on jlpt:
when i read the book Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength they referred to a study where they split a group in half; one half reflected on what they had accomplished, the other half made long term goals and plans.

the group that reflected on their accomplishment reported more satisfaction, but the ones that constructed long term goals and plans had more motivation and drive.

i think both are important; it's just a matter of when you need one more than other.

yudantaiteki Wrote:[...]they are native speakers so they know most of the vocab.

I understand the idea that it's easier for native students to learn to read b/c they already speak the language. But this doesn't mean they already know most of the vocab they encounter in school. Written vocabulary is much larger than spoken and school is meant to expand their exposure to a broad range of topics. Just like for English students, the number of new words contained in each grade's reading material is huuuge.

zigmonty Wrote:As to the original question, beware of metrics like how many kanji they study etc. What (good) classes are good at is conversation practice, etc. They'll never compare to focused self-study in terms of number of kanji etc, but they'll likely raise your skill in a more balanced way. Look at it from the perspective of the whole course, not just the first year.

I think your point about the difficulty of comparing different approaches after just one year is also worth emphasizing.

Just a minor observation. Whether conversation practice is a priority really depends on the course/approach. There are strong Japanese programs which don't focus on conversation practice in first year. (Although they include labs and tutors for listening comprehension, pronunciation and automaticity.) I think the relative strengths of different approaches (spoken vs reading) even out after a couple of years. Both approaches usually offer advanced classes in speaking and writing.

First- However my language comes across know that my mood is positive. At least keep that in mind while reading. Please.

zigmonty Wrote:You know, in general it is others who judge whether what you are saying is abrasive or not. And given the responses you've got, maybe you need to recalibrate your abrasion sensor. Sure, you say "If you don't want to- that's fine" but then you also claim acing the N1 isn't that big an achievement. Put the two together and your opinion comes off as "hey, you can suck if you want and settle for N1. Not me though, i'm a winner".

No? I wrote my opinions knowing they were a little abrasive- there's nothing odd about that. I've been with me long enough to know what my personality is and how what I say comes across. That being said, I'm continually apologizing for anyone who feels attacked and constantly being attacked.. for it. That's not the point. The point is to stimulate thought for anyone at all who might have ever thought "hey this bar is too low, isn't it..?" before they can think it was just their imagination. That's why I carefully went through to un-attack anyone who might have felt attacked. Including,

drdunlap Wrote:Yes, *of course* passing the N1 at all is a serious claim to Japanese success and I don't want to diminish anyone's accomplishments.

I simply honestly think, regardless of level, class structure, lifestyle, goals, social position, abrasive sensor calibration, etc. that the bar is too low in general and that just about the entirety of the Japanese learning world could be a step or two above where they are without breaking their backs and, in fact, without really working much harder at all. Mindset, expectation, these things are incredibly important. Two years of class in Japanese should be roughly equivalent (roughly) to two years of class in just about any other language. Thinking of and treating it as special destroy the expectations placed on students - we should all be well aware of this. In my university, French students were expected to being reading native French -in- year two. Give Japanese one more year for Kanji..?

In the case of aiming for N1- I want people aiming to pass N1 to be aiming for an A or a B. The whole idea of passing a test, much less a language proficiency test, with a 60% is really odd to me and I wanted that to be pointed out. If no one agrees- no one agrees. That's that.

Am I obsessed? No. I am, however, serious about my studies. I've simply set quite high goals and I'm not trying to force those goals on anyone - that would be absurd. I'm simply looking around and saying "This overall system seems to have room for improvement. It shouldn't hurt anyone- and it should help just about everyone."

The expectations placed on learners of Japanese worldwide, mostly due to the way Japanese think of their own language and thus teach it to foreigners, are incredibly low. - We know this, right? The mood has been damaged from the start. If so it shouldn't be odd for one crazy such as myself to be thinking that the whole system could do with being shifted up a notch.

Sorry for the derail. I just don't want anyone to be continually angry at me for something that was never meant as an attack. Seriously. This is a motivation.

drdunlap Wrote:In the case of aiming for N1- I want people aiming to pass N1 to be aiming for an A or a B. The whole idea of passing a test, much less a language proficiency test, with a 60% is really odd to me and I wanted that to be pointed out. If no one agrees- no one agrees. That's that.

My opinion on JLPT is a bit different. As it's a pass or fail test, most people just want it out the way so as soon as they think it's possible to pass it they take it. I think most people on here also plan to study Japanese for the long-term so after taking N1 they will keep improving and their test score will become meaningless, only the fact that they passed will still have meaning.

pudding cat Wrote:

drdunlap Wrote:In the case of aiming for N1- I want people aiming to pass N1 to be aiming for an A or a B. The whole idea of passing a test, much less a language proficiency test, with a 60% is really odd to me and I wanted that to be pointed out. If no one agrees- no one agrees. That's that.

My opinion on JLPT is a bit different. As it's a pass or fail test, most people just want it out the way so as soon as they think it's possible to pass it they take it. I think most people on here also plan to study Japanese for the long-term so after taking N1 they will keep improving and their test score will become meaningless, only the fact that they passed will still have meaning.

That's fair. 8)

@drdunlap,
I think people are suggesting your campaign has no audience. For many people, JLPT is a motivator or just a required certificate. Score isn't important and has no bearing on ultimately ability. Those who do care about whether they bring home an A or B (?) wouldn't need your pep talk. Your reaction to the different scholarship pass rates seemed a bit absurd to me. [Is the scholarship not targeting a certain age/univ year range? How else would they equalize it?]

Quote:Mindset, expectation, these things are incredibly important. Two years of class in Japanese should be roughly equivalent (roughly) to two years of class in just about any other language. Thinking of and treating it as special destroy the expectations placed on students - we should all be well aware of this. In my university, French students were expected to being reading native French -in- year two. Give Japanese one more year for Kanji..?

"We should all be well aware of this". Oh? Why do you think so?

[edit: I misunderstood your comment about an additional year for kanji, so my original response didn't make sense. I'll just say that I think you downplay the differences b/w learning to read Japanese vs French.]

As for pace, it's not about what's possible, it's about rough equivalency of credit hours. People wanting a faster pace can take private intensive courses or self-study.

You may not be aware that some uni programs involve reading authentic texts from Y2. We weren't required know/produce all the kanji, though. (And it wouldn't be reading at the same level as French Y2 learners.)

Yes, expectation and motivation are important. But nothing gets destroyed by recognizing the reality that learning to read Japanese takes considerable effort and time. You might want to consider how your views on JLPT, language learning and native proficiency could negatively impact motivation. (Your opinions often sound to me like recycled ajatt platitudes - vague, simplistic and exaggerated.)

Quote:The expectations placed on learners of Japanese worldwide, mostly due to the way Japanese think of their own language and thus teach it to foreigners, are incredibly low. - We know this, right? The mood has been damaged from the start.

wow. Such broad strokes...so many assumptions...

Why don't you dig deep into Japanese language education and get back to us with the facts and specific recommendations for reform. (Don't forget all the damaged learners who succeeded despite their hopeless mood and the refusal of ignorant Japanese to teach them properly.) [/sarcasm]

Quote:Seriously. This is a motivation.

That's your opinion.

While I'm in the same class as drdunlap...and I do think our teacher does teach on an intermediate level considering it's a 4th year class... I am at times really grateful for this as it allows me more time to focus on my non-Japanese classes.. If we were learning at such a high level all the time, it would be difficult for me to catch up at times. I do however think that more pressure should be pushed on reading native materials than generic textbooks such as An Intermediate Approach to Japanese. Talking in less formal Japanese more often would be nice as well.

On a second thought, if my Japanese Language & Literature degree offered more classes involving reading Japanese Literature/Manga IN JAPANESE instead of English like some other college... Then I would say turn up the Japanese level as much as you want

Hashiriya Wrote:On a second thought, if my Japanese Language & Literature degree offered more classes involving reading Japanese Literature/Manga IN JAPANESE instead of English like some other college... Then I would say turn up the Japanese level as much as you want

Yes, there are some great courses out there on Japanese lit, manga and film taught in Japanese. Programs could do a better job of integrating language learning and such subject classes. As a Lit major, it's too bad you aren't able to take more subject courses in Japanese.

One possible solution is for universities to require a minimum level of Japanese to enrol so that a greater portion of the 4 years can be spent using rather than learning the language. A university could offer a full time intensive language program for one year as a prereq or self-studiers could be required to pass an exam. (Would high school Jpn be enough?)

I think students would get so much more out of a program if they could tap into the interesting passions and work being done by faculty who don't normally get involved with language instruction. My profs' interests ranged from pop culture to noh drama to queer studies to int'l trade. One problem with this idea. however, is that students often do a general 1st year while they figure out what they want to study.

Larger programs are able to offer 2 streams: intensive for Japanese Studies students, and regular for students needing a language credit, heritage speakers grabbing some easy credits (lol) or people curious to just learn a bit about Japanese. Such streaming is much better for instructors and serious students. With a faster pace, perhaps they could cover the broader range of genres and styles you'd like to see.

To tie this back to my response to drdunlop:
I think it's important to consider the instructor's perspective and recognize the various practical constraints and compromises involved. I think it's wrong to assume they believe foreigners are incapable of becoming proficient in Japanese. There's room for improvement in univ language programs, but how you approach it matters. (If drdunlop is serious about wanting to improve the system.)

Maybe it's just because we are from Georgia and Japanese people think that people in the South are too retarded to reach a decent level of Japanese

drdunlap Wrote:Two years of class in Japanese should be roughly equivalent (roughly) to two years of class in just about any other language.

This is unrealistic, and attempting to follow it would do more damage to the students' ability than help. The difficulty of the writing system cannot be ignored. In French the students might start reading a novel in second year French, but reading a novel in second year Japanese is unrealistic for the majority of students. The teachers who think it is realistic end up wasting the students' time. One additional year is not enough to compensate -- native Japanese children take 9 years to learn the entire Joyo list, so it seems pretty silly to think that foreign Japanese learners can do it from zero in 3 years.

I experienced this when I took Chinese. The teachers were adamant that we should be able to read newspapers by the end of third year (despite a first-year course almost entirely devoted to speaking). To accomplish this we were presented with newspaper articles containing about 80-90% unknown words, accompanied by a huge vocabulary list defining nearly every term. "Reading" these articles consisted of looking back and forth to the vocab list for nearly every word. After we did a few of these we were told that now that we could "read newspapers", other material would be comparatively easy. The entire thing was a waste of time and was entirely the product of people aiming for unrealistic goals and artificial end-points. Thinking too big can be harmful as well -- in this case, that time in the class was more or less completely wasted, and could have been spent more profitably reading some things closer to our actual level.

In other words, it's good to have long-term goals and to try to set the bar high, but that can be a bad thing if it causes you to aim so far beyond your current ability that you end up wasting your time instead.

yudantaiteki Wrote:

drdunlap Wrote:Two years of class in Japanese should be roughly equivalent (roughly) to two years of class in just about any other language.

This is unrealistic, and attempting to follow it would do more damage to the students' ability than help.

Very true. It is already well established that is takes roughly 3 times as long for English speakers to learn Japanese - or Chinese or Korean.

yudantaiteki Wrote:One additional year is not enough to compensate --

ohh - I misinterpreted drdunlop's comment. Thanks for the clarification - I'll edit my response. After the outrage over lower pass rates for Westerners and the "2yrs Japanese should equal 2yrs of any language", I just assumed

Quote:Give Japanese one more year for Kanji..?

was an incredulous "...wth?" (ie no extra time needed) rather than a proposal to allow one extra year. oops

I thought I was the only one that was bothered by the fact that language and culture classes totally aren't related. There are no other programs offered either, too bad.

Aside from that, English books about Japan don't even write names or typical Japanese customs in kanji. You could use kanji in a solely positive way, but it's not common for some reason.

I forgot to mention about the 1500 kanji in 3 years that only the first 500 have a test that should be scored 55% or higher, reading, meaning and handwriting is tested. The rest is all your own choice i.e. it's not tested anymore after that. You could choose to only learn to read new kanji found in textbooks, or learn the rest properly too. Conversational classes are only 2 hours a week, the full 3 years. Way too less if you ask me, only the students that are more motivated and actually spend some of their free time on Japanese seem to follow the classes fine. Grammar classes are 2 hours a week too though only the first year. Reading/translating is 4 hours a week, which is fine/reasonable.

@yudantaiteki: What you describe about newspapers is exactly what's going on with second year students at my university, only that the 'unknown' words are simple, everyday words.

Now that I think about it, maybe my image of 'the university' was wrong. People really don't seem to do even a speck more than expected, at least in the bachelor phase. Maybe it's indeed living away from home, making friends, going to parties. In their world, 1500 kanji may indeed be just right.

I was looking for some guidance at the university but I guess I'm on my own after all. Oh well, at least I'll be able to skip the third year classes too if I keep my own pace.

As most people who are active here are probably the motivated self-study types, it might be hard to compare with a different world.

drdunlap Wrote:

zachandhobbes Wrote:Well, think about it this way. I hear that Japanese natives typically get like in the 80s range on it, so if you can get that then I don't see how much better you could possibly do.

Not on the JLPT? That's an unfortuante myth.
A middle school graduate should be able to make 80 - 100. An average adult should ace it.
I made a reasonably high score and don't feel as if I have nowhere left to go- on the contrary, I feel like everything begins from here!

I'm sure any native Japanese person can pass N1 easily.

And I'm not talking average adult or whatever. I'm talking like High School dropouts, those homeless bums, chinpiras and yankees that walk the streets aimlessly....they can pass N1 without much challenge.

I think it's also important to note that universities aren't just a language learning factory. You get a university degree which separates you from a guy who can operate in two languages.

I'm sure that if you apply for a non-Japanese related job, having a BA in Japanese looks better than a bilingual HS graduate.

Hashiriya Wrote:Maybe it's just because we are from Georgia and Japanese people think that people in the South are too retarded to reach a decent level of Japanese

nah...your wife thinks you're a great catch! ;-)

Quote:While I'm in the same class as drdunlap...and I do think our teacher does teach on an intermediate level considering it's a 4th year class... [...] I do however think that more pressure should be pushed on reading native materials than generic textbooks such as An Intermediate Approach to Japanese. Talking in less formal Japanese more often would be nice as well.

I see what you mean about the pace being slower for Japanese majors at your univ. That textbook is currently used in 2nd yr Intermediate Japanese at my former school. (It wasn't used when I was there.)

You and/or drdunlop might want to consider asking for a directed reading course for your final semester. If your univ has a graduate program (unlikely given the 4Y level?), you could ask to register for one of those courses.

Here's one more curriculum for anyone interested:

Y1: Beginner: Genki 1 (6) and 2 (6) ( )=class hrs/week/term
Y2: Intermediate Approach to Japanese (6) and (6)
Y3&Y4: Advanced courses: Reading/writing, Conversation/composing,
Poetry, Essays, Literature, Business, Classical (kanbun, bungo),
Adv Oral Communication, linguistics, Jpn for Chinese specialists, etc.
(3) to (6)

Classes in poetry, essays and literature involve "readings and analysis, advanced conversation, translation into English and practice in the use of standard reference tools as preparation for advanced research in Japanese."

@Hashiriya, the courses on manga, film, literature, etc are in English at the undergrad level and in Japanese at the graduate level. 3Y and 4Y reading material is authentic. As for formality, the focus seems to be on formal before informal in the conversation/composition classes in 3Y and 4Y. (Their primary goal is probably to prepare students for work/academics.)

Formal before informal also makes sense in general because formal language is something students are less likely to pick up on their own, and you cause more problems by not using formal language when you're supposed to than by not using informal language.

I have to disagree - formal before informal makes no sense at all, in my opinion. Informal Japanese is the natural mode of thought, the natural mode of narration, the natural mode of subclauses, the natural mode of every type of Japanese expression -except- addressing a stranger or superior in a public setting. Learning to attach 'masu' and 'desu' to the end of a formal sentence is easy.

Unlearning 'masu' and 'desu' as the natural conclusion of clauses and 'unconjugating' from -masu form before being able to look words up is an unnecessary obstacle. (Of course, not all texts give early verbs as vocabulary already in their 'masu' form, but whether they do or not, students learning formal first tend to memorize the conjugated form as 'the verb' that they are learning.)

-Keigo- is hard, but basic 'formal' speaking is really easy to learn without teaching backwards. It's not viable at all to argue that people will get in trouble by learning formal later in the course - when your vocabulary is only 500 words or less, using formal speech is the least of your problems. Of course students should be made aware before the end of the first semester about formal speech just in case, and introducing it within the first semester isn't unreasonable.

Also, using the wrong mode of speech causes problems both ways... it is impossible to make friends if you cannot drop formal speech. Formality and emotional distance go hand in hand. If you are always formal, you make it clear you don't want to be close to the person you are speaking to. You may not upset anybody as dramatically as being informal at the wrong time, but it's still a problem!

-desu/masu is used far more widely than with strangers or superiors in public.

While informal language is useful to make friends, it can also be gradually assimilated without causing the same type of offense that immediately talking to your supervisor in plain style will. It may be easy to conjugate a verb to -masu form in the abstract, but it's much harder to actually learn to use desu/masu fluidly and without mixing in plain forms when you're not supposed to. I wasn't able to do it even after passing level 1 of JLPT because I had never really had any good instruction in it.

Who in the world has a Japanese speaking supervisor within their first year of Japanese instruction? I certainly don't advocate -not- teaching formal speech within the first year!

I also think the formal/informal is used differently outside of Tokyo, but I've never lived in Japan so it's a little fuzzy to me. Still, I've had rural language exchange partners who say they can count the number of times they've used -masu form in their life on their fingers and that my use of it made them feel I didn't like them.

Granted, Tokyo and 会社員 make up a huge portion of the Japanese population, so it's potentially critical. But if you're goal isn't to work for a Japanese company, it's not the most important part of the language....

Anyway, I think -both- need to be taught within the first year. It's just -weird- to teach formal first, when the informal is the building block of so much other grammar, and the (modern, Tokyo dialect) formal is quite situational and nothing is built on it.

SomeCallMeChris Wrote:Who in the world has a Japanese speaking supervisor within their first year of Japanese instruction?

Me. My boss is japanese, and when he first arrived, he was very dependent on interpreters as his english was quite poor. By mid way through my first year, i was giving presentations to visiting managers in japanese.

Having said that, i actually disagree with yudantaiteki. We did ます/です first, but because we were in an accelerated course, we were doing plain form by a few months in. It could have easily been taught in a more natural order with a warning to us to not speak outside of class for the first few months.

SomeCallMeChris Wrote:Who in the world has a Japanese speaking supervisor within their first year of Japanese instruction?

You really seem to think that desu/masu is only used with superiors or only in business settings -- that's just not accurate at all. Younger people (like, high school age and younger) use it less, and it's used less outside of Tokyo, but it is absolutely not restricted to workplace environments. Students use it, teachers use it, people in stores use it, women sometimes use it even with friends, etc.

Quote:Still, I've had rural language exchange partners who say they can count the number of times they've used -masu form in their life on their fingers and that my use of it made them feel I didn't like them.

How old are these people?

-masu/desu is better to start out with because it lets you use Japanese in real situations right off the bat. You really should not start off meeting someone immediately talking in plain form. The message that sends is "I don't know anything about politeness in Japanese", and some people take that to mean you don't know much Japanese (because in Japan, young children are the only ones not expected to use masu/desu).

SomeCallMeChris Wrote:I also think the formal/informal is used differently outside of Tokyo, but I've never lived in Japan so it's a little fuzzy to me. Still, I've had rural language exchange partners who say they can count the number of times they've used -masu form in their life on their fingers and that my use of it made them feel I didn't like them.

Granted, Tokyo and 会社員 make up a huge portion of the Japanese population, so it's potentially critical. But if you're goal isn't to work for a Japanese company, it's not the most important part of the language....

Dialects may vary but the rules for using formal and informal Japanese are the same everywhere in Japan.

Basically the most simple general rule is this. If you are talking to someone from outside of your immediate circle of family and closest friends, you use formal (or distal) Japanese. If you are talking to someone you know well and you consider them to be true friends or family, you use informal (or intimate) Japanese.

I cannot stress how important this general rule is. If you start talking to people using informal Japanese speech and you do not know them well, and they do not consider you to be their true friend or family, you will come off as incredibly insulting or at least make the other person feel extremely uncomfortable talking to you.

This is why they teach masu/desu first.

And I suspect another reason they teach masu/desu first is because fresh off the boat gaijins in Japan simply do not have the necessary prerequisite relationships formed with Japanese people to warrant usage of intimate speech styles.

Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

I have to agree, for most beginners their relationships with Japanese people will be mostly 'first time meetings' rather than 'close relationships' so it's important to be able to speak politely.
The exceptions to this might be someone not planning on speaking to anyone through the beginners phase of learning or someone who already had close Japanese friends (but didn't plan on meeting any others). In these cases then maybe focusing on more informal language first might be better.

I think it is less a question of which to learn first (you need both anyway), it's more a question of what % of your learning should be aimed at each.

The idea that Japanese people hardly ever use polite language is just wrong. I live in rural, rural Japan (about as far from Tokyo as you can get) and polite Japanese is still alive and well down here. Yes for a lot of Japanese people they will use informal Japanese more than formal, but most will still use formal language in many different situations everyday.