There's something called 発声練習 in Japanese that アナウンサー use to perfect their elocution, and I think it'd have a lot of merit if you were aiming to achieve native-level pron (see here for the general idea). There are even exercises that involve putting weights on your cheeks to nail い. I don't think I've heard anyone except my linguist friend stress the importance of enunciating vowels correctly. Most learners seem to think they're "basically the same as English," which means they're pretty much guaranteed to sound "un-Japanese".

I don't know how much I value the idea of perfect pron, but I find it interesting learning/practising some basic phonology, just like I found kanji, grammar, vocab etc interesting to varying degrees. You don't hear many people downplaying their significance, but pronunciation seems to be something of a punch bag. Pitch seems to take the bulk of the blows because it can be so seemingly insignificant if you're unaware of it, which most of us are at the beginning, and potentially for a very long time.

Thanks for that... I'll order my cheek weights immediately Any feedback on their effectiveness?

Javizy Wrote:There's something called 発声練習 in Japanese that アナウンサー use to perfect their elocution, and I think it'd have a lot of merit if you were aiming to achieve native-level pron (see here for the general idea).

Elocution is theatrics more than anything. I doubt they teach anything about phonology, and since native speakers already know the right pitch, I doubt they do much more than point out the odd mistake. Now this might be different for people who speak other dialects, except that the average Japanese person has a pretty good idea of what Standard pitch is since they hear it on TV all the time. This kind of course is directed at natives and I doubt they are equipped to teach foreigners.

AlexandreC Wrote:Elocution is theatrics more than anything. I doubt they teach anything about phonology, and since native speakers already know the right pitch, I doubt they do much more than point out the odd mistake. Now this might be different for people who speak other dialects, except that the average Japanese person has a pretty good idea of what Standard pitch is since they hear it on TV all the time. This kind of course is directed at natives and I doubt they are equipped to teach foreigners.

I was thinking more in terms of what Harpagornes said about speech therapy. I'd be surprised if stress would be so much of focus in English speech therapy, but I'm sure enunciation and the like would be. Personally, I'm not that confident when it comes to vowel changes, especially when there's one either side of を. I'm sure there'd be lots of interesting stuff in one of those kinds of books. I think they cover stuff like voice projection and other speaking techniques, which I could use learning in both languages. Maybe I'll get my g/f to get me one for Christmas.

Ok, I talked to one of my teachers about this here in Chiba. First thing she did was correct me. It's intonation, not "pitch accent". From everything I've read, I have to agree with her. "Pitch Accent" seems like a really bad choice of names.

Second, she said my intonation was pretty good, and there was absolutely no confusion about what I was trying to say regarding pronunciation. My sucky grammar causes confusion sometimes, but that's another issue. She said I had the knack of it (intonation) already, even though I hadn't done any special training. She knows the school has some books, with audio, which specifically target this issue (I'm not positive that they only target intonation; might be general pronunciation).

So my approach now will be to continue paying attention to intonation when I learn vocabulary. Perfect pronunciation is definitely not a goal of mine, but I try to get it as close as possible without doing any more work than I've already done.

This "paying attention to tones" is relatively new for me. I've only started to do this with Japanese since 2009 (I started Japanese in 2005). Before that, I didn't care. And even though I used Pimsleur in the very beginning, sometimes my pronunciation confused people. It wasn't until I got far along in my tonal languages that I decided to assume that tones were important in all languages. Who was I to change the intonation of something I was shadowing, after all? This is one of the reasons I was so upset with Michel Thomas Russian. The teacher kept using this "patronizing" tone with the students, which was not the intonation that would normally be used with the phrase. She foiled my double secret pronunciation effort, and it pissed me off. But that's another forum...

If I had to do it again, I would pay attention to tones from the beginning. Since I was a novice with tones, I would read about the tones, maybe spend a few hours with the drills the somebody's grandson posted. Then I'd start Pimsleur, this time mimicking the tones as well as possible. And I'd always be aware of tones for new vocab, etc. But no special flashcards, or additional isolated studies.

@leosmith: That teacher from Chiba is full of it. "Pitch accent" is a translation of 高低アクセント and is a linguistically acceptable way of referring to intonation in Japanese: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_pitch_accent

From that Wikipedia article: "Foreign learners of Japanese are often not taught to pronounce the pitch accent, though it is included in some noted texts, such as Japanese: The Spoken Language. Incorrect pitch accent is a strong characteristic of a "foreign accent" in Japanese."

From this discussion I would guess that most people on this forum have a strong "foreign accent" in Japanese.

I don't see why making flashcards with accent noted would be such a no-no. Learning the accent is such an important part of learning Japanese that it would amply justify making flashcards for it. But hey, if you don't want to learn it, nobody's forcing you!

louischa Wrote:Ignorance is bliss.

Ignorance is strength - that's what my granny thought but she was too polite to mention it.

@buonaparte: Your granma seems to dominate your every thought. I would be worried renting a motel room from you and taking a shower.

louischa Wrote:@leosmith: That teacher from Chiba is full of it.

She's a damn good teacher. Does アクセント look Japanese to you? In linguistics, intonation is variation of pitch while speaking which is not used to distinguish words. So are we talking about pitch? Are we talking about accents? Sure, but the best label to put on this is intonation.

louischa Wrote:From that Wikipedia article: "Foreign learners of Japanese are often not taught to pronounce the pitch accent, though it is included in some noted texts, such as Japanese: The Spoken Language. Incorrect pitch accent is a strong characteristic of a "foreign accent" in Japanese."

Here you imply that people who are "taught" the pitch accent have better pronunciation.

louischa Wrote:From this discussion I would guess that most people on this forum have a strong "foreign accent" in Japanese.

Here you imply the people who aren't "taught" the pitch accent have worse pronunciation.

louischa Wrote:I don't see why making flashcards with accent noted would be such a no-no. Learning the accent is such an important part of learning Japanese that it would amply justify making flashcards for it. But hey, if you don't want to learn it, nobody's forcing you!

I think it's a very wise thing to be aware of the intonation, and always try to correctly produce it. And for a complete beginner to tonal languages, some study upfront about the nature of tones, with some drills, is probably worth your while. But your insistence that people who don't learn your way won't learn it is wrong.

Whenever I find myself getting really defensive about some particular aspect of my learning plan, that's a good sign that I need to change it. So here's my suggestion to you, if you really want good intonation. Work your way through the core 2000 flashcards, with sound, Japanese to English only. Fail yourself if your intonation is incorrect. This will be much more effective than what you're proposing.

@leosmith I'm not sure if you (and the teacher from Chiba) are aware this, but the word "accent" in "pitch accent" is used in the meaning of "emphasis", not "peculiar or characteristic manner of speaking or pronouncing". It refers to the accentuation of certain syllables or morae within words through the use of variations in pitch. In Russian we even call it "musical stress". The term is not as broad as "intonation" (some Japanese dialects are called "accentless" because they do not accentuate syllables using pitch, not because they lack peculiar intonation patterns), but it is in no way incorrect. Besides, it is an accepted term in linguistics and it isn't applied just to Japanese - European languages that are described as having pitch accent include Norwegian, Swedish, Serbo-Croat and the Baltic languages, as well as Ancient Greek.

leosmith Wrote:

louischa Wrote:@leosmith: That teacher from Chiba is full of it.

She's a damn good teacher. Does アクセント look Japanese to you?

Yes, it's a Japanese word. It's a loan from English but that's irrelevant.

Quote:In linguistics, intonation is variation of pitch while speaking which is not used to distinguish words. So are we talking about pitch? Are we talking about accents? Sure, but the best label to put on this is intonation.

JSL distinguishes between pitch accent and intonation; intonation is a sentence or phrase-level sound change that involves things like the dip and rise on a か question and such. "Intonation" is a vague term that covers a lot of different things, whereas "pitch accent" is more specific.

"pitch accent" is a standard term for what we're talking about, we're not just making the word up.

wiki Wrote:In linguistics, intonation is variation of pitch while speaking which is not used to distinguish words. It contrasts with tone, in which pitch variation does distinguish words.

Since Japanese pitch accent does distinguish words, it is not intonation, it is tonal. However, it is not the same thing as a tonal language like Chinese.

wiki Wrote:In Japanese, fewer than half of the words have drop in pitch; words contrast according to which syllable this drop follows. Such minimal systems are sometimes called pitch accent, since they are reminiscent of stress accent languages which typically allow one principal stressed syllable per word.

So in short, Japanese has both intonation and tone (pitch accent), and what people are talking about here is the latter. Of the two, having good intonation is more important as pitch accent varies wildly by region while intonation varies less so. Bad intonation is what gives foreigners their foreigner accent (as well as mispronouncing vowels and having weird timing, but those are easier to get over) and can be very grating, while many natives will not notice a bad pitch accent at first.

kitakitsune Wrote:Thousands of foreigners speaking perfectly understandable Japanese without ever seeing a pitch accent in a dictionary or specifically trying to learn them say otherwise.

louischa Wrote:With all due respect, I prefer to follow Harz-Jorden and Noda's opinion on the matter.

louischa Wrote:I personally prefer to take a little more time to learn Japanese, but to learn it in the way that the authors of the most authoritative Japanese text in the English language - Harz-Jorden and Noda - recommend it should be learned, that is with proper pitch accents. [...] "Japanese: The Spoken Language", [...]Ignore it at your own risk.

You seem to have misunderstood what JSL recommends. According to its "How to Use This Book" section, it specifically advises against the approaches you and AlexandreC are recommending.

* all vocab and intonation are to be learned though audio without looking at the text.

* vocab should be learned only in context, never as isolated items.

* "do not let the written form become a crutch for your understanding or speaking." (italics in original)

* oral models are absolutely necessary. [The text] should serve only to remind you of what you have already heard - and heard many, many times."

If you only meant that JSL thinks pitch accent matters and should be introduced early, well ... I think everyone thinks that (except erlog, apparently). haha I can't seem to find anyone who supports the idea of extensive use of pitch markers for learning to speak. Some pitch training techniques use visual representation, but those are pitch contour graphs showing realized pitch, not abstract text notation which doesn't represent actual pitch. Can you point me to something?

(Excuse the multiple posts. I got this strange sudden urge to read about pitch...)

Louischa, here's a different authority for you:

Dr. Yoko Hasegawa, Linguistics Professor, head of the Japanese department at Berkeley, and the author of Berkeley's 1st year textbook, _Elementary Japanese_, in her article Against Marking Accent Location in Japanese Textbooks:

Quote:using such markers to speak Japanese creates pronunciations that are worse than a crude synthesizer."

Quote:"marking accent in textbooks is at best an extra complication, and at worst can cause adverse effects if instructors and students take it seriously."

Quote:"students must be told that pronunciation markings in dictionaries are not what they are supposed to hear or utter in natural running speech"

She also discusses:

* marked accent doesn't always reflect actual location
* not all syllables are associated with a particular pitch
* it's impossible for pitch accent to be on a devoiced vowel
* markings are [potential harmful] if the way pitch accent is realized isn't adequately explained
* so called "illusory pitch" directly affects teaching b/c it isn't audible to most students (it's a learned response)
* students should be taught about Japanese accent during the early stages and learn pitch by imitating native speakers
* okay in dictionaries, but not in textbooks
* people can mimic language melody, but cannot interpret visual accent markers into aural/oral domain without special training b/c visual and auditory stimuli are processed very differently. (whatever that means)

edit in [ ]

leosmith Wrote:Ok, I talked to one of my teachers about this here in Chiba. First thing she did was correct me. It's intonation, not "pitch accent". From everything I've read, I have to agree with her. "Pitch Accent" seems like a really bad choice of names.

Except that pitch accent is exactly the right term. As others have said, intonation is a separate issue. Intonation is a feature of all human languages, but only a subset have pitch accent. アクセント doesn't mean English accent, but refers to pitch, more specifically 高低アクセント, and specialized dictionaries that deal with pitch are called アクセント辞典.

Whenever I've expressed that teachers here in Canada are not knowledgeable enough to teach pitch, I'm told that this isn't the case in Japan, but I think you've just demonstrated that that's not true. Perhaps if you specifically speak to her about koutei akusento, she will understand her mistake. She may be a good teacher, but simply misinformed in this matter, as is the case of many of the teachers I met.

You have to consider pronunciation to be a specialized field and unless a teacher received specific training, they will give you very approximate and subjective information about your pronunciation, and it always has to be taken with a grain of salt.

I've never liked Hasegawa's article because she doesn't seem to understand the way JSL works. I've taught from JSL (with Professor Noda) for a number of years. As you pointed out with your quotations from the introduction, the idea is not that students will be staring at the printed words and trying to make up the accent from there. Most of the pitch practice is done in class, through correction (in the class you are never allowed to have any books or notes open). Everything is done in context so the students are hearing the pitch of these words in actual sentences and contexts, not in isolation.

vonPeterhof Wrote:@leosmith I'm not sure if you (and the teacher from Chiba) are aware this, but the word "accent" in "pitch accent" is used in the meaning of "emphasis", not "peculiar or characteristic manner of speaking or pronouncing". It refers to the accentuation of certain syllables or morae within words through the use of variations in pitch. In Russian we even call it "musical stress". The term is not as broad as "intonation" (some Japanese dialects are called "accentless" because they do not accentuate syllables using pitch, not because they lack peculiar intonation patterns), but it is in no way incorrect. Besides, it is an accepted term in linguistics and it isn't applied just to Japanese - European languages that are described as having pitch accent include Norwegian, Swedish, Serbo-Croat and the Baltic languages, as well as Ancient Greek.

touche

AlexandreC Wrote:Whenever I've expressed that teachers here in Canada are not knowledgeable enough to teach pitch, I'm told that this isn't the case in Japan, but I think you've just demonstrated that that's not true. Perhaps if you specifically speak to her about koutei akusento, she will understand her mistake. She may be a good teacher, but simply misinformed in this matter, as is the case of many of the teachers I met.

Possibly. I've taken classes in 4 different Japanese schools, and from about 20 teachers over the years. What pronunciation practice consists of is essentially shadowing. Now, I haven't been in an advanced class for a long period of time, so it's very possible that they get more into it. But from what I've seen, they look at pronunciation as a whole, and trouble shoot anything that they can.

And don't for one minute think that being in a Japanese school means they are able to fix the majority of people's pronunciation problems. I've been told more than once that I have the best pronunciation in a given class, and that's along side Chinese and Koreans. It's hard to get somebody to do what's required t change their pronunciation, imo.

Another thing that might interest you. My teacher told me that Chinese and Koreans have a lot more trouble with Japanese intonation than westerners. That was a surprise to me.

I wonder if the reason some people have trouble with learning simply via developing an ear for native speech and imitating native speakers comes partly from classroom learning. Imagine you learn Japanese for 4 years in a classroom with a native speaker and a non-native assistant. I could be wrong (I didn't study at a uni) but I imagine this would involve a lot of drills imitating the native, listening to recordings, listening to dialogues between the teachers etc. But if more than half the class were dedicated to conversation practice with other classmates, that would mean time spent listening to non-native input could easily exceed time spent listening to native input. I don't know but I suspect most homework would be in the form of reading/writing so this also wouldn't address the imbalance. Someone who has learnt solely from native speakers and native media on the other hand has only ever heard correctly pronounced Japanese (other than their own voice during conversation), so they'd pretty much have to be ignoring their own ears to get it wrong. This will of course be the case at first but as one's ears become more finely tuned to listening to natural Japanese, I think they'll be able to get it right more often than not.

nadiatims Wrote:I wonder if the reason some people have trouble with learning simply via developing an ear for native speech and imitating native speakers comes partly from classroom learning. Imagine you learn Japanese for 4 years in a classroom with a native speaker and a non-native assistant. I could be wrong (I didn't study at a uni) but I imagine this would involve a lot of drills imitating the native, listening to recordings, listening to dialogues between the teachers etc. But if more than half the class were dedicated to conversation practice with other classmates, that would mean time spent listening to non-native input could easily exceed time spent listening to native input. I don't know but I suspect most homework would be in the form of reading/writing so this also wouldn't address the imbalance. Someone who has learnt solely from native speakers and native media on the other hand has only ever heard correctly pronounced Japanese (other than their own voice during conversation), so they'd pretty much have to be ignoring their own ears to get it wrong. This will of course be the case at first but as one's ears become more finely tuned to listening to natural Japanese, I think they'll be able to get it right more often than not.

In my experience, there is no clear difference between the pronunciation of students who learned in a class and those who learned on their own. This is also true of the Japanese L2 speakers I know, including a few who only learned from being in Japan, without any formal teaching or studying. They still produce inconsistent vowel length and geminates. This seems to confirm that people only copy what they think matter, and they decide what matters almost exclusively based on their first language.

I'm a bit confused as to why people would get vowel lengths wrong because obviously if you can read the word you can see how long the vowels should be. Is it linked somehow to mispronunciation of vowels?

pudding cat Wrote:I'm a bit confused as to why people would get vowel lengths wrong because obviously if you can read the word you can see how long the vowels should be. Is it linked somehow to mispronunciation of vowels?

You never get length wrong? I don't usually get it wrong, but it does happen. Even if you read the word correctly, that doesn't mean you will remember and get it right 100% of the time. Even if you do know what the vowel is, production is not always 100% perfect and sometimes, poor phonological planning can interfere and cause a mistake (ie. because many other difficult pronunciation problems occured earlier in the sentence).

Regardless of what we read, most learners don't remember everything perfectly, and even when we do, we don't produce everything perfectly. Even native speakers sometimes screw up English stress or vowel length.

I think getting the vowel lengths wrong is mostly a beginner thing, linked to romaji, just pronouncing the vowels wrong in general which will effect length, speaking via stock patterns, reliance on slowly recalling vocabulary via their written form, just speaking too slowly, poor intonation etc etc. Poor kanji and reading ability probably plays apart as well as they may not remember when a certain character is extended or not, eg しょう vs. しょ きょう vs. きょ etc.

By the time someone's at an advanced level, they generally aren't getting vowel length wrong, which makes me wonder about the general level of the Japanese learners AlexandreC alludes to in his posts. If they're still frequently getting vowel length wrong, I doubt they're at a particularly high level, so expecting fantastic pronunciation strikes me as a little naive.

nadiatims Wrote:By the time someone's at an advanced level, they generally aren't getting vowel length wrong, which makes me wonder about the general level of the Japanese learners AlexandreC alludes to in his posts. If they're still frequently getting vowel length wrong, I doubt they're at a particularly high level, so expecting fantastic pronunciation strikes me as a little naive.

This strikes as a little utopic. People get vowel length wrong at all levels, just like very advanced university professors still sometimes get English stress wrong or make stressed vowels too short when it's not their first language.

pudding cat Wrote:I'm a bit confused as to why people would get vowel lengths wrong because obviously if you can read the word you can see how long the vowels should be. Is it linked somehow to mispronunciation of vowels?

In my case it mostly has to do with remembering where the long vowels are. My language does not distinguish vowel length, so in many cases I can remember which vowel the word had, but forget how long it was. With native English speakers there is also the problem of mispronunciation. English has vowel length, but in many cases the long and short vowels are actually different sounds - "ee" isn't just "i, but longer", as many Russian speakers seem to think, the former is [iː], while the latter is [ɪ]. The simple five vowel system of Japanese is not something native English speakers are used to. You have probably heard English speakers pronounce 漢字 as カーンジ, because they were told that the Japanese a is like "a" in "father".