Jack Seward Defines Fluency

[Mulboyne]

...My daidai senpai Jack Seward (R.I.P.)...

I just found again Jack Seward's definition of fluency which appeared in the Tokyo Weekender:

Nihongo ga ojozu, desu ne! Fluent in Japanese, anyone? By Jack Seward

In general, I would define fluency as linguistic competence roughly equivalent to that of a graduate of an upper-middle school. Admittedly, this is an arbitrary determination, but I like to think that anyone deemed to be fluent in Japanese should have the following qualifications:

1. When using a Japanese name and speaking to a stranger on the telephone, he or she should be able to pass for a Japanese - or come close to it.

2. Know all or almost all of the 1,875 (?) Toyo Kanji with the on and kun readings and at least a couple of the compounds.

3. Be able to read a letter written in gyosho. (I won't hold out for sosho.)

4. Be able to understand all or almost all of a newscast, if the subject matter is not impossibly technical.

5. Be able to read a newspaper or magazine article with only very occasional reference to a kanji dictionary. (I confess that I probably have to resort to a lexicon five or ten times while struggling though an article of average length, although in the case of my beloved ero-manga, I can peruse the provocative print with fewer dictionary detours.)

6. Write a decent letter in kaisho Japanese.

7. Give a ten-minute impromptu talk in comprehensible and correct Japanese an every-day topic requested by your audience.

8. Carry on a torrid love affair in words that will enable you to win the heart of your intended, who must speak no English.

9. Identify (even if you cannot completely understand) three rural dialects.

10. Stroll through your shopping district and read the first 20 signs you see in Japanese.

I think no matter what order these conditions are in, I hit "Strike Three" pretty quickly. I suspect other FGs fare much better. Looking at No.10, I recall Steve Bildermann saying earlier that part of his intensive Japanese training involved his teacher taking the class out on the street and barking at them to read whatever he pointed towards.

[Charles]

I'd say that #2 would eliminate about 90% of all nihonjin. Some of my scholar friends and I had lengthy debates about the actual levels of fluency of Japanese native speakers, and the conclusion is that it is much lower than anyone suspects, and in particular, kanji recognition ability is much lower than jouyou kanji levels, perhaps as low as 8-900 kanji in average high-school educated nihonjin.

#5 is a killer too. I remember once I was at a meeting when a woman (maybe about 25 years old) read a newspaper article aloud. An elderly woman sat next to her and kept correcting her misreadings, with a not-so-subtle jab of the elbow in her ribs and a whisper in her ear. I felt totally liberated when I discovered that nihonjin have as much trouble reading newspaper articles as I do..

Ultimately, you should not rely on a more-japanese-than-thou FG's standards for literacy, particularly if they exceed the standards applied to native speakers. The problem is that Seward is an Occupation-era Japan scholar. In those days, gaijin scholars were expected to be able to deal with prewar orthography, which meant probably more like 4000 kanji, sousho handwriting, as well as Classical Japanese forms. The scholars of the Occupation era were largely focused on translating works of classical and premodern literature. They had no intention of teaching practical modern Japanese, as it was expected that people would just pick that up in the field in Japan, and there was virtually no call for classroom education back in the US.
I will personally be glad when all these old farts die off over the next ten years or so, and we can be liberated from their bullshit.

[Greji]

Charles is quite right about the majority of the civil affairs types in the occupation, but he misses the boat on Jack Seward. He was CIC and very little of his actual duties in Japan were documented or refered to in his books, or elsewhere. He did not actually enter the academic world until he left the military. He did remain a ardent critic of the God of the Japan Centered Academics, the only Japanese linguist to be US Ambassador to Japan Edwin O. Reishauer and remained vocally so until Reishauer died.

As for:

I will personally be glad when all these old farts die off over the next ten years or so, and we can be liberated from their bullshit.

Fuck you very much and I hope you have a Happy New Year also!

[Charles]

...Jack Seward...did not actually enter the academic world until he left the military.

Right, those are the very ones I am glad to be rid of. The ones who started the whole Old Japan Hand vs. Fresh Off The Boat one-upsmanship. The ones who make it clear that they got to Japan FIRST, they came ashore in the first wave with rifle in hand, and everyone else is a latecomer in comparison. The ones who don't consider you really fluent unless you can read soushou and prewar kanji, like THEY can, even though most modern nihonjin can't.
The fluency essay by Seward proves he's just the sort of asshole I'm talking about. They set back Japanese language studies by decades, by funnelling it into unproductive obscurities like Classical Japanese and premodern J Lit, stuff that even contemporary nihonjin don't give a shit about anymore. Academia is starting to pull itself out of its slump as these old boys die off (and you can't get rid of them as they all have tenure) and is reforming itself into using scientific, efficient methods for language instruction, rather than stagnating a few more decades as an old boys club full of crusty old farts gladhanding each other over their latest translation of Genji (the world's most overtranslated novel, due to these old farts).

[Mulboyne]

The fluency essay by Seward proves he's just the sort of asshole I'm talking about. They set back Japanese language studies by decades, by funnelling it into unproductive obscurities like Classical Japanese and premodern J Lit, stuff that even contemporary nihonjin don't give a shit about anymore.

I never met Seward but I don't think a man who wrote books with titles like "Outrageous Japanese: Slang, Curses & Epithets" and "Japanese in Action: An Unorthodox Approach to the Spoken Language and the People Who Speak It " is funnelling Japanese studies "into unproductive obscurities like Classical Japanese and premodern J Lit, stuff". I think as gboothe says, there are scholars and Japan hands who would be legitimate targets for your criticism but Jack Seward isn't your man.

[Charles]

I never met the guy either, but I can only judge by what I've read, which is limited to that snotty essay on fluency.

[kurohinge1]

... I just found again Jack Seward's definition of fluency which appeared in the Tokyo Weekender ...

Nice find, Mulboyne-san. Are you sure you don't work for MI5 or something?

... Does "fluent in Japanese" mean the ability to pass the time of day with a fetching bar hostess or the capability of dashing off a mikudari-hen in gyosho? ...

Perhaps he meant a "mikudarihan", or even a hen na mikudari-han, but the answer to that one is obviously (a) - the fetching bar hostess.

But more importantly, does "a fetching bar hostess" mean a bar hostess that is attractive or one that fetches stuff for you?
Or all of the above?

[Mulboyne]

I can only judge by what I've read, which is limited to that snotty essay on fluency.

Just judging from the tone he generally uses in his written work, and some of the comments in his piece, I don't think he means to be snotty. I think he is correct that people have often thought themselves fluent when their grasp of Japanese is less than they would think necessary to use the term for, say, French. I agree, though, that his proposed conditions are too strict.

Take "No. 7 Give a ten-minute impromptu talk in comprehensible and correct Japanese an every-day topic requested by your audience". That's a nice skill to have but one that tests someone's particular ability to extemporize rather than just language fluency. Similarly, Densha Otoko wasn't looking for language lessons when he wanted advice on how to "win the heart of [his] intended".

I'm also uncertain about the "passing for a local on the telephone" condition. It is certainly unreasonably pleasing to mistaken for a local but speaking with a heavy accent is not a sign of lack of fluency in other countries as Henry Kissinger and Arnie have shown.

Are you sure you don't work for MI5 or something?

I have plausible deniability.

[kamome]

I've always felt that accent elimination was one of the hallmarks of fluency. It's true that Kissinger is an exception, but generally speaking, I'm much more inclined to label a person who "sounds" American or British as fluent in English. And vice-versa, those gaijin who sound like a native Japanese are more impressive to me than those who may know the grammar but who pronounce "ra" with hard "r".

[Charles]

Just judging from the tone he generally uses in his written work, and some of the comments in his piece, I don't think he means to be snotty.

Well, that's part of the problem, he appears to be totally serious. He's like an old crank that says "you little whippersnappers don't know how easy you have it, back when I was your age, we had to walk to language school 10 miles every day through 6 foot snowdrifts to practice soushou and 4000 kanji. And we LIKED it!"

[jingai]

That generation's not all bad. Old Japan hands like Donald Keene, Donald Richie, and Edward Seidensticker have a real, deep love of Japan and spread this through their well-informed writings on literature and culture. I'll take that over the parachute business authors and journalists-cum-"experts" like Karel Van Wolfren any day of the week.

[drpepper]

Obviously Chucky-boy is suffering from penis envy once again as he doesn't come close to meeting those standards yet thinks himself expert on yet another topic...

[vince]

Jack Seward wrote that definition of fluency back in the sixties... he wasn't writing it as a snobby old fart... (a snobby *young* fart?)


Seward wrote:
... Does "fluent in Japanese" mean the ability to pass the time of day with a fetching bar hostess or the capability of dashing off a mikudari-hen in gyosho? ...

Where did Seward write that? In fact, his book explains what mikudari-*han* means - it is unlikely that he would misspell it...

[kurohinge1]

... Seward wrote:
... Does "fluent in Japanese" mean the ability to pass the time of day with a fetching bar hostess or the capability of dashing off a mikudari-hen in gyosho? ...

Where did Seward write that? In fact, his book explains what mikudari-*han* means - it is unlikely that he would misspell it...

The blue words are often links, Vince-san. If you go to the first post and follow the link, your question will be answered.

[vince]

The blue words are often links, Vince-san. If you go to the first post and follow the link, your question will be answered.

So Seward wrote that whole piece - maybe he's losing his spelling ability, but that fluency test list is identical to the one in his book *Japanese in Action* from 40 years ago...

And Seward had all the *blue words* in that book, too... (and they weren't links)

Anyway, those days it was impossible to be *fluent* in Japanese - like, if you ordered something in a restaurant, no matter how *fluently*, the waiter was obligated to bring you something bizarrely different from what you ordered - to prove that a foreigner can never be fluent in Japanese - to save face - to get even for WWII - or whatever...

[kurohinge1]

... maybe he's losing his spelling ability ...

Given gboothe's description of him as "... Jack Seward (R.I.P.)", I suspect his spelling errors are now few and far between.

[Greji]

The blue words are often links, Vince-san. If you go to the first post and follow the link, your question will be answered.

So Seward wrote that whole piece - maybe he's losing his spelling ability, but that fluency test list is identical to the one in his book *Japanese in Action* from 40 years ago...snip

One still should remember that from the US point of view, during and immediately after the war, there was obstensively only three places where Japanese was taught for the government and military. Syracuse, Yale (both special programs for that purpose) and the Defense Language Institute. As with linguists and language programs of the time and still today, there was alot of jealousy and infighting between them and their graduates.

The keyword for these (still) on-going battles, was, and is, the definition of fluency (and/or the testing thereof). I remember a speech Seward gave in Tokyo at a meeting of the DLI OB's where he made the point from one of his books (I believe it was Japanese in Action) He said in essence that no matter how much we study the language, it is still a foreign language to us and no matter how spectacular we are in quoting history, literature, or writing a kanji that only the best of history scholars can recognize or read, we can never be as fluent as the Japanese day laborer sitting next to us in the yakitoriya (or words to that effect).

Therefore, a lot of emphasis on what fluency is, is in fact, totally misdirected. I think that is as true now as it was then.

As has been posted on this board many times before, I think that fluency is the ability to live, work and exist with the language, in Japan. It cannot be truly gauged by some test result that automatically says you can speak, read and comprehend better that Yamada Taro.

Having said that, I concede that the various language level tests can give a person a meter stick or milestone to measue individual progress in the study progress; however, I know of few places of employment in Japan (outside of academia) that will accept the test scores as anything other than eyewash on the application form. They will always require a mensetsu type of employment interview to verify language ability regardless of how high one has scored, or would level has been achieved on testing.

I think this was the type of meaning that Seward was inidicating in his list of what defines fluency and it sometimes gets lost in the race for academic supremcy versus practical ability.

Just MHO based on a lot of losing arguments in a great many differant yakitoriya's!

[Charles]

The keyword for these (still) on-going battles, was, and is, the definition of fluency (and/or the testing thereof). I remember a speech Seward gave in Tokyo at a meeting of the DLI OB's where he made the point from one of his books (I believe it was Japanese in Action) He said in essence that no matter how much we study the language, it is still a foreign language to us and no matter how spectacular we are in quoting history, literature, or writing a kanji that only the best of history scholars can recognize or read, we can never be as fluent as the Japanese day laborer sitting next to us in the yakitoriya (or words to that effect).

Sheer nihonjinron. That is merely a different way of stating the irrational Japanese belief that only Japanese can understand the language, and that Japanese-ness is defined by an ability to fully understand their language.

Fluency levels vary wildly even amongst native speakers, it ranges from illiteracy to heights of poetic or scholarly language, and let's not even get into dialects. It is easily possible to speak clearly in one's native tongue and have other native speakers fail to comprehend a word of what you're saying, for example, a grade-school dropout would not understand a lecture in quantum mechanics. Fluency is at least to some degree, a function of context. You may not be able to make Japanese your native language, but you can internalize it sufficiently to use it as if it WERE your native language, to a group that has similar levels of fluency and similar interests and topics of discussion. My teachers called this "mirroring," and there was an old joke about mirroring, that any 2nd year Japanese student could speak perfectly fluent Japanese--to any other 2nd year Japanese student. There is some core truth in that, your usage and ability tends to mirror the people you are closest to in your environment. So if you hang out with nihonjin laborers and fishermen, you will pick up their language patterns, if you hang out with Todai university professors and doctors, you will inevitably absorb and adopt different language patterns. THIS is the mark of fluency, when you are no longer struggling with the basics of the language, and are unconsciously picking up nuance by mirroring.

[Greji]

Sheer nihonjinron. That is merely a different way of stating the irrational Japanese belief that only Japanese can understand the language, and that Japanese-ness is defined by an ability to fully understand their language.

As usual Charles, your shorts are getting wadded up and are making your voice squeak.

No where did I say nihonjinron was applicable (or didn't exist). I was talking about fluency and the measurement thereof. Rote memory and "mirroring" of the language patterns learned, either in life or the classroom, obviously impact on your ability to use/understand any language.

But there are many examples in any language of those who can translate documents quite reasonably, yet have major problems speaking or understanding.

Seward pointed out that you could razzle-dazzle a trunk driver with your knowledge of literature or the kanji for a left handed monkey wrench, but you would never be as fluent as he is in the language. If you hang-out with Todai types, you can "mirror" their language, but you will never be as fluent.

This is not limited to Japanese. Unless you are born and raised, or raised in any country and it's language from an early age, you will never be able to assimilate all the things in the society that affect the language and its usage.

The point I was making is that all of the definitions of fluency are too limited to particular needs, or are set in a pre-defined pattern that cannot be accurate. These definitions at that, are of questionable use with the exception for people in education that have to meet those requirements, or set standards for employment. I know of no Japanese companies that require a fluency level on paper for employment and if there are any that do, it will be no more than a minimal requirement, becase they will do their own evaluation by interview.

Charles, I highly doubt that you are more fluent than the ippan laborer. You may be more intelligent and much more versed in all facits of his government than he will ever be, but neither you, nor any other of us FGs will be more fluent than he in his language. Not unless you were raised here.

[Charles]

Charles, I highly doubt that you are more fluent than the ippan laborer. You may be more intelligent and much more versed in all facits of his government than he will ever be, but neither you, nor any other of us FGs will be more fluent than he in his language. Not unless you were raised here.

I'll be the first to admit to my weakness in fluency, a lot of it stems from my partial deafness due to severe tinnitus. But you are making a different argument that perhaps you are not aware of, you are arguing that nobody can ever become fluent in more than one language. That is ridiculous. Language is not culture, you do not have to be raised in a culture to understand the language fully.
I may not be fully fluent by any measurable standard, but I have been rather immersed (not necessarily by my own wishes) in Japanese pedagogy, and I have heard about every nihonjinron about why it's impossible for westerners to learn Japanese. And there is only one really good response: there are plenty of people who have done it.
Learning a second language is not like learning one's native language. My teacher used to explain it by asking us how we learned the word "milk." We were probably taught the word by our mothers, who fed us a bottle and said the word, and we learned what milk WAS at the same time we learned the word. Learning our native language is learning concepts like milk first, then associating a word with it. We had to learn what things were, before we could hang labels on them. But as adults we already know what milk is, we do not have to learn the concept of milk again before we learn the new Japanese word for it. We just need to hang a new semantic tag on our existing concept of that white liquid.
And thus it is with almost everything in a second language. Our existence as humans is relatively similar to almost every other human, we all have vaguely similar lives inhabiting similar bodies that need to eat, sleep, work, play, etc. the same as everyone else does. Sure there are local variations, but life is quite similar all around the world, to some fundamental degree. It is not so impossible that we should be able to comprehend everything in a foreign environment.
I think what you're doing is making the Alex Kerr nihonjinron. He said that Japanese were shallow personalities in a deep culture, and Westerners were deep personalities in a shallow culture. He argued that every single Japanese word evoked an almost infinite chain of associations, since it was written in kanji that would be associated with earlier written forms of kanji, and every word ever written with that kanji or its variants, all the way back through the history of the language. I just do not believe that nihonjin think that way. What you and Kerr are arguing is that Japanese-ness is a set of concepts larger than any foreign mind can contain. I don't buy it. About 80% of Japaneseness is the same as about 80% of Americanness or any other nationality. It isn't that hard to learn the other 20%.

[Greji]

I'll be the first to admit to my weakness in fluency, a lot of it stems from my partial deafness due to severe tinnitus. But you are making a different argument that perhaps you are not aware of, you are arguing that nobody can ever become fluent in more than one language. That is ridiculous. Language is not culture, you do not have to be raised in a culture to understand the language fully.

You are stuck on fluency Charles! No where did I say that people cannot learn another language, or that westerners cannot learn Japanese. I've had to do it and work in it daily, as many others do.

But, you are definately wrong when you exclude culture from a language. You can learn every vocabulary word in the lesson, but if you do not know why it is used or where it is used in a "cultural" setting, you can find yourself in as much trouble in business, as a redneck shouting the "N" word in the middle of Watts, or Harlem.

I think what you're doing is making the Alex Kerr nihonjinron. He said that Japanese were shallow personalities in a deep culture, and Westerners were deep personalities in a shallow culture..

I think it's you that keeps returning to the nihonjinron. I have no disagreement with the fact the J-people maintain this "uniqueness "about their language. But the point is fluency.

What is your definition of fluency? Regardless of your answer, there will be a hundred differances of opinion on this board alone, which is my point. There is no winner-take-all fluency rating, and other than I noted, I don't believe it's important.

My only definition is that you be able to speak at the same fluent rate of a native of that country and very few who have not been raised here, can do that in Japan, regardless of how versed in the language they/we are!

If you cannot tell the differance when you hear them speak, then you need to go back to the books yourself and you can't learn that outside of Japan. I've been forced to try that also and it didn't work, not for me and not for the others I had to study with, some of who were and are great linguists (and I don't include myself at their level).

[kamome]

On a related note, I think the word "fluent" should not be applied to oneself on a resume unless you can back it up. There are a lot of people who say they are "fluent in Japanese", but in practice that just means they know a few greetings and can order sushi in a restaurant. Despite my Japanese language experience (10+ years of study, working professionally in Japan for 5 years, etc.) , I still do not put "fluent" on my resume; to be safe I usually use the word "proficient" or "business level", which, according to some people, could qualify as fluent but not my personal definition of fluent.

[drpepper]

As usual Chucky-boy is full of himself and crap (same thing really). The language is the culture and vice versa, they cannot be seperated. Also this whole idea of fluency among natives is silly. Fluency doesn't apply to native speakers. Their language is their language no matter how illiterate or uneducated they are. Fluency means how close a non-native is relative to a native speaker. How big that ballpark is is completely subjective. Milk was a good exanple from Chuckles and too bad he didn't realize but milk in English is not the same stuff as it is in Japanese. You cannot translate milk without context into Japanese. Culture has made a distinction here and the language relfects that. The chuckster has me blocked (from a previous argument he lost to me) so he may not see this but feel free to quote.

[Greji]

As usual Chucky-boy is full of himself and crap (same thing really). The language is the culture and vice versa, they cannot be seperated. Also this whole idea of fluency among natives is silly. Fluency doesn't apply to native speakers. Their language is their language no matter how illiterate or uneducated they are. Fluency means how close a non-native is relative to a native speaker. How big that ballpark is is completely subjective. Milk was a good exanple from Chuckles and too bad he didn't realize but milk in English is not the same stuff as it is in Japanese. You cannot translate milk without context into Japanese. Culture has made a distinction here and the language relfects that. The chuckster has me blocked (from a previous argument he lost to me) so he may not see this but feel free to quote.

Doc, you're right on. I probably did not make my points too clear, I was referring to the US and specifically the initial people who were trained in the programs for WWII which included Jack Seward (and later myself), who required then and still do, testing for a "fluency" rating. This also included Nisei, Japanese born or raised persons, who would qualify as so-called native speakers who are not Japanese by citizenship. I had missionaries and Niseis in my class time that had so much time in Japan, their major problem was English. Yet, they all had to qualify.

I went through bass-ackwards in that I was required to go through area specialist training at a Japanese University and upon completion, some bright quiz kid in the government decided that training in Japan did not attest to fluency, so I was sent back to the one year training program at Monterey (karifoniya-ben?), so I could officially be qualified (and tested) to be fluent(?)! Your great government minds at work.

At any rate, no child in Japan will be able to initially understand "milk", gyunyu, if used in reference to the drink. This is because it is not used with children until they aroundaround two or even later. Whether it is in the bottle or right out of the tap, it is expressed as"opai" in the house for quite a long period of time. That was kinda of shock the first time I heard my wife say "You want some opai", to which I immediately said of course, only to be told that "I was talking to the kid, you idiot!"

But, I degress, my main point that fluency is a term, which like bilingual that people, especially US types, love to throw around and set grades and standards for, and for the most part, neither word has a truly defineable meaning in those terms.

Just my two sen worth (again)!

[Charles]

But, you are definately wrong when you exclude culture from a language. You can learn every vocabulary word in the lesson, but if you do not know why it is used or where it is used in a "cultural" setting, you can find yourself in as much trouble in business, as a redneck shouting the "N" word in the middle of Watts, or Harlem.

Cultural understanding is a totally separate issue, although learning foreign languages is a prerequisite to understanding a foreign culture.
You are essentially arguing that a racist can't be fluent in the language. It is certainly possible for someone to say something perfectly fluently and totally inappropriate.
You, like Seward, are advocating such high standards for literacy that it excludes even native speakers. Fluency is a rather simple matter, to be fluent you must be at the point where you do not have to think about the language before communicating, it serves you rather than being an obstacle. You do not have to know every word or every historical/cultural reference, perhaps you never noticed that nihonjin also use dictionaries to look up unknown words, they don't know every word and historical/cultural reference either.

[Greji]

Cultural understanding is a totally separate issue, although learning foreign languages is a prerequisite to understanding a foreign culture.

Buu,Buu! You cannot have one without the other and accomplish anything

You are essentially arguing that a racist can't be fluent in the language. It is certainly possible for someone to say something perfectly fluently and totally inappropriate.

No, I'm not. First of all a racist is not going to expend the effort. What I said is that without culture you stand the chance of making mistakes (and will make them), that can lead to that type of a problem, where insults will be inadvertantly made.

You, like Seward, are advocating such high standards for literacy that it excludes even native speakers.

I can't find that in my post, nor in any of the some 44 books Seward has authored on the topic. Literacy was not mentioned, nor an advocacy of "such high standards".

Fluency is a rather simple matter, to be fluent you must be at the point where you do not have to think about the language before communicating, it serves you rather than being an obstacle.

I like your definition of fluency. How many people do you know that think in the language? Do you? That's again the question of fluency and how it should be measured, or even if it is necessary to have a measurement for anyone other than educators (and I suppose, igotists).

You do not have to know every word or every historical/cultural reference, perhaps you never noticed that nihonjin also use dictionaries to look up unknown words, they don't know every word and historical/cultural reference either.

It would then appear that they would not be fluent, based upon your definition!

[omae mona]

At any rate, no child in Japan will be able to initially understand "milk", gyunyu, if used in reference to the drink. This is because it is not used with children until they aroundaround two or even later. Whether it is in the bottle or right out of the tap, it is expressed as"opai" in the house for quite a long period of time.

Most likely, an additional reason is that Japanese women really don't like to hear the term "gyuunyuu" (literally and specifically "COW milk") used to refer to what comes out of their chests. I think we can all understand why.

[Greji]

[kamome]

[kurohinge1]

... I'm sure there are plenty of opportunities for such study, beginning with a Booble search.

Oppai-tunities?