Most particularly one person I was talking to was in her thirties, but I got a similar 'drop formality after the introductions' from someone around 19 in another particular case I remember, so, yes, definitely 'young people' in their language use. 50+ that I've corresponded with never drop the plain form for even a moment, it's true.

And I don't mean to say only in offices - I believe I mentioned 'with strangers' ... and perhaps that sounded dismissive, but I do understand whenever you first meet someone you speak formally, and everyone working in a shop is facing the public - who are both strangers -and- customers - and so speaking formally all day. Every person on the street who isn't a friend or a relative is a stranger.
Of course you need it. I'm not saying you -don't- need it.

However, as someone who's not in Japan... I can read all day or watch dramas all day, and only encounter the polite forms when a character visits a shop. Of course, the broadcast news and really any non-fiction broadcast requires the polite form all the time too, so I suppose it depends on your interests here, but enjoying -any- sort of Japanese fiction in any format is flatly impossible without a good command of the plain forms.

My classes taught polite form almost to the exclusion of plain form - we used plain form in embedded sentences, of course, and the textbook included a little plain form of families speaking among themselves, but, on the whole it was neglected - never used in in-class exercises or instructor-authored exercises. Between the de-emphasis of the plain form and the lack of kanji coverage, ... well, my formal study gave me a little head-start on my self-study (it would have been a larger jump-start if I hadn't practically stopped studying Japanese for two years right after graduating college... :O)

Anyway, my dissatisfaction with that curriculum may color my perspective, but I really do believe that it's simply logical to introduce things from the simple to the complex (and yes, discourage your students from trying to start conversations with real Japanese before the polite forms are introduced.)

But still, even if you think the polite form -should- be taught almost to the exclusion of the plain form, and that students need to learn it early before they cause offense... it's certainly possible to introduce dictionary form in week 1, past form in week 2, continuative form in week 3, and masu form in week 4. That's not even a challenging schedule ... well, depending on the level of particle, kanji, and vocabulary study in the mix. I should think that learning the polite forms before the first month is out would satisfy anyone that it's being introduced 'soon enough' without teaching the grammar backwards.

We may have been talking about slightly different things. I had mentioned to Hashiriya that formal situations were covered before informal in the upper year conversation/composition courses at my school. ydtt may also have had such advanced practice in mind when he responded. somecallmechris, on the other hand, is talking about the order of teaching formal and informal verbs in first year.

I agree with ydtt that it's easier to practice informal language, so it's a good use of class time and TA sessions to practice formal and get feedback. Especially if time is limited. It's more than sticking on a 'masu' or 'desu'. (It might involve different vocab, sentence form, expressions, custom, style, body language, tone, situational awareness, fillers, etiquette, etc.) It's easy to mix different elements together and sound weird if the ability to switch modes hasn't become somewhat automatic. (I became temporarily mute when I started work.) :-)

As for order of teaching formal/informal:

Does it really make a difference? Each side claims their way is better for teaching grammar. I'm not sure what it means to say one order is more natural. Formal is considered simpler b/c it has regular past and negative (and allows students to focus on basic sentence pattern and vocab at the very start.) Knowledge of formal can help if teaching derivation of informal past and continuative.

Both forms are taught early in my experience (used to be at around week 8), so the socially safer argument for formal must be more about the balance used in dialogues and listening material throughout the course.

Most textbooks offer both informal and formal dialogues. Non-dialogue readings would use informal. It's impossible to exclude informal form. I've never heard of anyone getting stuck only using 'masu' forms (and alienating their friends.) ;-) Or not being able to use informal forms in clauses b/c they learned formal first.

I think bookworms who aren't exposed to casual speech can sound a bit stiff, but there are several reasons for that. Can't really blame it on order of learning informal form. If it's prevalent on TV dramas, then there's opportunity for exposure. I personally find there's a mix of formal and informal on TV shows, just like in life. Beginners should have enough knowledge about the difference, they just need practice applying that knowledge. TV is great for that.

While this has already veered off topic quite a bit, I still wanted to comment as someone who has studied and later taught (not Japanese, but economics) at various universities in the US, Canada and the UK. I have also met dozens of European, Americans, Ozzies, etc in Japan over the years. Out of curiosity I've asked most of them about their Japanese language study. I'm not talking about random 英会話 teachers, but fellow exchange students in Japan, professionals working there, even other university professors.

captal Wrote:A guy from the UK told me he took 1kyuu after a year of study in the UK and a year in Japan- that was the way his course was set up. It sounded pretty intense.

But yes, the typical American/Aussie Japanese course won't get you very far after 2 years. Even after a full 3 year degree in Australia, I personally know a lot of students who still struggle to pass N2. I also know some who passed N1.

I'm afraid that seems exaggerated to me. I have never met a Brit who spoke more than minimal Japanese except for one guy who had lived in Japan for five years, so it's hard to infer anything about the education, but I teach in Britain. Here's my impression so far, the most important point being that the quality of the program matters a lot:

1. Top US or Canadian Japanese language program, e.g. Berkeley or UBC, very competitive because of the number of Chinese and Korean students: hell yeah you would be very very close to N2, possibly better, after two years. You would certainly also get by in most conversational situations. And I'm not referring to the Chinese students, but to the typical American with little or no prior foreign language learning experience. Obviously, if you can get into a school like that, you've already proven that you can work hard, so there's a fair bit of selection going on.

2. Top European/UK program like Oxford or (back in the 1990s) Heidelberg: can read fairly well after two years, including 文語 and pre-1945 stuff, but only with a dictionary at hand, has no strong kanji base, and can barely speak. Or not at all in fact in the case of many Germans and Italians. Note though that these two nationalities really nail the pronunciation, and after some time in Japan often achieve impressive fluency without any discernible accent. Quite the contrast to their English skills. I'm guessing their grammar base is quite good.

3. Mediocre program in US/Canada/Oz: N3-N4. No real idea about the language. I've met Kiwis who spoke great Japanese, but have no idea if this was thanks to their university studies.

4. Language study in Russia, or in a country influenced by the Soviet education system: often scarily good. Really. Not only Japanese, but other languages, too.

I would say your best bet is to take the classes as electives, use some of the very effective self-study techniques and materials available here, get A's as a result, and boost your GPA. Unless you have an Asian last name, that might even impress people when you apply to graduate school. It would certainly impress me, and I've been on an admissions committee recently.

Looks like Berkeley and UBC (whose curriculum I listed earlier) both use IAIJ in Y2.

Y1: Elementary Japanese
Y2: Integrated Approach to Intermediate Japanese (can apply with JLPT N4)
Y3: Authentic Japanese: Progressing from Intermediate to Advanced (can apply with JLPT N3)
Y4 and Y5: (I'm guessing some students start at Int or Adv, not that's it's a 5 yr program)

Seems they put Y2 on par JLPT N3 (could actually be higher level, though.) Not sure what level of conversation IAIJ provides. I guess students' fluency at whatever level it is will depend on activities, lab, TA sessions, outside practise.

You know, I'm now wondering about the differences in quality of the first few years between programs if they're all now using the same textbooks. Maybe the only difference is pace? I'd expect the differences in quality to show when instructors are compiling their own materials and applying research in pedagogy, etc. Can the presentation and TA sessions vary that much?

Maybe one of our Russian members could describe the secret behind their successful Japanese programs...

Thora Wrote:As for order of teaching formal/informal:

Does it really make a difference? Each side claims their way is better for teaching grammar.

I really doubt it since informal forms of verbs are taught relatively early (a month or 2) and if you interact with any real Japanese, you'll get the 日本語が上手ですね attitude until you have real experience for 2-3 years.

In my experience, when I meet people they speak to me in ため語。 In Lang-8 they prefer me to write in 丁寧語。For emails they're usually indifferent.

Thora Wrote:You know, I'm now wondering about the differences in quality of the first few years between programs if they're all now using the same textbooks. Maybe the only difference is pace?

I think it really depends on the professors and how strict they are and what kind of tests they put out.
My Japanese 1 and Japanese 4 class at community college were taught by the same person and she was seen as extremely easy... we would actually review all the vocab and kanji and grammar 5 minutes before each quiz. People got away with sloppy pronunciation. Virtual copies of the midterm and final were given out before the actual tests. I think that it incidentally resulted in people focusing on short term memory.
I didn't take Japanese 3, but from what I heard he was extremely strict and made sure you knew everything every day you had class. People were telling me that they had to study and see the language tutor constantly, but in Japanese 4 they could get away with not studying at all.

I think that things like that will impact the quality of the language program at a university. It also builds up on itself as most classes in university spend the first few weeks reviewing what you learned in the last class, and depending on their expectations it could take longer or it could take shorter.

Thora Wrote:You know, I'm now wondering about the differences in quality of the first few years between programs if they're all now using the same textbooks. Maybe the only difference is pace? I'd expect the differences in quality to show when instructors are compiling their own materials and applying research in pedagogy, etc. Can the presentation and TA sessions vary that much?

Uhm, of course as a university teacher I like to think that instructor quality makes a difference, but even it doesn't, having smart, hard-working students certainly makes it much easier to teach, and gives you time to focus on the really difficult points rather than waste time repeating basics or things that can be better done in self-study. So the average student motivation and aptitude matters at least as much.

If you're a student, having bright and motivated people next to you should make you work harder and learn more, but of course, some people get needlessly discouraged by that because they lack self-confidence. Which is why having this forum is helpful for many, I would hope.

I didn't mean to suggest instructor quality doesn't matter.

I got the most benefit and enjoyment from Japanese classes when instructors could tailor the content to their students to some degree and were free to plan the class within certain parameters. They really brought their knowledge, skills, personality and passion to the class. They made us want to communicate - not pass a quiz. (Impressive considering that most of us were striving for absolutely min work for max grade.) :-)

But flipping through a sample of the Integrated Intermediate book it seems like everything (content and activities) is laid out in such great detail that there doesn't seem to be much room for the instructor's imprint (or inspiration). Especially if they're required to get through a hefty amount of material. So it seems a bit more cookie cutter (and borrowed) than what I had expected.

For Y3, UBC uses instructor compiled materials and expands into several more specialized courses. UCB (haha) uses another textbook for Y3 (a good book, but...)

Maybe I'm wrong - and the books are more of a general guideline - or maybe I'm being idealistic. And, yes, student motivation makes a huge difference. I shouldn't forget that.
[edited out personal info.] :-)