Source of the following:“Understanding Japanese Verbs & Adjectives” Paul Knight (JapanEd) May 2002
ISBN 0-473-08509-7

Page 258
THOUGHTS ON LEARNING JAPANESE
In 1960, I began learning Japanese with the help of the crew of a Japanese log-freighter, and"Teach Yourself Japanese", one of about 4 texts on the market then, and the only one available
in New Zealand. There seemed nothing at all remarkable about the way Japanese was presented
to the student. It could have been French, or Spanish, or even English. It would have been
perfectly sensible for the first people who took up the challenge of presenting Japanese to
students from the West, to follow the language learning traditions well established amongst theEuropean nations which had been crossing each other's borders for centuries.
However, as time passed I began questioning the conventional approach and finally, after twenty
years of teaching Japanese, a year's leave provided the space to attempt to give concrete
expression to these accumulated doubts. I am convinced that some radical changes to the way
we present Japanese at the very beginning would be beneficial to the learner and with sometrepidation began the task of creating a Japanese course based on these ideas.
With the benefit of hindsight, it would seem to me better if Japanese courses had been designed
so as to impart to the student from the beginning, a consciousness of very basic features ofJapanese which are different from European Languages. I believe that by blurring thedifferences, it has made it more difficult for Western students to master natural Japanese formsof expression which are not in themselves particularly difficult. A lot of time and effort iswasted because the student has to undo first impressions, especially if they come to Japan after
several years of study at home. These first impressions are particularly difficult to undo if they
have been absorbed unconsciously, and it is precisely to avoid creating this sort of situation that
I think Japanese should initially be presented to the Western student in a manner better suited tothe characteristics of Japanese.
It is my intention that the student should start at a point normally reached only after aconsiderable period of study, and would work for sometime before coming to where mostcourses start. This "Foreword" explains why, but rather than being merely an appendage to yet
another Japanese course, it is also a personal statement of philosophy concerning
the teaching and learning of Japanese.
1

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF JAPANESE which should influence the design of aJapanese course for English-speaking students:(1) The Dominant Role of Verbs and Adjectives.
Unlike their counterparts in European languages, Japanese verbs and adjectives have much incommon with each other. Verbs also function as adjectives, while adjectives incorporate the verb
"to be" and inflect like verbs. Most importantly, whereas European languages link ideas orsentences using words (conjunctions/relative pronouns) specifically for that purpose, inJapanese, the linking of ideas more naturally depends on inflections to verbs and adjectives.
Instead of using this last function, the first linkages typically taught to students of Japanese arethose using [soshite] and [ga] which can be used between two clauses in the same way as "and"and "but" in English. In Japanese, by far the most natural and common way to join two
sentences related in the way which would be expressed by "and" is to modify the verb or
adjective at the end of the first clause. e.g.
machi ni itte kaimono shita.
I went to town and did some shopping.
The link between the two Japanese sentences is made by using the " -te form" of the Japaneseverb [iku] meaning "to go", but while this method of linking the two ideas would have to beconsidered by far the most natural, inevitably what students are first taught is: e.g.
machi ni ikimashita soshite kaimono o shimashita.
in which construction the function of “soshite” coincides neatly with that of "and". The "te form" of adjectives is used the same way and frequently also carries the additional implicationof a reason or cause for what is said in the second clause. e.g.
yasukute yokatta ne.
It was good because (or that) it was cheap wasn't it?
atsukute neraremasen deshita.
It was hot and I couldn't sleep. I could not sleep because it was hot.
Not to teach the most common and natural link first, creates a habit which many student havedifficulty in breaking, but moreover, it creates the impression that sentence linking is basicallyarried out in the same way as in European languages. I believe the creation of this impression isan unnecessary impediment to subsequent progress.
2
THE LAZINESS OF JAPANESE NOUNS.
In European languages, nouns may be singular or plural or quantitative or collective, masculineorfeminine or neuter or common, and may inflect depending on whether they are subject,
object, lenitive etc. On top of that they may require adjectives and verbs to agree with them.
When teaching or learning a European language therefore, it seems reasonable that a main focus
of attention in the early stage is on nouns. The result is the archetypal "That is the pen of myaunt."
Japanese courses start in exactly the same way and I question the wisdom of this for manyreasons:(a) Japanese nouns do not inflect for gender nor for number nor for case.
(b) They do not influence the form of the verb or adjective.
(c) Nouns, especially in the subject and object position, are naturally omitted whenprevious reference to them has occurred, and there is little possibility of misunderstanding. For
example, in Japanese, the statement: "I will give this to you." requires only one word, the verb.
The three nouns "I" "this" "you" are often clearly unnecessary. In English, for example, it is
not generally possible to omit the subject of the sentence, nor the object either if the verb has
one. In Japanese it is natural to do so and often unnatural not to. But most students have great
difficulty in being Japanese and laboriously repeat nouns, especially personal pronouns, when
the Japanese is so much briefer and more efficient in this respect. I believe the noun-oriented
initial introduction to the language carries a major responsibility for the difficulty students havein adapting to this characteristic of Japanese.
(d)
The most compelling reason to my mind for a change in approach also involves nouns.
The use of nouns requires the use of particles which indicate, amongst other things, therelationship of the nouns they follow, to the verb or to the sentence as a whole. This
relationship may be syntactical. For example, the subject or object of the verb will be indicatedby the appropriate particle, but their use is certainly more complex than that.
The choice of particle to follow a particular noun also involves a judgment of context akin to thedecision as to whether to use the definite or indefinite article or neither, in European languages.
As if this were not enough, one of the particles, “wa” can be used several times in one sentence
to give nouns either one of two categories both of which are quite different from any syntactical
function typical of European languages. The Japanese word followed by “wa” will, in theequivalent English expression, have a specific grammatical role. It may be subject or object, orbe part of an adverbial phrase expressing time, for example. But the effect of using a noun with“wa” is precisely to isolate it from any specific grammatical relationship with the rest of thesentence, in a way that, though not totally impossible in English, requires considerable
imagination, or possibly bad grammar to find a rough equivalent.
To complicate the matter further, “wa” is frequently used in the same sentence more than once
and with two different functions, a difference which is typically ignored, or at best blurred inJapanese courses for foreigners. “wa” is used to imply a contrast between like matters or
things in such situations as would require vocal stress in English to make the same implication.
For this reason, text books frequently explain the use of “wa” by saying it indicates that a
particular noun is to be stressed. But in the other use of “wa”, namely to indicate what is called
the “shudai” in Japanese, it is quite wrong to say that the particular word is to be stressed.
Quite the opposite would be a correct explanation. The following examples will illustrate what
has been said in this paragraph.
e.g. watashi waÅ@atama ga itai.
The noun followed by [wa] in an equivalent English sentence, may be either a possessive
adjective, as in: "My head hurts." Or, it could be a pronoun subject as in: "I have a head-ache."In ano hito wa benkyo ga suki desu similarly, the noun before “wa”will be the subject of the
English, "He likes studying." but, in both cases the Japanese subject is the word followed by theparticle “ga” not the one followed by “wa.”In the following, “wa” occurs more than once in the same sentence and in each case the later“wa” indicate that a contrast is being made.
e.g. watakushi wa sake wa nomimasuga tabako wa suimasen.
I drink but I don't smoke.
The first “shudai” has again become the English subject, while the nouns attached to thefollowing “wa” have become absorbed into the English verbs. If one somewhat unnaturally
forced them back into the English however, both of them would become English objects: I drink
alcohol, but I don't smoke cigarettes.
However the role of “wa” is not ever to indicate any particular case, and in the above, the later“wa” indicate that a contrast is being made or implied between similar things or situations.
In the following examples, the underlined “wa” indicates a “non-contrastive shudai”, the last“wa” indicatesÅ@something is being contrasted with a similar item, while the “wa” in the
middle could be treated either way depending on context.e.g.
watakushi wa ashita wa asoko e wa ikanai.
Tomorrow, I won't go there. (But I will go somewhere else.)
watakushi wa asoko e wa ashita wa ikanai
I won't go there tomorrow. (But I will go there on another day.)The roles of the “wa” phrases in the above, are partly fulfilled by the English subject, by
adverbial phrases of time, and by adverbial phrases of place. But in addition, when “wa”
carries the implication of contrast the English adds vocal stress to the word in italics. It can not
be said that it is always clear whether a particular “wa” is indicating a contrast. However, when
there is more than one “wa” in the same sentence a “wa” at the beginning of the sentence will
indicate a non-contrastive “shudai”, while the later a “wa” comes in a sentence, the moreclearly is it a contrastive “wa”.
The purpose of the above examples is not in fact to confuse the reader but to show how great isthe potential for confusion if the particles are introduced too early, as I consider they generallyare. The student's chances of properly understanding the use of the particles are further reducedby the practice of choosing to introduce from the first lessons, sentence patterns based on the

{noun+[wa]+verb} structure, followed shortly after by the introduction of the grammaticalobject in the{noun+[wa]+ object+[o]+verb} pattern.
Inevitably, in the sentences chosen to be presented first to the student, the Japanese noun
followed by “wa” turns out to be the subject of the English sentence given as its equivalent. I
have even seen “wa” introduced as actually indicating the subject. I quote: "“wa” = a particle
indicating the subject of the sentence, combines with the preceding word to form the subject of
the sentence." But even without misleading instructions, the association of “wa” with thesubject is quickly formed, especially by those students who actually know that sentences havesubjects. Then, the next particle introduced, “o”, is the proper particle to indicate the Japanese
object, and the wrong association of “wa” with the grammatical subject is mentally confirmed.
When subsequently, the subject particle “ga” is introduced, the student feels the carpet has
been pulled out from under this very neat arrangement and the resulting confusion is at best asignificant set back to progress in becoming proficient in Japanese, but for many, the particles
are doomed to remain an unfathomable mystery, confirmation of the myth that the Japanese are
anyway, inscrutable so it is not surprising if their language is ineffable.
However one presents them, the particles are a difficult challenge for both teacher and student.
Nevertheless, I think that the typical confusion in the minds of those learning Japanese, is to aconsiderable extent created by the method of presentation. It is my conviction that a better way
exists.
In English and some other European languages one can not normally avoid using nouns informing a sentence. If Japanese were the same, one would be forced to expose the complete
beginner to the use of particles. But, by good fortune or a benevolent whim of the god of
language, it is not only possible, but for the reasons already explained, I think it is better tobegin Japanese by avoiding the use of nouns in the subject, object or topic positions. Instead,by concentrating on the functions of verbs and adjectives one avoids the need to introduce theparticles until such time as the student has the skills to make it possible to introduce the threeparticles “ga” “o” “wa” simultaneously, and to introduce them in "sentence pairs" whichclearly illustrate the difference between the use ofÅ@"o" as against “wa”, or of “ga” asagainst “wa”.
I find it effective, if from the beginning the student can realize that grammatically speaking, if theobject particle “o” is correct in a particular sentence, then "wa" also is possible. Similarly, if“ga” is correct because the word preceding it is the subject, then it too can be replaced by“wa”. It should be made clear to the student that the choice between “o” and “wa” orbetween “ga” and “wa” is not a matter of right and wrong in terms of grammar, but is basedon a decision requiring a judgment about the context or situation. In English the same thing
could be said of the choice between: "I bit the dog." and "I bit a dog."
In summary, considering the frequency with which “wa” appears in Japanese, the cavaliermanner in which its use is generally explained, ignored, or its separate functions blurred, seems
to me a remarkable phenomenon, only partly explainable by the fact that the Japanese
themselves, expert and lay alike, are far from agreement as to how to define just what “wa”
properly does. It is my contention, however, that even if it were explained with great care anddetail, the explanation would make little sense to the student in the very first lessons in Japanese
where “wa” has always been introduced, because the student simply does not yet have theequipment in the language to handle the contrasts and contextual implications which the use or
non-use of “wa” carries.
3.
THE PRESENTATION OF VERBS
Where European languages are concerned, it is merely a matter of course that verbs are referred
to, presented and learned in their infinitive. It would be inconceivable to do otherwise, as it isfrom the form of the infinitive that one identifies the verb according to its class so that thestudent knows how it is conjugated into its various tenses and moods. Furthermore, it is in its
infinitive form that any verb will appear in a dictionary.
Japanese verbs also have classes and conjugate in the regular pattern of the class to which they
belong. Although they don't strictly have an infinitive with the same functions as say French,
German or English, they do have finite forms called "shushi" (pronounced shuushi) and thepresent tense of this is identical to the form which appears in dictionaries, and according towhich, its type, and therefore its pattern of inflection can be known.
This form can be referred to as "the dictionary form" or jishokei -é´èëå`Å@or genkei -å¥å`.
The "shushi" is a finite form of the verb and is the form most commonly used to end a sentence
when a degree of formality is not required. Each tense of a Japanese verb, both positive andnegative has two forms, "plain" or "dearu-cho" and "formal" or "desu/masu-cho." e.g.
iku and ikimasu,
ikanai and ikimasen,
itta and ikimashita
ikanakatta and ikimasen deshita.
(The latter in each case being the "desu/masu-cho" which is used only in more formal
situations.)
The meaning of the dearu-cho or "plain form" is not different from the desu/masu-cho or"formal form, but the decision to use one or the other implies something about the relationshipof the speaker to those being spoken to. A whole sentence will be formal if the final verb is in
the desu/masu-cho, even if subordinate verbs inside the sentence are not in the desu/masu-cho.
The form which appears in a dictionary is in appearance the same as the present tense of the"shuushi" or the "de-aru-cho" though its name is different (viz. "jishokei" or "genkei." In spiteof the fact that this form of Japanese verbs exists and functions as the identifying or basic formof the verb in the same way as does the infinitive of European verbs, and in spite of the fact thatthe various forms other than the desu/masu-cho have a multitude of uses in structuring
sentences, and that their use far outnumbers that of desu/masu-cho, the practice persists ofintroducing and referring to verbs by their "formal present" or desu/masu-cho.
(By the way, "da"and alternatively "de aru" are the dearu-cho of the verb "to be" which you haveprobably learned already as "desu." In written Japanese, "de aru," "de atta" are morecommon sentence endings than "da" "datta." You may already have learned the negative of"da" namely, "dewa arimasen " or jya arimasen," or "jya nai." In other words, the "-te form"of "da" combined with the verb "aru" is a very common alternative to the verb "da" by itself.)
I have been suggesting till now that Japanese courses have followed a method of presentation
based on that which is common in European second language teaching, but that this is basicallyinappropriate for Japanese. It seems ironic therefore, that in the one area where it would havebeen totally appropriate to have followed European practice, the peculiar convention ofpresenting verbs in the "formal present" was chosen and has persisted. This would besomewhat akin to referring to verbs in European languages by, for example, the third person
singular of the present tense while at the same time refusing to tell the student the infinitive withwhich the might classify the verb and find it in a dictionary. The most common complaint ofstudents who have learned Japanese formally and then find themselves in Japan, is that theJapanese they hear and read in Japan, is based on the "plain forms" and seems like a different
language from the one they have learned, and they feel they have to learn it all over again.
It may be have been that the convention of presenting and using verbs in the formal form, aroseout of the strong desire to present the best "face" to the outside world. I would also admit that
there is often something distasteful when one hears foreigners of any breed speaking one's own
language with slang or with an inappropriate degree of informality, especially if the speaker's
real language ability is not such that he can distinguish between what is and is not suitable. But
even if such cultural sensitivity had been the reason, and I can think of no other, the continued
concentration on the use of the formal form of the verb can hardly be justified on the samegrounds now that Japan and the West are consciously trying to learn and accept the realities

about each other.
From the point of view of language teaching, the convention of presenting verbs in the formal
form, and of using them initially only in those forms, seems to make little sense. Japanesechildren don't learn verbs that way. The desu/masu form" is relatively much less useful andmuch less used than other verb forms, and even if one needs to be formal, only the last verb inthe sentence will be in the desu/masu form. It is easy to learn the desu/ masu or formal form of
the verb as part of the overall pattern of changes based on the natural starting point, the jishokei
or dictionary form. On the other hand it makes no sense to start from an isolated corner of thatpattern. We would not consider doing it with French, German or Spanish verbs, and in theJapanese education system, verbs are taught from the "jishokei" as a matter of course. It is
common sense, and there are clear advantages to the foreign student of Japanese to have verbs
presented not just as an isolated word, but as a pattern based on the "Dictionary Form".
This, in a nut-shell, is starting point of "Understanding Japanese Verbs & Adjectives," and fromthis starting point also, the other important features of the course develop in a way that I believe
is logical and consistent.
4.

THE FEATURES OF "Understanding Japanese Verbs & Adjectives":

This way of teaching and learning has two main goals, the earliest possible understanding ofand ability to use complex sentence structures, and the earliest possible independence of thelearner from teachers and texts.
In my experience, many who decide to learn Japanese do so, not because it is a compulsory or a
traditional subject, but because they have a motive and plans to use the language. However, it isvery frustrating to communicate in philosophical "monosyllables" joined, if at all, by "and" or"but".
Nevertheless this is how the student of Japanese typically finds him or herself constrained
because the necessary skills come in dribs and drabs and often very late in the learning process.
This course is designed in the belief that there is no particular reason why the normal order can
not be reversed so that the student first learns how to construct relatively complex sentences, anddecides for him or herself on the vocabulary that will be useful to express what is of interest or
what circumstances demand.
(1)"Understanding Japanese Verbs & Adjectives," starts with the aim of developing theability to manipulate verbs and adjectives. In the process the student quickly learns to link ideas
into complex sentences in a way, using the appropriate forms of verbs and adjectives.
(2)
It begins by introducing verbs in the form which is the equivalent of the infinitive ofEuropean language studies. It is variously called: "genkei", "jishokei," or"dictionary form".
(3)
From the "Dictionary Form" of the verb, the student must first learn to classify all verbs
into types, [ichidan] or "1-row verbs", [godan] or "5-row verbs" etc. Then, using the patterns
typical of each type, the student learns from the beginning to conjugate or change verbs into
forms and tenses that other courses do not introduce until later and in many cases, very muchlater. After the verb types are introduced, adjectives are presented in the same manner. With theknowledge thus acquired, a wide variety of satisfying forms of expression can already beconstructed. The student can expect to attain early mastery of sentence-linking skills which are
typically Japanese, which do not use conjunctions as European languages do, and which avoid
the "Europeanization" of Japanese typical of language courses in their initial stages.
(4)
The first exercises train the student in how to return to the "Dictionary Form" from any
form of the verb. As the inflections of adjectives follow similar patterns to that of verbs, thestudent thus develops the skill needed to find any verb or adjective in a dictionary, regardless ofthe form in which it may have appeared in a context. This skill which we would take for granted

in European languages is not available to students learning Japanese under current methods.
(5)"Understanding Japanese Verbs & Adjectives," does not start with such sentence
patterns typified by: "What is this?", "That is a pen.", "What did you buy?", "I bought a book."
This approach emphasizes nouns, subjects, objects and complements. When nouns areused with these functions in Japanese, they must be followed by particles. The correct use ofparticles is difficult to grasp at any stage, but the possibility of understanding is much greater if
the use of particles is delayed until the student has the language ability to interchange andcompare their use. Moreover, by initially avoiding the use of nouns in subject/object positions,in addition to avoiding the need to use and explain the particles, "Understanding Japanese Verbs& Adjectives" accustoms the student from the beginning to the natural Japanese tendency to do
the same, namely, not to mention the subject/object/shudai unless understanding requires it.
(6)"Understanding Japanese Verbs & Adjectives" does not require of the student a heavy
load of vocabulary learning. On the contrary, it keeps vocabulary to a minimum. Instead, thefocus is on the goal of the earliest possible mastery of sentence construction and sentencelinking skills. Relatively "advanced" sentence patterns and the verb forms that make thempossible are introduced at the beginning, whereas the same forms typically may not appear until
after some months or even years of study. The policy of minimizing the vocabulary learning
requirement should not be taken to imply that this is considered unimportant, merely that is
distracts from the defined goals of this course, and that the learner should take more
responsibility for choices in this respect.
(7)
Vocabulary acquisition for most students requires effort and memorization.
Memorization is quicker if the words are relevant to the student's interests. The author of aJapanese course will feed in new vocabulary at times and rates judged by that author to beappropriate, and the course has to be confined to using only what has been introduced, a taskcomplicated vastly by the role played by Kanji. But no course can please all of its students all
the time in its choice of vocabulary. This is especially so when, for example, an American text isused in another English-speaking country where both custom and forms of expression are
different. Plain annoyance and resistance to learning can in fact be created by an author's
decisions in regard to the introduction of vocabulary.
I believe there is much to be gained by off-loading the task and choice of vocabularyacquisition on to the student, or onto those teaching in a particular linguistic and cultural climate.
Japanese nouns are easy to look up in a Japanese-English dictionary. Japanese nouns are very
lazy. They have no inflections for singular, plural, or for case, they have no gender. They justsit where they are put. But on the other hand, Japanese verbs and adjectives inflect and sofinding them in a dictionary requires skill. It is precisely this skill which Japanese courses
traditionally have not provided at least until very late, because they "drip feed" the inflections ofverbs and adjectives into students over a long period. "Understanding Japanese Verbs &Adjectives" starts with an over-view of the patterns of verbal and adjectival inflections and aims
to give the student the skills necessary for the task of acquiring independently the vocabularythat is useful to him or her.
(8)
The minimal vocabulary required for "Understanding Japanese Verbs & Adjectives"
makes it compatible with other Japanese courses. While the aim of this course is to give thestudent a different kind of start with emphasis on Japanese sentence structure, this still leaves a
lot to learn about what to put into that structure. For this purpose, I highly recommend as acompanion text, and frequently refer the student to, "A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar",by Seiichi Makino and Michiko Tsutsui (Japan Times). I recommend this text not just becauseof its contents, but because of its lay-out as a dictionary. In other words, the student does not
begin at Lesson 1 and proceed lesson by lesson, but refers to it according to the topic needing
clarification, thus providing exactly the scope for self-motivation and flexibility compatible with
"Understanding Japanese Verbs & Adjectives".
(9)"Understanding Japanese Verbs & Adjectives" can only be followed in the Japanesescript. If the student does not yet know hiragana and katakana, the Japanese phonetic scripts,
the author has produced "WATCH, READ & WRITE - a Video Kana Course," which shows
how the two phonetic scripts were developed, how they are written and how they are used in
combination with kanji (the borrowed Chinese characters) in modern Japanese.