Difference Between...

Sometimes I wonder how useful a language-to-language dictionary can possibly be, if it tries only to find the closest substitute word.  That is to say, the target word may have many senses to it, but only one of them applies.  The reader may then be perplexed, not knowing which of the senses was intended, or worse, make the assumption that all of the senses of the target word apply.


I saw どの道 for the first time the other day, and looked it up in the dictionary: "anyway".  But wait, I already knew a word for that !!!  とにかく.

Let's compare:

とにかく - Anyway.  Used as a segue, a means to return to the main conversation from a digression, or to change the subject altogether.

どの道 - Although the dictionary said "anyway", it's really more like "in any case", "no matter how you look at it", or "whichever choice you make" (implying that the result does not differ significantly).

The JLPT, and its growing list of problems

I have known of the JLPT - the Japanese Language Proficiency Test - since I started studying Japanese years ago.  I've followed its various changes, the way that its popularity has grown considerably over the years, and I have also challenged myself to take the test to check my level more than once.

I was going to give a history of the test for people who aren't familiar with it, but blogging isn't the same as writing an essay.  For more information, go to the source.

I took the test in December 2010 with the simple goal of testing my Japanese level, and with no stakes riding on the result.  This article is about my experiences with the new test, and not at all about the contents of the test.

I should first mention that I attended the test in Toronto (Canada), and felt that it was very professionally handled in this test center.  Although the price had risen from $60CDN to $70CDN in 2010, and they decided not to serve refreshments (previously coffee + a muffin) at the break, I felt only minor disappointment about these things at the time.

I openly welcomed two of the proposed changes to the test, and originally felt that other changes wouldn't affect me much.  I was wrong.  My experience with the test revealed that many of these changes did nothing to improve the overall test experience, some did a grave injustice to the test respondents, and many areas which should have been overhauled were left with all their flaws intact.

The first change I took to be positive was the new biannual test schedule (instead of the old annual test schedule).  Unfortunately, the summer test is only available in a few countries in Asia, so this doesn't benefit me as I thought it would.

The other positive change was to address the gulf between the former 3級 and 2級, which was always problematic; think "gap between 2nd grade and the start of high school".  So they renumbered the old 3級 and 4級 to "N4" and "N5" respectively, and inserted a "N3" which is supposed to be about midway between.  I still think this is positive, but not as clearly as I had thought, due to other reasons I'll state below.

Four years ago, I easily passed the old 3級 level, and I attended the new N3 level this year.  My Japanese teacher encouraged us to take N2, but it still seemed slightly out of reach.  My feeling during the exam was that N3 was basically an appropriate level and still a bit challenging.  I felt that I was likely to achieve roughly a 70% overall, with a chance of being a bit lower on any given section.

My results, however, did not resemble this whatsoever.  My teacher and other classmates were as stunned as I was at my marks; there is no way in the world a 70% turns into a 12% in vocabulary, or a 26% in listening comprehension.  These could not possibly be my marks; they appeared to be the marks of an entirely different person.  In fact, that could well be what happened - but I'll never know.

This is really where my problems began, as there is simply no justification and no recourse with the JLPT.  All sales final.  Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.  Inscrutable, and they like it that way...

First, any professional certification or other reasonably official test will return results in a reasonable time; this should be basically within a month, and organizations around the world are constantly working hard to get these results returned more quickly.  Organizations other than the JLPT, that is:  I waited over 3 months to receive the results - from December 5 until after the earthquake, on March 17.

Three and a half months is completely unacceptable, and has not improved in all the years since I first knew about the test; in fact, I believe it has degraded by a couple of weeks.  As this is a multiple-choice test which can be computer graded by card reading/scanning, there is absolutely no reason for it to take this long.  Even though all the grading is done in Japan, the $70 fee should be sufficient to cover courier transit of the test materials both ways across the Pacific, accounting for only 2-5 days of total time.

Next, a certification test should be able to justify any set of marks returned.  For example, a key indicating for each question, which answer was chosen by the test respondent, versus which was the correct answer, together with the weight (marks) assigned to that question.  No such information is provided by JLPT.

I'm not asking them to return a full test... just the respondent's mark justification.  Many certification tests have a secondary revenue stream selling previous years' tests and answer keys - indeed, JLPT also had this policy in the past.  However, a recent change has changed this, ensuring that a test respondent has no ability to find out where he or she went wrong.  No record of the questions, the answers, the marks assigned per question, or of respondent's choices.  Sad, really.

Finally, the most confusing part - one which completes the circle of obfuscation, and provides absolute inscrutability to the testing organization:  SCALED SCORES.  The theory behind this is that actual test difficulty may vary from year to year, whereas the planned difficulty was not intended to change; the grade awarded to a respondent matches the "pattern" of answers the respondent provided, rather than having a predefined number of marks assigned to each question.

The testing organization has made references to several research papers on this type of grading, but the actual trouble with using this approach is that there is no transparency.  There is no audit, no identification of the basis upon which any given set of responses garners a different grade (which can't help but be subjective), nor any guarantee that they have actually implemented it properly as per the original theorists... or that this grading system even works convincingly, as each of the research papers referenced are written in Japanese, above the level of any test respondent who might take the JLPT.  For all we know, the JLPT has chosen to assign a random mark to a specific pattern of answers...

In summary, the JLPT is supposed to be a certification of Japanese ability, but it fails miserably at all the proper measures of a test:
(a) being a measure of overall ability, rather than just comprehension,
(b) returning answers to the respondent in a reasonable timeframe,
(c) being able to justify a respondent's specific grade and how to improve in future, and
(d) being able to explain properly how any grade is awarded.

I really wanted to put my trust in the JLPT, as it's basically the only widely-available measure of Japanese ability, but I simply can't accept it as a proper measure or even a useful tool in its current state.  Sadly, virtually every change to the test has been engineered to increase the authority and enhance the impunity of the testing organization, while simultaneously reducing its obligation to explain itself.  Such hubris is unconscionable, and will likely come back to haunt the organization in future, if students no longer find the test to be helpful.

There needs to be an alternative test for Japanese ability, as this one should be retired.  I would be honored to take any test which provides a proper framework addressing the points I have listed above, even a "new, improved" JLPT, if they should dare to take this criticism to heart and undertake constructive change.

Interesting Kanji: 直

Lately, I've been seeing several kanji reappear with wildly different usages than those I had first associated with them.

Today's is 直.

I first learned this as part of 直す（なおす）, "to fix/mend".  This is not to be confused with 治す（なおす）, "to cure/heal", which is used for diseases and medical conditions.

直す is used for fixing inanimate objects (such as an umbrella, or a bridge).  It is also a useful verb-suffix denoting the "redo" of an action, generally with the intent of fixing the unsatisfactory outcome of the first iteration.  For example 読み直す ("re-read"), 書き直す ("rewrite"), etc.

Many of the other uses of 直 were already familiar to me, but I hadn't known them in written kanji form.

The first is ちょく , part of several compound kanji words:

Meaning "straight" (ie. geometry):

直線（ちょくせん）= straight line

直径（ちょっけい）= diameter

直角（ちょっかく）= perpendicular

Meaning "direct":

直接（ちょくせつ）= direct/immediate

直後（ちょくご） = immediately after

直感（ちょっかん）= intuition

直訳（ちょくやく）= direct (literal) translation

直流（ちょくりゅう）= direct current (electrical term)

直列（ちょくれつ）= connected in series (electrical term)

Meaning "honest":

実直（じっちょく）= honest/upstanding

愚直（ぐちょく）= overly honest "to a fault"

Then we have other pronunciations as well; these usages seem to match up with the above general meanings:

直に（じきに）= at once, soon

直ちに（ただちに）= at once, immediately

直ぐに（すぐに）= at once, immediately

正直な（しょうじきな）= honest, frank

素直な（すなおな）= docile, obedient; honest, frank

I was really struck by how many different pronunciations there are for this kanji, and how there are very common words to represent each of the pronunciations.  But then, kanji is a subject which will keep revealing these types of connections, many years into your studies.

Difference Between...

Quite frequently, I run across a new word which appears to have an identical dictionary meaning to a word I already know.  Even the example sentences seem to show the words to have the same meaning.

I always try to understand why there are two words instead of one.  Are they interchangeable ?  Is one more formal than the other ?  Used in written form only ?  Convey some emotional content of some sort ?  Does one sound more educated and one more childish ?

Here is today's example:
毎日（まいにち）= Every day.  Mostly neutral, but connotes that such a frequency is to be expected, and not exceptional.

連日（れんじつ）= Every day.  Carries emotional content indicating that an every day frequency is beyond expectations and exceptional.  Often negative, but could be positive.  Think of it as "Every single day".

Traditional Japanese Instruction

One of the reasons learning Japanese is difficult is because of the way it is taught, particularly in the early stages.

Principally, I have 3 major complaints about this period, and I'll deal with them one by one:

1) First, I disagree with the idea of teaching Japanese to "foreigners" as being fundamentally different from teaching Japanese to Japanese children.  While there are certainly differences, I believe that there is more in common among these two groups than educators seem to believe.  If there was more commonality, a student would have access to a wealth of study materials targeted at schoolchildren to make rapid progress.  The kanji that a foreign student learned would more accurately track against a Japanese student's, which would make graded readers (or any printed material for that matter) accessible.  Grammar and vocabulary would be acquired in approximately the right sequence to assist the learning process.  There is no reason on earth why 「推薦状」 should be taught prior to 「ほとんど」.

As I progress into the deep intermediate level, this issue is becoming less and less important; the textbooks at this level are not so bad at covering standard Japanese (although they completely avoid the entire concept of even the most common slang forms).  I'll treat the subject of kanji instruction separately.

2) A minor complaint that I have, is that classes tend to spend a great amount of time teaching the hiragana syllabary - which is a good thing - but then they tend to gloss over katakana as though it is far less important.  This is a mistake.  There is a huge (and growing) amount of the language written in katakana, and a good portion of it originates from English; this is an easy way for an English-speaking person to easily gain some vocabulary they can have some confidence in, and a way to foster an interest in reading from an early point in studies (which is clearly a daunting task).

3) But certainly, my biggest issue with Japanese instruction has to be the forceful, primary emphasis on the です・ます form.

Sure, it makes foreigners seem polite from early on, and it is ultimately very useful, but it deliberately impedes progress by causing confusion.  This form is the very first form any foreigner ever encounters, to their detriment.  It isn't until several chapters of a textbook are studied that the dictionary form - and indeed the differences between these two forms - are even explained.  The very first verb form taught should be the dictionary form, even if it is not the most polite form to use to end a sentence.  To my first point, do children speak with です・ます form for their first words ?  No, they use dictionary form first and learn politeness once they can understand their surroundings and speak a few sentences.  I believe that this should also be the case for foreigners: politeness only matters if you can make yourself understood in the first place.  Incomprehensible polite-form gibberish cannot possibly convey the politeness intended by teaching です・ます first.  I think an earnest approach, and the correct attention to body language are far more important in conveying this intended politeness in the early days.

The primary argument I would make toward teaching dictionary form first, is the fact that it is absolutely essential for subordinate clauses and compound sentences.  Teaching です・ます first causes people to have a moment of hesitation and confusion at the juncture between clauses, and interrupts an otherwise smoothly-flowing thought process through a complex sentence.  The frustration of this moment causes most students to avoid using complex sentences altogether, in order to get their point out more efficiently.  This should be considered a failing of the overall teaching process, as most such students will ultimately have a lower-functioning level of Japanese than they desire.  To compensate for this, there should be frequent drilling of subordinate-clause expressions such as "The man I met yesterday"/"The book that I use for my Japanese studies"/"whether he brought his umbrella this morning".  These are really the building blocks of language, and should be stressed and re-stressed as often as possible until they become natural.  Such subordinate-clause adjectival forms should also be taught much sooner than they currently are; perhaps in first-year studies shortly before the です・ます form should be.

Of course, I'm mostly a product of the current system of teaching, and I can't foresee whether there would be other unforeseen issues with my desired approach, but I genuinely believe that the above points would improve things for students of the Japanese language.

Introduction

Studying any language is rewarding, yet demanding.  It's a long road to proficiency, with many struggles and "A-Ha !" moments along the way.  I started this blog as a way to document my efforts - to record my triumphs and defeats, to document my views on which approaches are good or bad, and in some cases, as notes to myself.

But first, an introduction.  I've been studying Japanese for about 7 years now, in my spare time away I get from my Management Consulting practice.  It's hard to quantify my actual level, but most "Japanese for Foreigner"-type textbooks would place me as intermediate-level, perhaps somewhere in the upper half of intermediate.  I guess this would put me somewhere around where the JLPT (Japanese Language Proficiency Test) would like to identify as N3 to N2 level.  This is roughly middle-school for a native speaker - although there are many points where I am missing large pieces, or have unexpected knowledge (primarily gained from English experience).

I first started a blog in Japanese in order to improve, but that is proving to be more challenging than I had expected; my control of Japanese is frustratingly limited compared to how I would like to express myself in that language... at least for the time being.

Onward and upward !