So, I hadn't been really 'studying' Japanese for the last 12-18 months and have just been using native sources like most of y'all on this forum and have noticed that my Japanese has become a lot more natural. Still, in real life most people aren't going to correct your mistakes so I thought I'd get a private teacher to try it out and see if being corrected a bit more would help out. I basically found out three things; 1. that I am often able to choose the correct answer purely off of feeling even if I never studied the rule of grammar. 2. Studying the rules often only leave me feeling more confused.

and 3. I have developped some bad habits.

Which leads me to my question; how to get rid of them?

Specifically, I was told by my teacher that I only use kara and node correctly about 50% of the time. I learned kara much before I learned node and got used to using it for everything. I never really 'learned' node and just learned it by hearing it. So, I looked up the difference between the two but honestly I am more confused after reading the explanations and I don't exactly have time to stop and try to figure out which category the phrase fits into before choosing kara or node when having a conversation.

So, what should I do about bad habits that have formed in my head? Is exposure enough to do away with them? Is a more systematic study neccessary?

I'm no expert on this, but I mean, this was the same case as when I was learning English. I have no idea what perfect past tense was, nor what its difference is to perfect simple tense, and various other things.

Now my English is almost at a native level (maybe native, but let's just be modest here). When I correct my mate's English paper, for example, if something sounds wrong, I get the feeling that it's wrong, although I might not be able to say why it's wrong. I think this must have been because of all the exposure to English I've had, so yeah.

I'm still a relative newbie in regards of learning Japanese, so I can't say for sure. I'm just able to say now after experiencing all that that generally I'd prefer exposure to it until I actually get it, without even knowing the grammar rules for it.

I think that if you're going to go to the effort of getting a private tuition it might be worth trying to fix the problems they point out :-)

If you don't like the 'learn the rules' approach perhaps you could find a pile of sentences that use kara and node, remove them from the middle and then see if you can correctly guess which one is which.

intermu Wrote:Now my English is almost at a native level (maybe native, but let's just be modest here). When I correct my mate's English paper, for example, if something sounds wrong, I get the feeling that it's wrong, although I might not be able to say why it's wrong. I think this must have been because of all the exposure to English I've had, so yeah.

That's how almost all natives do it! Honestly, I know a LOT of grammar rules, but before I started learning Japanese, I couldn't tell you WHY certain things were like they were. I forget the exact example, but I had to stop and really examine the English to understand why each was used. Something to do with past events and whether they were still continuing or not. Did vs had done, or something. (I went biking this morning. vs I had gone biking this morning. The first allows the possibility that I might continue biking later. The second makes it clear that the biking is done. Or something.) I think that was how it went.

Anyhow, my point was that you deal with grammar exactly like native speakers do.

As for the OP, it sounds like you're doing the same. You can either study grammar rules and try to perfect it that way, or continue what you were doing and perfect it that way. The latter will just take longer, that's all.

And congrats to both of you for getting so far!

I think the simple rule for kara and no de is that "kara" emphasizes the reason, whereas "no de" emphasizes the result. Of course this is probably harder to apply in practice but maybe that rule of thumb will help you make sense of the sentences you see or hear.

Quote:Anyhow, my point was that you deal with grammar exactly like native speakers do.

Of course as a non-native speaker you always have to be on your guard because you can't necessarily 100% trust your "this seems wrong to me" feeling.

DJBG entry on node:

The conjunction kara also expresses reason or cause. However, kara and node differ in the following way. Node is used when the speaker believes that the information he provides in 'S1 node' as a cause or reason for 'S2' is valid and is also evident and acceptable to the hearer. 'S1 kara S2', however, does not involve that assumption. Therefore, node cannot be used and kara must be used in the following situations:

(A) S1 expresses the speaker's conjecture about something.
人がたくさん来るだろうから食べ物たくさん買っておいた。

(B) S2 is a command, request, suggestion or invitation.
この映画はためになるから行きなさい。

© S2 expresses the speaker's volition or personal opinion.
僕がよく知っているから大丈夫です。

JSL's explanation for this is that "no de" is simply the -te form of "no da", so it can't be used in cases like A, B, C where the first clause is not an established fact or situation. I think this is essentially what the DBG explanation is saying as well.

yudantaiteki Wrote:Of course as a non-native speaker you always have to be on your guard because you can't necessarily 100% trust your "this seems wrong to me" feeling.

Not even natives have that 100%, I think. There are moments when I wonder if the sentence I just said, in English, or typed made any sense grammatically.

kazelee Wrote:

yudantaiteki Wrote:Of course as a non-native speaker you always have to be on your guard because you can't necessarily 100% trust your "this seems wrong to me" feeling.

Not even natives have that 100%, I think. There are moments when I wonder if the sentence I just said, in English, or typed made any sense grammatically.

Yeah -- since you learn your native language from an amalgamation of multiple people's speech styles, no two native speakers speak 100% exactly the same way. On the whole, though, native speaker intuitions are generally much more likely to be right than non-native speaker intuitions.

I believe there is no single "proper" way of expressing yourself in any language. Everyone is different and everyone speaks differently. I don't recall grammar rules when speaking Polish and I don't want to do it in a foreign language, even if it means making lots of mistakes (native!=not making mistakes). That's what's drawn me into this RTK+AJATT+immersion thing, I really believe language should be acquired like this and that's why I do it.

In my opinion OP doesn't have a problem, grammar is for tests and you probably can pass them anyway without studying for it . Practice makes perfect.

@thistime - Something I found useful was to ask close friends/colleagues to simply repeat the correct way of saying it as soon as practicable. Some people don't want to correct b/c they don't actually know how to explain it. You relieve them of that problem (and any reluctance to appear rude). And you get to hear (and repeat in your mind) the improved version immediately in context. For me, it's often more about appropriate word usage or politeness than "grammar". Fellow learners are usually better for the useful rules of thumb. (We often don't see our mother tongue in those terms.)

P.S. Notice I didn't include romantic partner? I found frequent corrections to be decidedly unromantic. Home should be a sanctuary where we can just 'be' and can imagine ourselves to sound incredibly sexy rather than idiotic. I saved him for specific questions.

thurd Wrote:I believe there is no single "proper" way of expressing yourself in any language. Everyone is different and everyone speaks differently. I don't recall grammar rules when speaking Polish and I don't want to do it in a foreign language, even if it means making lots of mistakes (native!=not making mistakes).

Personally when I suggest grammar 'rules' or point people at grammar references, I don't do this with the idea that they should be constantly thinking about rules when they speak (and I certainly don't when I'm speaking or reading myself). The idea is that you can use the rules to provide a sort of 'scaffolding' while you're building the intuitive internal understanding of the language. When you're done the scaffolding just goes away. (Insert standard analogy with RTK keywords here.)

Quote:(native!=not making mistakes).

The set of mistakes (and "mistakes") made by native speakers is noticably different from the set of mistakes that second language learners make, though. If all you're aiming for is to be able to make yourself understood to other people, then there's not (so much) need to care about your grasp of grammar. If, on the other hand, you're striving for something more than that, then at some point you're going to need to produce output that doesn't sound 'wrong' to the average native speaker. This is of course why tests test grammar in the first place: it is a component of general proficiency in a language.

Best way to get rid of it, in my opinion, is to find an explanation that makes sense to you alongside examples, and just internalize them together until you've built your own mental corpus/native-like intuition that you can be confident in... That's why I think blending explicit 'meta' descriptions of common or tricky language patterns based on 'native' materials that you're deconstructing are so useful, they give you a reference point to check yourself against, combined with the usage you're actually interested in, well, using.

Related: http://forum.koohii.com/showthread.php?p...1#pid40741

nest0r Wrote:That's why I think blending explicit 'meta' descriptions of common or tricky language patterns based on 'native' materials that you're deconstructing are so useful, they give you a reference point to check yourself against, combined with the usage you're actually interested in, well, using.

I'm glad to see this because I agree 100% but it seems like here (and many other places), the "don't read grammar explanations, just read Japanese and you'll automatically pick it up" advice reigns supreme.

Yeah, I always wondered where that idea came from. Why would you actively NOT read grammar explanations?

It's not like grammar explanations are a must, but it helps a lot. Personally, I prefer looking up explanations after having seen the grammar point a lot. This lets you focus on the deeper points instead of simply trying to understand without perspective.

Tobberoth Wrote:Yeah, I always wondered where that idea came from. Why would you actively NOT read grammar explanations?

It's not like grammar explanations are a must, but it helps a lot. Personally, I prefer looking up explanations after having seen the grammar point a lot. This lets you focus on the deeper points instead of simply trying to understand without perspective.

I think the belief stems primarily from two ideas -- first, the fact that native speakers can use the grammar of their own language without reading explanations leads some people to think that therefore second language learners shouldn't use explanations either. Second, the "traditional" style of language learning that's associated with bad results depends heavily on studying grammar rules, therefore, as a reaction to that "traditional" style, people overreact and say you shouldn't use grammar rules at all.

Also, some experienced learners who took bad classes and then studied on their own (and succeeded) come to believe that the bad classes did literally nothing for them at all, and thus they declaim against everything associated with them. I think this is what lies behind the antimoon criticism of grammatical rules.

yudantaiteki Wrote:

nest0r Wrote:That's why I think blending explicit 'meta' descriptions of common or tricky language patterns based on 'native' materials that you're deconstructing are so useful, they give you a reference point to check yourself against, combined with the usage you're actually interested in, well, using.

I'm glad to see this because I agree 100% but it seems like here (and many other places), the "don't read grammar explanations, just read Japanese and you'll automatically pick it up" advice reigns supreme.

Haha. Evidently you missed the 'grammar wars' that spread across the forum's threads and that Thora/me/Jarvik/Tobbs/etc. are veterans of.

Thanks for all the replies guys. I have been doing some thinking and I think as others have said, having a foundation to build on is important. I can remember when I was studying the traditional way there were grammar points that were really confusing to me but now I can use without thinking. But, I think knowing the grammar rule helped me out in the beginning and it slowly faded itself out of my mind until I was able to use it intuitively. But, I am also noticing that learning this way without 'studying' per se I am also able to use grammar that I never learned and I often have to think back after the fact and say, 'Wait was that the right way to use it?' and often it was.

harhol,
Thanks for the explanation. I have that book too and I guess I shouldn't say 'confusing' but my problem is I am supposed to stop in the middle of a conversation and ask myself, 'OK. Is this a conjecture, command, request, suggestion, invitation, volition or opinion?' It just seems too much to do, but maybe just having the list in the back of my mind is helpful and I will be able to seperate it out with time and practice.

I guess looking up grammar rules you will have to stop and think more in the beginning but going strictly off feeling you are probably more likely to make mistakes for longer until they work themselves out.

Tobberoth Wrote:Yeah, I always wondered where that idea came from. Why would you actively NOT read grammar explanations?

It's one of those things which is likely endorsed on the internet a lot more than it is actually practised in real life. Memorizing grammar patterns & rules isn't exactly the coolest way to learn a language. It's much more impressive to say, "Well, in my case, I just played JRPGs for a year and suddenly woke up one day and noticed that I was fluent". Nobody can prove you wrong.

I'll add a third reason [to Y's two] - no consensus on what "grammar" means. Some have in mind the vocab/phrases/patterns found in JLPT lists, Understanding Basic Japanese Grammar or Dictionaries of B/I/A Grammar. While others are envisioning complicated analysis which involves naming parts of speech and theoretical rules. So those debates often resembled a blind boxing match.

Unfortunately, some people influenced by the anti-grammar rhetoric end up avoiding good grammar resources without realizing they offer practical vocab/examples more than theory and rules. Somehow I think if those resources were renamed something like "Functional Vocab" or "Useful patterns", the debate would subside.

Like someone said earlier:
Just pick up sentences with kara and node and throw them into anku.

And

Be attentive to kara and node when you read/listen.

Is that really enough to learn that kara emphasizes the reason and no de emphasizes the result? It just seems like that's such a subtle distinction that there's no way you could pick it up purely from reading sentences and listening.

For learning grammar, I mostly just read the sentence examples and treat the grammar points like vocab. No need for technical grammatical terms.

For example:

Quote:© S2 expresses the speaker's volition or personal opinion.
僕がよく知っているから大丈夫です。

Instead of using the explanation above the sentence, I'd just learn から as meaning "so" here.

yudantaiteki Wrote:Is that really enough to learn that kara emphasizes the reason and no de emphasizes the result? It just seems like that's such a subtle distinction that there's no way you could pick it up purely from reading sentences and listening.

No way you can pick it up just from knowing your explanation.

yudantaiteki Wrote:Is that really enough to learn that kara emphasizes the reason and no de emphasizes the result? It just seems like that's such a subtle distinction that there's no way you could pick it up purely from reading sentences and listening.

Sort of, depends on your viewpoint. I've never read any texts on kara and node, I've always treated them as identical. However, I use them correctly. And reading what you said makes perfect sense, that's just how they feel to me. I use them correctly automatically from tons of exposure.

That said, it's still good to know it from a good source. Me seeing you write that here will make my usage of kara and node even more perfect.