Romaji vs Kana in teaching
| Author |
Message |
|
NF
#1 / 11
|
 Romaji vs Kana in teaching I wrote (paraphrased for breavity): Quote: > In a Japanese class at the U. of New Hampshire (instructor from Tokyo, > book was Jorden) most students (many of whom had studied a foreign > language before) had poor pronunciation. > I can attribute this *very* greatly to romaji. When an English-speaking
> person sees groups of letters, it is very hard to simply ignore a
> lifetime of pronunciation rules.
Quote: > You seem to be arguing for using an alien alphabet for languages like Spanish,
> French, and German. Further, you seem to be assuming that the bad pronunci-
> ation you heard (and produced) was due to seeing familiar letters. No doubt
> this inference was reinforced by the fact (I assume) that the pronunciation
> in your Spanish, German, and French classes was also horrible. But you can't
You do assume. Quote: > generalize, because you don't know that the pronunciation of people learning
> with kana wouldn't be just as bad.
> [ example of Russian with some letters the same as English letters but
> pronounced differently ]
Based upon the text of my article, your reply seems valid, but I was writing in the context of the current thread of conversation. I suppose I shouldn't have assumed it would be taken that way.. sorry. When I took German, the teacher presented the language and said "This is
German -- this is how you write it and this is how you pronounce it".
Any resemblance to English is purely coincidental. The same with my
Spanish and French classes, and I suppose (dare I say "assume" :-) your
Russian class.
When a teacher presents romaji, s/he in effect says: Japanese is a bit
difficult to write, so *this* is a way to represent it so that you,
as English(*) speakers, can read and write it more easily. Please
apply all rules of English that are appropriate and ignore those that
aren't.
Certainly the fledgling English-speaking student of, for example, German
tends to apply English pronunciation to German text. That mistake is
somewhat different (and more grave), though, than applying English
pronunciation to romaji, which is sort of what you're supposed to do
anyway (to the extent, at least, that it's appropriate).
Would you advocate German textbooks be printed using only the 26 letters
of the English alphabet? There's already a standard as to how to do
it. How about French? Japanese? Russian?
To tone down this argument a bit, let me say that romaji is not a bad
thing -- it's great. It allows Japanese to write their name for
westerners, allows people to communicate Japanese words despite
obnoxious high-bit-stripping software, and allows henna gaikokujin
to use the trains. My arguments are only against romaji in classroom.
BTW, my German teacher said my German was with a Spanish accent and my
French teacher my French with a German accent (you guess the order of study).
No accusations yet that my Japanese is with a French accent.... (-:
*jeff*
(*) What is the history of romaji? I've seen lots of "history of Japanese
language" things, but never one that included romaji. The romaji
style that I see most often in Japan (examples: "shi", not "si";
"tsu", not "ts") is slanted towards the English speaker, I think.
I've heard that the style used in Jordan is more "natural" to
some European languages than to English (at least in some of these
respects). This is fine (for a romanized version of Japanese), but
Jordan was written for English speakers, which is why I dislike
that style of romaji in Jordan's book (not to mention that romaji
is used at all -- well, I just mentioned it).
|
| Sun, 17 Jan 1993 05:51:29 GMT |
|
 |
|
David A. Joh
#2 / 11
|
Romaji vs Kana in teaching Quote:
>When I took German, the teacher presented the language and said "This is
>German -- this is how you write it and this is how you pronounce it".
>Any resemblance to English is purely coincidental. The same with my
>Spanish and French classes, and I suppose (dare I say "assume" :-) your
>Russian class.
>When a teacher presents romaji, s/he in effect says: Japanese is a bit
>difficult to write, so *this* is a way to represent it so that you,
>as English(*) speakers, can read and write it more easily. Please
>apply all rules of English that are appropriate and ignore those that
>aren't.
From Elizabeth Jorden, _Japanese: The Spoken Language_, vol. 1, 1987, p. xvii: Romanized Japanese (i.e., Japanese written with the letters of
our alphabet) should serve only to remind you of what you have
already heard -- and heard many, many times. The letters used
in Romanization are all familiar to English speakers, but when
used to represent Japanese, they represent a completely different
set of sounds. If you have studied French, or German, or Spanish
-- or even Vietnamese -- this will not surprise you. 'Six' as an
English word and 'six' as a French word stand for totally
different pronunciations. You must not attempt to read any of
the Japanese material that follows until you first become
familiar with Japanese sounds, and next learn the spelling code
according to which familiar symbols represent those sounds in
a completely regular and predictable fashion. You may be
surprised to learn the native pronunciation of familiar Japanese
place names like 'Tokyo,' 'Kyoto,' and 'Osaka'; and of cultural
borrowings like 'kimono,' 'sake,' and 'sukiyaki.'
The Japanese, of course, use a completely different writing system,
but they, too, postpone using their written code until they have
already learned to speak.
Nuff said?
David Johns
|
| Sun, 17 Jan 1993 10:38:57 GMT |
|
|
|
Michael Ell
#3 / 11
|
Romaji vs Kana in teaching
Quote: >From Elizabeth Jorden, _Japanese: The Spoken Language_, vol. 1, 1987, p. xvii: > The Japanese, of course, use a completely different writing system,
> but they, too, postpone using their written code until they have
> already learned to speak.
>Nuff said?
>David Johns
That is the silliest thing I've ever head in my entire life. Of *course* they postpone the written code until they learn to speak, they teach the language from when they're *babies*, and it seems to work rather better if you talk to your kid instead of waving cards with writing on them. I think I'll avoid Jorden's textbooks in the future.
|
| Sun, 17 Jan 1993 12:50:09 GMT |
|
|
|
NF
#4 / 11
|
Romaji vs Kana in teaching
Quote:
> >When I took German, the teacher presented the language and said "This is > >German -- this is how you write it and this is how you pronounce it". > >Any resemblance to English is purely coincidental. The same with my > >Spanish and French classes, and I suppose (dare I say "assume" :-) your > >Russian class. > >When a teacher presents romaji, s/he in effect says: Japanese is a bit
> >difficult to write, so *this* is a way to represent it so that you,
> >as English(*) speakers, can read and write it more easily. Please
> >apply all rules of English that are appropriate and ignore those that
> >aren't.
> From Elizabeth Jorden, _Japanese: The Spoken Language_, 1987:
> Romanized Japanese (i.e., Japanese written with the letters of
> our alphabet) should serve only to remind you of what you have
> already heard -- and heard many, many times. The letters used
> in Romanization are all familiar to English speakers, but when
> used to represent Japanese, they represent a completely different
> set of sounds. If you have studied French, or German, or Spanish
> -- or even Vietnamese -- this will not surprise you. 'Six' as an
> English word and 'six' as a French word stand for totally
> different pronunciations. You must not attempt to read any of
> the Japanese material that follows until you first become
> familiar with Japanese sounds, and next learn the spelling code
> according to which familiar symbols represent those sounds in
> a completely regular and predictable fashion. You may be
> surprised to learn the native pronunciation of familiar Japanese
> place names like 'Tokyo,' 'Kyoto,' and 'Osaka'; and of cultural
> borrowings like 'kimono,' 'sake,' and 'sukiyaki.'
> The Japanese, of course, use a completely different writing system,
> but they, too, postpone using their written code until they have
> already learned to speak.
> Nuff said?
No, not really, considering that you've only responded to one of the points I made, and that I only made a few of the many that have been brought up. So Ms. Jorden thinks that we should learn to speek and write just like the
Japanese do? Maybe Japanese students should spend the first 18 months
sitting around listening to Japanese and eating straind apricots [big (-:]
Really, how can Ms. Jorden say that romaji is only to remind one of what
they've heard many many times when her book is meant to be used from Day 1.
The students see romaji from Day 1 and it influence them from Day 1.
And if you *are* going to completely introduce the sounds before any
written form, why not use kana right away? A friend of mine learned this
way (in France). The first X weeks of class was only the teacher reading
words and the students writing them in kana. Very boring, she said, but
now she gets confused for a native while talking on the phone although she's
been here less than a year. Her English is with a heavy French accent.
Also, as I'd still like to hear so I'll ask again:
Most other languages can not be represented with only the letters of the
English alphabet. Would you have textbooks for learning Russian printed
with Russian, or with some silly code? How about French? Polish? In German
textbooks, would you replace those silly dots above some letters with a
following letter 'e' (as is done when typing on a system that doesn't have
those silly little dots)? How about Hindi script? In a Spanish textbook,
would you have the language be maybe "EspanXol" (where 'nX' is the 'n'
with the little squiggly over it -- Remember: this represents a sound
you've heard many times).
Do I make my point?
Doesn't matter -- I won't post on this subjet again (mild roar of
applause from the crowd). Followups to my mailbox.
For the serious student of Japanese in a serious class of Japanese,
there's really no point in using anything other than kana and kanji
(with furigana, of course) from day 1. For the non-serious class
(or for the tourset, etc), romaji is great and I heartly recommend it.
*jeff*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct path from uunet: ...!uunet!othello!jfriedl
Omron Electronics, Central R&D Lab, RNA Nagaokakyo, Kyoto 617, Japan
Fax: 011-81-75-955-2442 Phone: 011-81-75-951-5111 x154
"current memory prices are 4600$ a megabyte on VAX (4/22/81)"
-- my '/usr/include/vmparam.h'
|
| Fri, 22 Jan 1993 09:33:53 GMT |
|
|
|
Mark Crisp
#5 / 11
|
Romaji vs Kana in teaching To those individuals who claim that romanization is OK because native
Japanese learn to speak the language before reading and writing:
Native Japanese learn Japanese in an entirely different way from
foreigners. None of the
Kore ha nan desu ka.
Sore ha enpitsu desu.
Kore ha pen de ha arimasen ka.
Hai, atarashii enpitsu desu.
Sou desu nee.
nonsense from Jorden volume I (thankfully her newer series move away
from this sort of thing).
Japanese children are much more likely to hear
Dame yo, Hiro-chan.
Doko he iku no.
Doubutsuen made no.
Ikenai.
Nan da.
Hiro-chan, gohan yo.
that is, very informal direct language and especially a lot of
"family" and women's language. They learn and memorize these forms
long before learning all the desu and -masu and gozaimasu stuff. I
suspect a Japanese kid is much more likely to use "gozaru" when
playing samurai than "gozaimasu" in conversation!!
I can't believe that so many textbooks have students rattling off
canned phrases (that every Japanese knows as a being a gaijin canned
phrase) without any understanding of what they are really saying.
Consider "mou ichi-dou itte kudasai"; the student is taught this as a
canned phrase without knowing anything about:
. mou and its zillions of flavors of meaning
. numbers
. counters
. the -te form (verbal gerund)
. verb combination using the gerund (as opposed to stem+2nd verb)
. the meaning of kudasaru
. the -sai form (verbal imperative)
not to mention the fact that an actual teacher in a class in Japan
would probably never consider being so polite to mere students.
That's another gripe; students are terribly confused about appropriate
forms of politeness and formality because there's such an effort to
level things to the bland level of middle-aged ladies a`la Jorden.
Teachers and students should not use the same level!!
_____ | ____ ___|___ /__ Mark Crispin, 206 842-2385, R90/6 pilot, DoD#0105
_|_|_ -|- || __|__ / / 6158 Lariat Loop NE "Gaijin! Gaijin!"
|_|_|_| |\-++- |===| / / Bainbridge Island, WA "Gaijin ha doko ka?"
--|-- /| |||| |___| /\ USA 98110-2098 "Niichan ha gaijin."
/|\ | |/\| _______ / \ "Chigau. Gaijin ja nai. Omae ha gaijin darou"
/ | \ | |__| / \ / \"Iie, boku ha nihonjin." "Souka. Yappari gaijin!"
Hee, dakedo UNIX nanka wo tsukatte, umaku ikanaku temo shiranai yo.
|
| Sat, 23 Jan 1993 03:52:39 GMT |
|
|
|
James Ung
#6 / 11
|
Romaji vs Kana in teaching Quote:
>That's another gripe; students are terribly confused about appropriate
>forms of politeness and formality because there's such an effort to
>level things to the bland level of middle-aged ladies a`la Jorden.
>Teachers and students should not use the same level!!
On the contrary, when it comes to giving the student accurate information about sociolinguistic usage in Japanese and illustrating all the possible combinations of formality and politeness, Jorden's textbook (JSL) is unsurpassed. I just can't believe you've actually looked at JSL or seen the video tapes that go with it; otherwise, you could hardly talk about "an effort to level things to the bland level of middle-aged ladies." In fact, one of the constant criticisms of Jorden by native-speaker instructors who want to make things "easy" for beginners is that she doggedly insists on using correct respect language (keigo) from the beginning. ("Correct" here does NOT mean prissy, but socially appropriate.) Not only does Jorden teach the forms that must be used, but also--and perhaps more important--such metalinguistic rules as knowing who should speak first in a given social situation.
|
| Sat, 23 Jan 1993 08:59:43 GMT |
|
|
|
Jason Molen
#7 / 11
|
Romaji vs Kana in teaching Quote:
>To those individuals who claim that romanization is OK because native
>Japanese learn to speak the language before reading and writing:
>Native Japanese learn Japanese in an entirely different way from
>foreigners. None of the
> Kore ha nan desu ka.
> Sore ha enpitsu desu.
> Kore ha pen de ha arimasen ka.
> Hai, atarashii enpitsu desu.
> Sou desu nee.
>nonsense from Jorden volume I (thankfully her newer series move away
>from this sort of thing).
In Jorden's defense, after Chapter 9 of volume 1 all verbs are in direct-style (aru, da, kuru, etc.) (as you infer in your last paragraph). The "Core Conversations" vary between polite and direct later in the series as the student gains more competence in the language. From the third book (chapter 28): N) Katoo-san. Kinoo no koogi deta?
J) Minami-san no syakaigaku? N. Deta kedo...
N) Warui kedo, sono nooto kopii sasete kurenai ka naa.
J) Iya, boku no zi kitanakute yomenai to omou yo
N) Daizyoobu daizyoobu. Kaeru made ni kanarazu kaesu kara
J) Wakaranakute mo siranai yo
N) (receiving notes) Arigatoo... (looking at notes) Kiree ni
kaite aru zya nai ka.
J) Soo? Yomesoo?
N) N. Sugoku tasukatta. Arigatoo.
N) $B$+$H$&$5$s(B. $B$-$N$&$N$3$&$.$G$?(B?
J) $B$_$J$_$5$s$N$7$c$+$$$,$/(B? $B$s(B. $B$G$?$1$I(B...
N) $B$o$k$$$1$I(B. $B$=$N%N%&%H%3%T%$$5$;$F$/$l$J$$$+$J$"(B.
J) $B$$$d(B, $B$\$/$N$8$-$?$J$/$F$h$a$J$$$H$*$b$&$h(B.
J) $B$o$+$i$J$/$F$b$7$i$J$$$h(B.
N) $B$"$j$,$H$&(B... $B$-$l$$$K$+$$$F$"$k$8$c$J$$$+(B.
J) $B$=$&(B? $B$g$a$=$&(B?
N) $B$s(B. $B$9$4$/$?$9$+$C$?(B. $B$"$j$,$H$&(B.
You'll have to excuse the sloppy JIS encoding; I haven't been able to
figure out any of the instructions to any of the Kanji/kana input systems
so I entered that by hand. (I can manage to get 'em compiled but that's
usually about the extent of how much Kanji I understand right now). I
did it from a table of kana codes posted by Thomas Hofmann a
while back and I don't know the code for "longbar" in katakana...
But I think you get my drift. The other complain against Jorden, the one
about using roomaji for such a long time is a valid one I think. But the
argument that she tends to use overly polite language, while very true
at first, is not true after about 6 months or so of study.
Jason Molenda, Tech Support, Iris & News admin, Minnesota Supercomputer Inst
|
| Sat, 23 Jan 1993 05:44:20 GMT |
|
|
|
Mark Crisp
#8 / 11
|
Romaji vs Kana in teaching Quote:
>>That's another gripe; students are terribly confused about appropriate
>>forms of politeness and formality because there's such an effort to
>>level things to the bland level of middle-aged ladies a`la Jorden.
>Jorden's textbook
>(JSL) is unsurpassed. I just can't believe you've actually looked at JSL
I was referring to BJ, her older texts, which many universities still use because JSL volume 3 is still not out. Absolutely, JSL does a much better (although not perfect) job of explaining level. I find it amusing how she has long tirades in JSL about not making mistakes that BJ encouraged making!!!!! Quote: >or seen the video tapes that go with it;
I have the first two tapes. I won't go into the poor production values (OK, a language tape isn't trying for an academy award) or even the acting, but the speaking is so wooden I wonder how much is actually learned. You may hear correct pronounciation and accent (and that is important) but it is all so mechanical... Granted, it's hard not to be wooden with something like "Shimashita ka" "Hai, shimashita." "Doumo arigatou gozaimasu." "Dou itashimashite." I think the video tapes are a frill. They add no information over
audio tape (there is a distressing absence of Japanese body language
in JSL's tapes) and detract by a poor presentation. If used at all,
they belong in a later period (third quarter perhaps) when the student
is ready to see actual conversations, not conversations contrived to
be within what's been taught so far.
_____ | ____ ___|___ /__ Mark Crispin, 206 842-2385, R90/6 pilot, DoD#0105
_|_|_ -|- || __|__ / / 6158 Lariat Loop NE "Gaijin! Gaijin!"
|_|_|_| |\-++- |===| / / Bainbridge Island, WA "Gaijin ha doko ka?"
--|-- /| |||| |___| /\ USA 98110-2098 "Niichan ha gaijin."
/|\ | |/\| _______ / \ "Chigau. Gaijin ja nai. Omae ha gaijin darou"
/ | \ | |__| / \ / \"Iie, boku ha nihonjin." "Souka. Yappari gaijin!"
Hee, dakedo UNIX nanka wo tsukatte, umaku ikanaku temo shiranai yo.
|
| Sat, 23 Jan 1993 15:47:10 GMT |
|
|
|
Koichi Mo
#9 / 11
|
Romaji vs Kana in teaching
Quote: >In Jorden's defense, after Chapter 9 of volume 1 all verbs are in
>direct-style (aru, da, kuru, etc.) (as you infer in your last
>paragraph). The "Core Conversations" vary between polite and direct
>later in the series as the student gains more competence in the
>language. From the third book (chapter 28):
>N1) Katoo-san. Kinoo no koogi deta?
>J1) Minami-san no syakaigaku? N. Deta kedo...
>N2) Warui kedo, sono nooto kopii sasete kurenai ka naa.
>J2) Iya, boku no zi kitanakute yomenai to omou yo
>N3) Daizyoobu daizyoobu. Kaeru made ni kanarazu kaesu kara
>J3) Wakaranakute mo siranai yo
>N4) (receiving notes) Arigatoo... (looking at notes) Kiree ni
> kaite aru zya nai ka.
>J4) Soo? Yomesoo?
>N5) N. Sugoku tasukatta. Arigatoo.
[Numbers after J and N are added by K. Mori for convenience.] This conversation sounds a bit strange to me (a native
Japanese), aside from that it is hard to read when written in pseudo
"Kunrei siki" (or "Kunree siki"? -- "ee" looks vulgar to me)". My
impression might be wrong since I left college nearly ten years ago,
and I left Japan more than a year ago. Below is just my impression.
1) "Zya nai ka" in N4 stands out.
Judging from "boku" in J2, J must be a male (very few females
call themselves "boku", and only in certain casual situations). From
"data?" in N1, N and J are on the same social status (of the similar
age, of the same year in college), and they are on friendly terms.
Then judging from "-san" in N1, N is a female. Males on friendly
terms seldom call others with "-san", though some males do.
If N is a femaile, "zya nai ka" in N4 sounds very sloppy, or
too intimate for N to call J "Kato-san". If female N uses "zya nai
ka" at all, N would have called J "Katoo-kun". If N is a male, "zya
nai ka" is OK, but "Katoo-san" is not typical. I doubt if it is
appropriate for a textbook.
2) "N." in J1 and N5 should be "Un.", which is an affirmative
interjection. It is different from "N" or "NNN", which are
interjections used when one raises question (more appropriately "n?"
or "un?" with ascending intonation) or when one is thinking (maybe
"uun"), respectively. "Un?" and "uun" are similar to "Sorry?" and
"h'mm", respectively, in English.
3) "Wakaranakute mo" in J3 should be "Yomenakute mo", though I would
not say that the former is highly unlikely. Japanese seldom changes
words of the similar meaning as English. Besides, "wakaru" and
"yomeru" are different in meaning. J is talking about his bad hand
writing, not about his bad note taking skill.
4) "Tasukatta" in N5 is more likely "tasukaruwa" (if N is female),
because N has not copied the notebook yet. "Tasukatta" implies deeper
emotional releaf than that of the present tense. "Tasukatta" is OK if
N had asked more than one person to let her copy his/her notebook
unsuccessfully and found J at last, or if the notebook is critical
because of the exam next week, etc. Since N says "Sugoku" before
this, the latter cases may apply. But then, it would be very
difficult for the students who use this textbook to understand the
situation without any footnote (or are they expected to do so at this
chapter?).
5) I believe that "nooto" in Japanese usually means "notebook" in
English, not "notes". In this conversation, "nooto" is definitely
"notebook", which N is trying to borrow, although copy of "sono nooto"
may actually mean the copy of the relevant part (notes) in the
notebook. Or does "notes" mean "notebook" in English (I am not a
native speaker of English)?
#!note address change!# _|_ \ /_|_
MORI, Koichi /|\ /|\ / |___|
|
| Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:56:09 GMT |
|
|
|
David A. Joh
#10 / 11
|
Romaji vs Kana in teaching Quote:
> [a very interesting "close reading" of a Jorden dialog]
>#!note address change!# _|_ \ /_|_
>MORI, Koichi /|\ /|\ / |___|
I have two questions which maybe only native speakers can answer fully, although I would also appreciate the judgments of knowledgeable foreigners: 1. What percentage of foreign students will ever reach a level of
proficiency that will allow them to make these sorts of judgments?
2. Assuming this number is very small, what is the best strategy for
students to take -- either those who will never reach this level or those
who might but not for a long time? Jorden (especially '62) has been
criticized for being too formal, but from the point of view of a Japanese
speaker, is it more offensive/humorous for a foreigner to be unidiomatic
and hyperformal or to be idiomatic but risk being too informal? Or are
there other possibilities?
David Johns
|
| Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:38:50 GMT |
|
|
|
Jason Molen
#11 / 11
|
Romaji vs Kana in teaching Quote:
>1) "Zya nai ka" in N4 stands out.
> Judging from "boku" in J2, J must be a male (very few females
>call themselves "boku", and only in certain casual situations). From
>"data?" in N1, N and J are on the same social status (of the similar
>age, of the same year in college), and they are on friendly terms.
>Then judging from "-san" in N1, N is a female. Males on friendly
>terms seldom call others with "-san", though some males do.
> If N is a femaile, "zya nai ka" in N4 sounds very sloppy, or
>too intimate for N to call J "Kato-san". If female N uses "zya nai
>ka" at all, N would have called J "Katoo-kun". If N is a male, "zya
>nai ka" is OK, but "Katoo-san" is not typical. I doubt if it is
>appropriate for a textbook.
Here's the "Miscellaneous Breakdown" which Jorden provides: Quote: > In CC3, Smith is asking his fellow graduate student, Kato, to lend him > notes that Kato took during yesterday's sociology lecture. Kato's > objection, on the grounds that Smith will not be able to read his > writing, is countered by Smith's assurances that Kato's notes have been > written very neatly. If the relationship between the speakers were one > that required politeness, deference, and indirectness, an object of the > kind raised by Kato would probably be interpreted as a clear indication > that he did not want to lend his notes, and Smith would not press on. > The style used by these two male students, who are good friends, is
> very casual, with direct-style final predicates and a number of minor
> sentences and fragments. The sentence endings 'kurenai ka naa', 'siranai
> yo,' and 'aru zya nai ka' are blunt-style and typical of masculine
> casual-style.
There is more discussion by Jorden breaking down the sentences and explaining some of the new vocabulary introduced which I'm not going to include. Quote: >2) "N." in J1 and N5 should be "Un.", which is an affirmative
>interjection.
In Jorden's romanization, since is is pronounced kinda like 'n' by itself, it is written 'n'. Whenever we write in kana/kanji we drop all of Jorden's weirdnesses and stick with the 'normal' kana representations of Japanese. I probably should have entered it as 'un' except that I didn't want to change any of Jorden's text. Jorden doesn't address any of the other points that you raise and I
sure as heck don't know enough about Japanese to disagree (give me
another decade or two :-).
Jason Molenda, Tech Support, Iris & News admin, Minnesota Supercomputer Inst.
|
| Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:30:38 GMT |
|
| |
|
