what I think it does. It doesn't add grammatical knowledge but it firms up grammatical knowledge. It can show you spots where you're lacking competence. My problem is that it firms up any grammatical knowledge-correct and incorrect (poorly learned). Being novices, it's normal for language learners to make mistakes and misunderstand grammatical concepts. Forcing output early serves to reinforce correctly and incorrectly learned grammar. (This is more of a problem for a self-learner than for someone with access to a teacher, but it shouldn't be discounted in the latter case either since the teacher is not always available to point out poorly learned concepts.) As for areas where someone is lacking, only people who "get grammar" have a chance of noticing those. Learners, being non-experts, aren't going to always notice missing knowledge because if they are in a conversation where they need to express themselves, L2 learners often resort to their native language or creating their own new way of expressing it. To make matters worse for the beginning speaker, native speaker interlocutors, being kind listeners to non-natives, usually overlook mistakes as long as meaning is conveyed. So no red flags are raised to signal a need to learn more. Of course not knowing a vocabulary word will raise a red flag to the learner to go look it up, but grammar, which is a thousand times more important, is not so obvious.
This isn't to say I'm against output. That's the ultimate goal of course. And as I said it takes output for your output to become more fluent. But I am against early forced output. I am against most traditional classroom output activities that are usually focused on form and devoid of context. I am against output used as a way to solidify grammatical knowledge. I am FOR output used to make one's output more fluid/fluent.
I wasn't talking about focusing on slang/dialect. But I believe exposure to it will better prepare you for any Japanese, even if it isn't the same as what you were exposed to.
I was surprised by your example for an exercise that requires understanding. It is one of the most often cited among language teachers as being non-contextual and not requiring understanding. There are, of course, some that require more understanding than others: ones that have a paragraph with blanks and the dictionary forms of verbs in parentheses. Even more understanding would be required if the verbs were in a box below the paragraph. But the problem occurs when the rubber meets the road--students must focus on conjugation when putting pen to paper. It's trying to force students to learn grammar according to an arbitrary syllabus. Actual comprehension of language stops after students pick the correct verb for the blank. After, it becomes use of knowledge about the language to make the words look the right way according to its function in the sentence. I should have been more specific about what understanding I was speaking of--understanding of the meaning the language was trying to convey.
What do you consider "basic" grammar? - NightSky - 2008-11-29
I would say that as far as Textbooks vs Natural Input go, the amount of textbook use should be inversely proportional to ones ability. Put another way, the absolute beginner should be focusing his energy on textbooks, but using them less and less as their ability improves.
What do you consider "basic" grammar? - kfmfe04 - 2008-11-29
NightSky Wrote:I would say that as far as Textbooks vs Natural Input go, the amount of textbook use should be inversely proportional to ones ability. Put another way, the absolute beginner should be focusing his energy on textbooks, but using them less and less as their ability improves.I think that may be generalizing a little too much.
What if at the intermediate level, you start using Japanese textbooks used by Japanese students? If you live in Japan or live near a Kunokuniya, you can buy 自由自在 and other exercise books out there which Japanese students use to study Japanese.
Would those be as useless as you imply?
BTW, there are many intermediate and advanced textbooks meant for foreign learners of Japanese that contain no English. Their sources are often real newspaper articles, essays, or snipplets from novels. They also test understanding with questions following a reading - for self-study, that kind of feedback is useful to prevent fooling yourself into thinking you understand, when you really don't.
To me, what is more important than Textbooks vs Natural Input is finding i+1 level material so I can get incremental understanding. I also want interesting material and some feedback mechanism (tests, exercises, or teachers) to tell me that I am on the right track.
What do you consider "basic" grammar? - samesong - 2008-11-29
Very well stated, kfmfe04.
What do you consider "basic" grammar? - Dragg - 2008-11-29
@mattyjaddy
I don't agree that textbooks are mostly arbitrary. Every good textbook I've ever seen tries to give you the most commonly used verbs and sentence structures before going on to more complicated sentences. I doubt that any textbook will teach you すぎる or みたい before it teaches you です or する so it's hardly random. Even though there is a certain level of subjectivity as to order, many textbooks seem to have a fairly similar order.
Also, I am confused about your comments in which you stated that speaking grammar will not help you add to your grammar. Do you really think that immediately trying out verb conjugations based on a limited list found in a textbook after the concept has been explained is not going to help you with grammar?
What do you consider "basic" grammar? - mentat_kgs - 2008-11-29
You can allways get the +1 aspect from "high level" material. You only need to ignore what you can't understand, even if in the end you'll only some bread crumbs. As you climb to total understanding, you'll be doing this +1 thing.
What do you consider "basic" grammar? - mattyjaddy - 2008-11-30
I agree. Nice post kfmfe04. I wish I was that succinct and clear.
Dragg
Arbitrary doesn't equal random. When I say arbitrary, I mean arbitrary to the natural order of acquisition. Textbooks are generally not random. They are very logical indeed. The problem is that language is not based on logic. It's based on communication and the human brain. (The human brain tends to work on patterns which is why language can seem orderly and logical, but a closer look reveals that it is full of inconsistencies that resist logic. Also, any comparison between languages can reveal that there is no universal logic to language.)
To give an example of how they are arbitrary, a text will often introduce desu and da early on. Later sugiru and mitai. (I don't know the following as fact, but I just set it up as a possibility for the sake of explanation.) The difference between desu and da, carrying little meaning (especially in their English translations), their separate uses are likely late acquired in the natural order. Sugiru and mitai carry lots of meaning meaning they are easier/earlier acquired. Textbooks often emphasize parts of language that are normally late acquired and often expect mastery of them in subsequent sections of the book. (This is actually a poor example since the Japanese texts I've seen don't really emphasize mastery of the distinction between desu and da early on. A better example might come from languages with gender. Almost universally, texts introduce gendered articles and expect mastery of them even though they are very late acquired since they carry no meaning. [Well, hold the presses... maybe it's not that texts expect mastery, but that they know it takes a long time to acquire that bit of language so they introduce it early so students have more time to acquire it, and it's teachers misusing texts and requiring mastery when it shouldn't be. I'd have to check a textbook to see if it has exercises that require early mastery of the gendered articles. I have a feeling some do, but not all.])
Maybe there goes my argument about the arbitrariness of texts being a problem. Perhaps it's not so much their set-up as their misuse that distorts their effectiveness. Well, actually, it's this arbitrariness that can slow up learning. Often parts of language that are saved until higher levels are full of meaning and would be easily acquired through exposure. Texts, maintaining the order they've chosen to introduce grammar will not provide exposure of those parts of language until later meaning putting off acquisition. Sorry, this is a bit confused, but I guess I'm still working out my thoughts.
I'll be short on this one. "Add to grammar" doesn't equal "help with grammar". There's also the matter of the distinction of implicit and explicit knowledge.
What do you consider "basic" grammar? - kfmfe04 - 2008-11-30
mattyjaddy notes an interesting distinction of grammars at the micro-level: arbitrary doesn't equal random.
At the MACRO level, this truism also applies. Entire grammars are arbitrary, but they are not random. For example, why should a verb be in the middle of the sentence? It could be in the beginning or at the end. Why do you need to conjugate a verb? There's verb conjugation in most languages, but none in Chinese.
However, within any Grammar, there is some degree of "exceptions" or randomness. Japanese verb conjugation has many rules, but there are very few exceptions. English, on the other hand, has many exceptions.
NOTE: For me a "grammar" is just well-defined rules. But a "Grammar" includes "grammar" and all the exceptions and patterns.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Grammar is just an agreement to communicate using established patterns/rules.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you keep in mind that verbal language came before written language, you can understand why things are the way they are.
Throughout history, there is a tension between "following the rules" and "doing what seems natural". "Doing what seems natural" or verbal language comes first: grammars are a result of someone trying to impose order upon chaos, because that is what logical human beings like to do. Of course, there is feedback between the two, but ultimately,
"doing what seems natural" wins out if enough people agree to it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AJATT and passive strategies lean towards learning "what is natural" while textbook-learning and most active strategies emphasize "learning the rules".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would suspect that for a rule-intensive Grammar like Latin, "learning the rules" is more critical, whereas in exception-prone Grammars like English, it's hard to become even moderately fluent without "learning what is natural". Interestingly, Chinese has almost no grammar, but there are many patterns - that's one of the reasons, the opinion on Chinese grammar ranges from "it's trivial" to "it's the hardest language in the world".
I personally think Japanese is harder. After studying Japanese for many years, I am still uncertain where Japanese falls on this spectrum. There are so many idiomatic expressions and grammar rules to learn, but on the other hand, there is at least some degree of underlying logic in many of those rules.
What do you consider "basic" grammar? - usis35 - 2008-12-03
@Tobberoth
I have done Minna no Nihongo 1 and 2. You seem to be the expert about this textbook.
What about this one?
http://www.3anet.co.jp/english/books/text_e_m_chukyu_main.html
What do you consider "basic" grammar? - Tobberoth - 2008-12-03
usis35 Wrote:@TobberothMy school switched to 中級から学ぶ after 皆の日本語 so unfortunately I have no idea. They say it's a bridge between basic and intermediate, so it doesn't sound all that good (personally I had no problem moving on to 中級から学ぶ which is still quite a lot more advanced than 皆の日本語２).
I have done Minna no Nihongo 1 and 2. You seem to be the expert about this textbook.
What about this one?
http://www.3anet.co.jp/english/books/text_e_m_chukyu_main.html
I recommend 中級から学ぶ btw. It's a bit similar to minna no nihongo, but has essays and stuff like that instead of dialogs, much longer and harder texts. There's also WAY less furigana (a good thing). So yeah, I'd say it's a good book to go after Minna no Nihongo.