Thora Wrote:[psst - Stevesayskanpai, if you can nudge Shihoro a wee bit closer to the assigned paper topic, you might get your 3500 words]

Nice.

Not that Shihoro's post wasn't an interesting read- but I was starting to wonder if there is a character limit on these posts...

shihoro Wrote:After 10-12 years of deflation Japan still only has half the unemployment rate of nearly all western countries.

I see plenty of people "working" in Japan who's jobs are frankly a complete waste of time. I don't know for sure, but I get the feeling plenty of these "jobs" are actually a form of social security.

The most obvious examples are the "construction workers" who tell you to "mind you step" when walking past a construction site. Like I didn't see the gigantic signs and flashing lights already.
Or multiple people directing traffic coming in an out of driveways - no-one would have actually thought to stop and look.
Or people standing there holding a sign to tell people where they should go for an event (admittedly people can ask for help).

It's actually not a bad idea though, rather than just giving people money "for nothing" they have something to do, and can at least feel like they earned it.

shihoro Wrote:Yudantaiteki,
This is not the first time you have misquoted me. I said the culture AND education system HELPED them. As for evidence, there have been several international educational surveys in the news here lately. Google international school results or academic results or international maths ability league tables. There is tons of stuff. Alot on the US too. Also google the unemployment rates. After 10-12 years of deflation Japan still only has half the unemployment rate of nearly all western countries. They are better organized and better educated than we are. Not without problems it has to be conceded - and frankly I am glad I am not a Japanese salary man or worker. I don't need to cite anything mate, there is so much out there. It will take you seconds to find it.

Time to get back to Japanese - one day I hope to be as good as you.

No, see, this is where you're wrong, you do need to cite because you're the one making the argument.

As far as Japan is concerned, you're talking about a country whose population is going to start declining in 20 years because people aren't marrying each other. You're talking about a country whose greying society is about to implode on itself and cause a huge social crisis that's going to suck up anyone not directing cars into parking lots and copying faxes into the next explosive growth industry: caring for their parents.

Look, I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make, as I only cared enough to read the second page in this discussion, but Japan is not a fantasy land filled brimming with geniuses. In short? You sound like a tool.

I don't get it.. we have moved from discussing proficiency to which society is superior.

Mayhaps we can return to the original subject from here on.

I really haven't read Shihoro's, or the posts of anyone else in full, but I think in some ways you can make a case for students working harder in certain parts of Asia. Here's, for example, a speech written by one of my students from China (who's come to Japan to study for a few months);

"My name is *********. I came from China. I came to Japan on *******. Then I lived with a Japanese family and went to a Japanese school, of course, ******* High School.
I have to say Chinese schools are very, very different from Japanese schools. I can't say which is better, so I will introduce my Chinese school life to you. There are 20 classes in one grade. And three of them are the best. The three classes use different timetables from the others. My class is one of them. Our class begins at six forty-five and finishes at eight-twenty p.m. The lunch time is thirty minutes, including the cleaning time. There are almost twelve classes in one day. If you live in the school dormitory, you will save one hour every day so you will have to take a class in the thirteenth period. You also have to study in the library until eleven o'clock. Then some students still study, and some lazy students, like me, take a shower and go to bed. Yes, we are very tired. But as you know, there are too many people living in China. Compared with the number of people living there, there are few jobs in China. So we have to study very hard to get a good job and lead a better life. Moreover, we have to compete not only with Chinese students but with students in foreign countries, who also have their dream in their future. So everyone needs to study for the future. Let's study hard and get a happy life!"

Sounds like she's working pretty intensely hard. And, to be honest, even just from working at a public Japanese school my memories of American high school always make me feel like the students are working too hard. For example, I went with a friend and two of her students to a festival in Omihachiman on a Saturday, a few weeks ago. We had to go at the tail end of the festival because her students were busy taking a test. Once we met up with them, I asked them about the tests. They said they had just got out of the test (it was 8 p.m.), and that they had started at 8 a.m. Also, they informed me that they did the tests once or twice a month. 12 hours of tests, once or twice a month? Seems like a pain in the ass. Granted, they were students from Ishiyama, one of the better high schools in Shiga-ken. But, even my friends in America who went to Ivy-Leagues, none of them seemed to work all that hard.

The cases I've mentioned are not average, so we can't really deduce much from them, but still they surprise me. Anyway, I don't think it's necessarily good to work quite THAT hard.

Quote:No, see, this is where you're wrong, you do need to cite because you're the one making the argument.

No, he doesn't. This is an internet forum and not an academic thesis or wikipedia. He doesn't need to constantly cite his sources.

Quote:As far as Japan is concerned, you're talking about a country whose population is going to start declining in 20 years because people aren't marrying each other. You're talking about a country whose greying society is about to implode on itself and cause a huge social crisis that's going to suck up anyone not directing cars into parking lots and copying faxes into the next explosive growth industry: caring for their parents.

What? Source? Actually Japan's population is declining already, not in 20 years. I could quote you a source but what's the point? You can Google it yourself in 2 seconds flat.

Going back to the original question "What Does It Mean To Be Proficient In Japanese?", I would offer these two measures:

If you can't pick up any novel in your target language, aimed at adults, and read it at a reasonable pace without using a dictionary, then you are not "proficient" in that language.

If you can't write a CV in your target language, attend a job interview in that language, get the job and perform that job on a day to day basis using that language, then you are not "proficient" in that language.

NickT Wrote:If you can't pick up any novel in your target language, aimed at adults, and read it at a reasonable pace without using a dictionary, then you are not "proficient" in that language.

If you can't write a CV in your target language, attend a job interview in that language, get the job and perform that job on a day to day basis using that language, then you are not "proficient" in that language.

Why are novels and job interviews the standard? I can't write CVs or do job interviews in Japanese because I have no plans to ever work in Japan. I don't read much modern fiction in English or Japanese, so I'm not sure if I could pick up "any novel" and read it without a dictionary.

To me, proficiency always has to be defined relative to one's needs and goals. I don't need to be able to read novels in Japanese (nor do I particularly want to), but I do need to be able to read scholarly articles on classical Japanese.

In my view, the levels of proficiency come in this order:

0) You can't recognize any word.
1) You recognize words reading/listening.
2) You recognize sentences reading/listening.
3) You recognize a stream of sentences.
forever) It gets easier and easier to listen and read the language in more complex contexts.

At some point, around step 3 you start to produce.
1) In the beginning just words,
2) then small sentences,
3) then sentences well formed enough to be used in speech,
4) then you finally get to a fluent level, where you can start worrying more about your style than the correctness of your sentences.

(btw, I'm currently going from 3->4 in the second list.)

Reading/Writing are catalysts for each stage during the whole process. It is easier to reflect on what you are learning when you read and write. The sentences are frozen in time, ready to be dissected.

About JLPT. I think the only meaningful levels are the 2kyu and 1kyu.
And they only serve to prove that you were working hard enough, as it doesn't test your output.

I just realised that to be proficient at *reading* Japanese I have to be able to read the end credits of something from TV/film to the same level as in English at the speed they appear...(really I suppose I consider that to be "fluency" rather than "proficiency", but let's just say I'd be aiming for the equivalent level of proficiency to that I have in English)

just a side note...

More on the specific topic, I have noticed that proficiency in my (I'm not assuming "your") native language is a matter of opinion. I recognise there are many words I don't really know the meaning of, words I believe I know but I'm deceiving myself, words I haven't learned how to spell properly, tenses I'm not totally sure of - no actually I'm not so bad on tenses, gaps where I need to say "well, you know..." when I would prefer to continue more meaningfully. All this can be remedied by addressing what's lacking, just the same as in any L2 etc, but it casts an interesting light on my own expectations. How can I expect to be fluent in another language when I don't always have fluency in the first language? Plus, I'm glad it shows up this myth of 100% fluency. I suppose that would mean, every word I have seen and heard so far, I have understood - though one couldn't guarantee that the next word to appear would be a friendly one too...

The ability to infer meanings (by etymologies, say) is a useful part of my own fluency - it also goes a long way to help me use the words I do know. I'm imagining that some knowledge of Chinese will help in Japanese at times...is that fanciful?

Proficiency depends on a task.
If your task is the fencing, you may be proficient with a sword.

If your task is answering phone calls, you "must" be proficient in Japanese.

That is what language proficiency test try to do. They want to attest that if you passed the test, you can do some class of work.

One scale to be used is this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILR_scale

JLPT2 is equivalent to ILR Level 3: Professional working proficiency

It tries to attest that you are "able to speak the language with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabulary to participate effectively in most conversations on practical, social, and professional topics".

mentat_kgs Wrote:One scale to be used is this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILR_scale

JLPT2 is equivalent to ILR Level 3: Professional working proficiency

It tries to attest that you are "able to speak the language with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabulary to participate effectively in most conversations on practical, social, and professional topics".

JLPT doesn't test ability to speak at all, so I don't see how you can say that.

Even taking recognition only, I'd say JLPT2 would be much closer to "ILR Level 2 - Limited working proficiency". I passed JLPT2 this year but reading real Japanese (news, forms, novels, most stuff in fact) is still quite a challenge, and unless your work was very limited in scope I would say that JLPT2 level wouldn't be enough to feel comfortable working in Japanese.

Perhaps JLPT1 would be around "ILR Level 3: Professional working proficiency".

I like the idea of conceptualizing a pedagogy (however you think of that term) of multiliteracies and how they interact to enhance one another via the individual and their environment (education, communities, etc).

yudantaiteki Wrote:Why are novels and job interviews the standard? I can't write CVs or do job interviews in Japanese because I have no plans to ever work in Japan. I don't read much modern fiction in English or Japanese, so I'm not sure if I could pick up "any novel" and read it without a dictionary.

I chose those two things as my definition as they are the two hardest things I could think of that I would nevertheless expect any competent and proficient speaker of a language to be able to do.

There are harder things, such as writing a thesis or a novel, but I wouldn't expect all people to be able do those.

yudantaiteki Wrote:To me, proficiency always has to be defined relative to one's needs and goals. I don't need to be able to read novels in Japanese (nor do I particularly want to), but I do need to be able to read scholarly articles on classical Japanese.

I guess the "need and goal" that I was using in my definition is to be able to lead a normal life 100% in that language. In order to do that, you would certainly need to be able to read novels and write CVs, apply for jobs etc - If not on a regular basis you would at least need to be able to do so, and have done so at least once.

If you restrict your "needs and goals" to something less than that, then obviously your definition of proficiency becomes correspondingly lower. If someone is happy working at a fast foot outlet and never enjoying any kind of literature, then I suppose all that is needed to become "proficient" is to master the phrase "Do you want fries with that?"

Personally, though, I would have some difficulty with that definition of proficiency.

NickT Wrote:

yudantaiteki Wrote:Why are novels and job interviews the standard? I can't write CVs or do job interviews in Japanese because I have no plans to ever work in Japan. I don't read much modern fiction in English or Japanese, so I'm not sure if I could pick up "any novel" and read it without a dictionary.

I chose those two things as my definition as they are the two hardest things I could think of that I would nevertheless expect any competent and proficient speaker of a language to be able to do.

The problem with the job interview is that it's a very specific skill that requires preparation; even native speakers wouldn't just be able to go into a job interview and breeze through it without "studying" beforehand. I guess it just seems strange to me that someone could have a lifelong career in Japanese (outside of Japan) and not be considered proficient in Japanese if they don't study how to do a Japanese job interview.

I guess to me this is more than just a semantic argument because I'm currently having to prove my proficiency in Japanese in applying for grants to study in Japan. The committees don't care whether I can read a modern novel or do a job interview, they do care whether I can read the Japanese in my field well enough to make use of research materials in Japan, and whether my oral proficiency is good enough to interact with professors and other students in a Japanese university setting.

I don't think you're ever going to be asked "Are you proficient in Japanese?" with the expectation of a simple "yes" or "no" answer and that's that. No matter what you're doing, people are going to have specific skills in mind for you to do with Japanese.

Quote:If you restrict your "needs and goals" to something less than that, then obviously your definition of proficiency becomes correspondingly lower. If someone is happy working at a fast foot outlet and never enjoying any kind of literature, then I suppose all that is needed to become "proficient" is to master the phrase "Do you want fries with that?"

That's true, the only two possibilities are novels + job interview, or fast food worker.

yudantaiteki Wrote:The problem with the job interview is that it's a very specific skill that requires preparation; even native speakers wouldn't just be able to go into a job interview and breeze through it without "studying" beforehand. I guess it just seems strange to me that someone could have a lifelong career in Japanese (outside of Japan) and not be considered proficient in Japanese if they don't study how to do a Japanese job interview.

Most native speakers prepare for job interviews, but this involves researching the company, thinking of likely questions and good answers, etc. They would generally already have the required language skills and would not need to prepare at all in that area.

Also, I don’t think I said “breeze through”. Job interviews are hard, and I have certainly flunked my fair share, but it was never because my English wasn’t good enough.

yudantaiteki Wrote:I guess to me this is more than just a semantic argument because I'm currently having to prove my proficiency in Japanese in applying for grants to study in Japan. The committees don't care whether I can read a modern novel or do a job interview, they do care whether I can read the Japanese in my field well enough to make use of research materials in Japan, and whether my oral proficiency is good enough to interact with professors and other students in a Japanese university setting.

I think academics are a special case, to be honest, as they are one of only a few classes of people that manage to avoid job interviews. However an academic post or research project is broadly analogous to a job, and your “applying for grants” is broadly analogous to a “job interview”, so I think it still works.

But wait a minute, are these committees taking place in English or Japanese? How are they assessing your proficiency? After reading these texts in Japanese, will you be presenting your research findings in English or in Japanese?

yudantaiteki Wrote:That's true, the only two possibilities are novels + job interview, or fast food worker.

There are lots of other options, I was just trying to illustrate my point. However, I doubt very much if anyone in my workplace could not easily read a novel in English (even if most of them choose not to), and most of the people I know or have met who couldn’t work as burger flippers or cleaners, or other similarly menial jobs, unless they have some kind of special skill to fall back on.

Anyway, this is purely a semantic argument really, that hinges on the definition of proficiency being used. I suspect proficiency is no easier to define than fluency and there will never be a single answer. If you are being asked to demonstrate you are proficient in a specific context, then it is their definition that you need to worry about, and not mine.

Good luck – I hope you get it :-)

@avparker
I don't understand why you are trolling my post. If you pay more attention you'll notice that I was talking about what JLPT was supposed to be - not what it generally is: A waste of time and money.

Next time, read the thread from the beginning, before flaming the first post you don't agree with.

mentat_kgs Wrote:@avparker
I don't understand why you are trolling my post. If you pay more attention you'll notice that I was talking about what JLPT was supposed to be - not what it generally is: A waste of time and money.

Next time, read the thread from the beginning, before flaming the first post you don't agree with.

WTF? Having a bad day?
My post was in no way a troll or a flame. Read it again. I wasn't rude at all. I simply responded to something you said with an alternative opinion.

I see now the paragraph "It tries to attest ..." in your post refers to the ILR. I thought you were talking about JLPT, since that's the topic of the previous sentence.

I stand by my points
1) ILR tests speaking, JLPT does not, so it's hard to say they are "equivalent" (without qualification).

2) My main point. For listening and reading, JLPT2 level looks to be closer to ILR2 level than ILR3 level.
I'm not the only one that thinks this - http://forum.koohii.com/showthread.php?tid=4215

mentat_kgs Wrote:I was talking about what JLPT was supposed to be - not what it generally is: A waste of time and money.

Who's the one trolling?

Wow, another what is fluent thread.

Can't get enough of these guys. Yup

NickT Wrote:Anyway, this is purely a semantic argument really, that hinges on the definition of proficiency being used.

Well yeah, but that was apparently the purpose of the original essay and post.