From: robert@AHI.PBRC.HAWAII.EDU (Lopaka)
Subject: Proficiency Test/Jorden
Reply-To: NIHONGO@mitvma.mit.edu
Organization: The Internet
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 10:52:50 GMT

X-To:         NIHONGO@mitvma.mit.edu

>>In article <9208290249.AA09210@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> you write:
>>
>> I know that Eleanor Jorden, the Queen of Japanese Linguistics, has
>> written a Japanese Profiency test for use through Educational Testing
>
Well, sort of.  Steve (Steve Dwyer) says that I said:

>> Jorden system.  Very biased !

when what I said was:

"If you want to do well on this [proficiency] test, I suggest studying the
Jorden system.  Very biased !"

I know it is an election year Steve, but c`mon.  You're right though,
I do believe that the Jorden system is very biased, but that's another
topic.

>The serious question is whether proficiency requires the use of kanji.
>As I understand it, proficiency should include at least a limited degree
>of literacy.  On the other hand, verbal skill should be included in any
>proficiency test.

I agree with you Steve, but the apparent difference has to do with how
you understand it versus how queens understand it.  To quote Mari
Noda, co-queen author of the book, "What's the book called?"
Answer: Japanese:  The *Spoken* Language.  Admittedly a cop-out.  My feeling is
that the Jorden system on its own isn't going to cut it, but with some
strategically selected other materials, for example Basic Structures,
Kanji and reading materials, it all works out.

>I would like to know if any of Jorden's students has ever tried to live
>in Japan.

now Tad (Tad Perry) steps in and says:
>>Do you mean one of her immediate students studying underneath her or
>>someone whose study began with her first two books and then went on
>>from there? I'm the latter type and survived just fine there for
>>four years. I don't know if direct contact would've helped me or
>>hurt me much though.
-- Tad Perry   Internet:    tvp@gibdo.engr.washington.edu

I`d have to say, since I started this mess, that direct contact should
do nothing but help you, except maybe disappoint you a bit when you
find out that the people don't really speak THAT WAY.  I know of a
person who was in the heralded Falcon program--Cornell's Jorden
intensive program--then went to Japan.  I heard he was pretty
disappointed at how badly he interacted when in Japan.  But I'm the first
to admit this also has to do with individual performance and
expectations.  His expectations might have been set too high, but here
comes my main criticism of my alma mater Japanese Jorden system:  Too
much linguistics rolled together with ego, not enough language learning
for students !  There, I said it.  I do think it is ingenious that
Jorden was the wife of a diplomat in Japan and that she was smart
enough to devise the description of the politeness level system (one of
the better features of the system) realizing that the closest thing the
West has to the Japanese system (besides the military structured
society) is the political sphere, including diplomats.  Afterall, I
didn't say:

"Hope this helps.  Sorry to be so candid but I'm a scientist, not a
diplomat."

for nothin' in the last post.  Like the saying goes: "Diplomacy is the
art of saying `good dog good dog` until you can find the right sized
rock."  These linguists aren't here to teach us Japanese, or to dance
for that matter. ;-)

Summary statement:  This post contains lots of useless gossip (by me)
with one potential main point:  I certainly don't recommend using the
Jorden system (Japanese:  The Spoken Language) by itself unless you are
a romaji fiend or hate the written language.

Robert Graf
robert@ahi.pbrc.hawaii.edu