If learning English only requires knowing 26 letters, then why was I studying English through 12 years of school and then still taking English writing classes all through college?

Because it isn't as easy as you'd like to think.
OK, I'll be more specific. I have never heard a Japanese person say "English is so easy." I have, on the other hand, heard thousands say "English is too hard". Just look at the Looking for English Help section hre.

That's an interesting story, but I am not sure how it makes learning English easy.
Since Jesus walked the Earth younger people have been less interested in the traditional ways than the older generation. That's cultural evolution, and is perfectly normal.

I guess I am not seeing where the benefits outweigh the hassle and expenses it would be to enact this.

I just wanted to clear some things up... I don't see any reason as to why Japan would need to use English as a second language. Something like 99% of the population is Japanese so that seems a little pointless. I don't think that making English an official language would equal the demise of the Japanese language; that's pretty stupid. Japanese people seem to enjoy their native language and actively incorporate more and more Kanji into their writing system while getting rid of others, a sign that the language is thriving.

English doesn't have just 26 letters as it's been pointed out in every debate of the topic - "A" and "a" look nothing alike, and the typed version of "a" doesn't look like the written version. Then there's cursive.

I agree with this for native speakers, but it is important to note that this isn't necessarily true for foreigners. There's things like は which sounds like わwhen used as a particle, and things like elongated vowels and small tsu sounds that can be very tricky for learners (としょうかん or としょかん, etc.)
English spelling is, of course, much more difficult though; I just want to point out that Japanese isn't exactly as simple spelling-wise as it's made out to be.

To be fair, the general rule for local (American) newspapers is that they should be written so that 5th graders can read them. Things like the New York Times are intended for adult readers, but still use pretty simple language so that anyone could read them. My understanding of Japanese newspapers is that they are much more difficult on the local level than English newspapers. I might be wrong, but I think it would be much more difficult for the average Japanese 5th grader to read a newspaper than the Average American 5th grader, specifically because of Kanji.

This may be true of 5th graders, but I don't think it would necessarily be true of 12th graders.

It's easy to quantify the sheer volume of kanji that needs to be learned, but it is difficult to quantify to volume of rules and exceptions that must be perfected to comprehend English. The fact that it is difficult to quantify the volume of exceptions in grammar and spelling that must be learned is testimony to English's difficulty.

A 5th grader can function in society without being able to read a newspaper. That's not nearly as true when one is 18 years old.

I have to say that is the first time I have ever had that phrase applied to me. And quite honestly, I`m quite taken aback by it.

Surprise surprise. It is already taught from elementary school whether you like it or not. Let me go a bit further - it`s taught even in preschool and kindergarten.

An interesting scenario - but tell me, how will it be able to be used in courts, government meetings, etc if those involved in the meetings do not speak it? You`re speaking of a scenario which requires something that is not present. It`s sort of a catch-22. In order to be used in government meetings and in any official context, the officials have to be proficient in the language. In order for the officials and those involved to be truly proficient and to switch over in any short time they would have to be in an environment pushing them (more than present) to learn and use English. In other words, they would have to already be in the environment you are outlining. But in order to make that environment.... See? It goes in a circle.

Japan is not about to be colonized by an English speaking country, nor is it about to have a government instated by one.

Obviously it will be easier for someone to learn English in that environment. The problem is, first of all, that environment does not exist.

But the biggest problem I think is that you did not say that in your previous message. You said, quite clearly, that English is an easier language than Japanese - citing the alphabet as proof.
それ、逆鱗に触れる発言で食い下がるに決まってる。許 せない。自分の言ってる事の意味を分からずに突っかか っても痛くも痒くもない。何言われたって譲れないよ。
君、何様のつもりでいるのかわからん。だが、私言語学 者なんだからな・・・

I don`t think English should be a second language in Japan in any official context. It seems that we agree on that point. However, "losing Japanese heritage" isn`t my concern. It just makes absolutely no sense to do so.

I don`t recall saying that Japanese is at all easier to learn than English. What I did say, however, is that English is not easier than Japanese. If one were to follow the thinking of the quote which I was replying to - Japanese would end up being "easier". Is it? Of course not, which disproves the original quote.

The original bit I was replying to is about "native" speakers learning the language as children. (I put native in quotes, as they can hardly be considered such at the point where they are still acquiring language.) It would NOT be easier to learn English as a native language. Nor would it be more difficult.

I voted NO.

English in Japan has no historical nor political reasons to become a secondary official language.

I should address some important issue about English:

Though the sudden dominance of English in the world's academic domain is why universities in non-English speaking countries losing significant ground. For several decades and still today, universities in first world English speaking countries have total dominance in the academia, quasi-permanently. It has discouraged universities in Japan, Russia, etc. to even become important in the long run.

There is a huge presense of heavily-biased oligarchy in globally-connected academia because of English. Hence, the so-called English-superior movement has regressed the whole essense of academia worldwide.

I never said that you were saying that Japanese was easier >_>

I was just point out that "Because hiragana/katakana are ALWAYS pronounced in the same way. There is no need for worries about "spelling", silent letters, dropped consonants, blended sounds, etc etc etc that are oh so very common in English" isn't exactly true seeing as Hiragana isn't always pronounced the same way and there is a form of silent letters. Both languages are difficult in their own ways, but I was just showing that English doesn't have "just 26 letters" and Japanese isn't always spelling error free.

A native child, growing up around Japanese, is usually able to hear those "silent" letters. は is an exception, but it is much much easier to remember one or two exceptions that a whole sea full of them. おお versus おう is the biggest one that catches kids (こおる vs こうる, etc), but it isn`t exactly an exception.

You`re speaking of the problems for non-native learners. I am talking about native acquisition.

Either way though - "spelling" mistakes have little to do with reading proficiency. I am sure that you are able to read much more than you can spell with confidence. And as in 99.99 percent of the time hiragana/katakana is indeed read with the same sound, it is not a stretch to say that it`s always read in the same way. Even with the very very few exceptions, you would still be able to understand what was being read *if* you were a native speaker.

You can thank the Japanese government post WWII for that because before that, you needed ruby text even on hiragana because there were a LOT of exceptions. Try reading the sentence below using modern Kana readings and it turns into another language and pretty much all books before WWII were written like this.

「非現實的」と言つて非難する人が結構たくさんゐるや うなのですが、理想を追求する事に何の問題があると云 ふのでせうか。

As someone who participates in both Japanese and English speaking forums, the lack of communication skills by native English speakers is much more glaringly obvious. There is not the "I'm just lazee" factor in Japanese that is a barrier to communication.

Of course, Japanese has short-cuts, slang, etc. But for these are more...how can I say?...organized than the "I am YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!" type chimpanzee-with-a-keyboard posts we see even here on JF.

the debate seems to be whether or not japan should have a second official language. in order to have a SECOND official language, one need to have another official language. could someone please tell me if japan has another official language?

pls keep in mind that the de facto official languages are not the same as a real official language.

I see the words "and that's just the writing system" were skipped in my previous post. Check your eye sight.
I never said "learn the 26 letters of the alphabet and you'll know English".

The same "scenario" which you see above was used in USSR.

Question No.1. Is it being taught in ALL Japans kindergartens/preschools/elementary schools?
Question No.2. Is the English teaching program the same as in America, or Great Britain?

Don't think if today Japan decides to have English as the second official language, then tomorrow everything going to be like in my "scenario". And I can only speculate how everything might be done when a country chooses to have a second language by itself, not being forced.
I'm guessing the officials won't be touched in the beginning, but after, about 6-8 years when the next generation shows up, they'll simply make an official decree stating that from now on English is going to used in parliament and other government places.
So unless, you're writing a book with a story where a country decides to have another official language don't ask me such questions.


It existed in USSR. Also, go to Belgium or Canada and you'll see that there are some similarities with my "scenario". Here's a wiki page on how bilingualism works in Canada.

Official bilingualism in Canada

I just showed one of the differences between the two languages where English has advantage over Japanese. Though I agree with it being harder then Japanese, my point was that in the environment I told about, it would be easier than Japanese.

Right. I'm already imagining how the teacher is saying "Children, today we're gonna learn the first letter of the alphabet and it's letter "A" /eɪ/, and tomorrow we're gonna learn another letter which is... also "a" /eɪ/, but smaller". Even if it does not have just 26 letters... let's say 42 if you like, it's still nothing compared with the Japanese kanji amount.

My eyesight is fine. Let's keep the discussion civil. Yes learning the alphabet is easier than learning kanji. Learning how to use it properly, however, takes a lifetime.

And I have never heard of a Japanese public school that didn't teach English. They used to start in 7th grade, but now they are starting in elementary school. Even in kindergarten they usually do an non-required English lesson, even if it only a few minutes a day.

Is it taught the same way? No, of course not. The way English is taught to native speakers in native countries is very different to the way it is taught as EFL.

This goes for most languages in the world.

It's nice know that they're a lot of effort in teaching kids English. I hope it stays that way.


In time, it would be taught the same way... IF English was to be made an official language.

You are comparing the two, pointing out the simplicity of the English alphabet in contrast to the large number of kanji... And then add "and that's just the writing system".
No one skipped what you said. In fact, that quote carries quite a bit of heavy meaning in that context.

Not quite. The USSR was lumped into a large group with overlapping government. Borders between individual countries were obscured, and it became necessary for individuals to master some level of a shared language.

That necessity simply isn`t present in Japan, and won`t be unless Japan is colonized by some English speaking country.

I can tell you this much - it was impossible for me to find a kindergarten anywhere in this area that didn`t have at least one class a week. Public schools include it in their curriculum so you can answer 100% yes for anything above elementary.

No, and for obvious reasons.

I don`t think anything, let alone everything, would be like your scenario.

A generation is not 6 to 8 years. In a government setting where most everyone is 60+, it will take a very very long time for enough of them to be proficient enough in English to use it in any official capacity. And in order for a generation to have reached that level... Wait, that will send us right back to the never-ending loop.

You have decided to present this model. The very least you can do is answer to speculation. And if you don`t know the reasons I can make such speculation then there is no point in pulling out my credentials at this point.

In the case of the USSR, in the beginning the government was filled with native speakers and teachers in schools were replaced with natives or native level speakers. Media was often available only in Russian...
I find it very hard to see a similar situation arising in Japan. Even if the schools were to switch over to English-only education, there is no shortage of Japanese media.

Canada is a different story completely, starting with the simple fact that there is a native speaking group of French speakers in the country.

そして本番・・・

It would NOT be easier than Japanese. It would not be easier than Japanese in ANY environment. Nor would it be more difficult. This is where you`re really starting to push my limits.
Would it be easier to acquire English proficiency if the language were present in the environment. YES. Would it be easier than Japanese if presented equally in the environment? An outstanding NO.

You are evaluating the difficulty of a language based on how you - a speaker - perceive it. This is so incredibly skewed that I cannot even begin to explain it. Of course you find English easier than Japanese - you can speak it! And it`s not a wild guess to assume that you were exposed to it (and possibly as a single language) on a regular basis in your environment.

For a language to be easier than another language, it has to be limiting in it`s expressive capabilities. You may not realize it, but in saying English is an easier language than Japanese - you are saying that English is a lesser language than Japanese. I somehow doubt that you are intending to do so.

Or... 52, perhaps?
Either way, that isn`t the issue. The number of words, and the skill required to properly use the two languages does not differ. You are using your perception, as a speaker of English, to rate another writing system badly simply because YOU find it too hard.

馬鹿な事この上なし

Um...not really.

I didn't think India teaches it the same way.
And it's an official language there.


Maybe in Nigeria
The Philippines may have a different approach, etc etc.

There are many countries with english as a second official language that won't teach it the way United States would.

And really, Japan does everything else, teaching from young age through college. But you can only lead a horse to water, let them keep just being officially monolingual. It's not hurting us or them as much as they say, because it's just a choice.

As long as Japanese remains the main language of Japan it will never be taught the same as it is in countries where English is the native language.

If you have ever studied Japanese or any other language that is significantly and fundamentally different from English you will understand that native speakers make assumptions that cover ALL languages that are challenged. It is a paradigm shift that many learners never clear.

One of these is when you see people say "Why does Japan still use kanji? It's so stupid when katakana and hiragana is enough!" Hardly a student hasn't thought it when faced with the seemingly impossible volume of kanji that faces them. I remember when I studied French and Spanish and being completely perplexed by the idea that all nouns have a gender. Native speakers don't have these issues because it isn't a paradigm shift. That's all they know.

You know, I make the mistake of complaining about the kanji a lot. I understand they need it, and that's their way of the written language...
but i complain of wondering why they went with it in the first place...>.>

I dunno, I mean, from my standpoint (I am not trying to offend anyone
in anyway) I can see where saying Japanese is harder than some European languages.
My experience with this is that I was learning both Japanese and German at
the same time. Japanese was harder than German because of all the different
kana and kanji to memorize writing wise compared to German's 30 letters. Also
the way sentences are constructed in Japanese was harder for me. But this
is my own opinion and insight on it.
Oh, and most Europeans I know that are native in another language (ie German
or Hungarian) say that English is easier to learn than other languages.

That exact same thing happened with me and German!

I don't know why you believe in this myth Nyororin, why would a language be LESS expressive if it is easier (in certain aspects)? Japanese doesn't have plurals, so is it less expressive? English doesn't use Chinese characters yet it is able to express abstract ideas. Chinese doesn't even have tenses yet it works pretty well. While most thing you say makes sense, you are totally off the mark on this one.

Again you are totally off base. Chinese characters is harder to learn, for natives as well, you will need to put in more effort no doubt about it. Doesn't mean English is less expressive because of this fact. Chinese pronounciation is next to impossible, in fact 90% of the Chinese speakers cannot speak standard Mandarin properly even if they wanted to. Japanese pronounciation on the other hand is idiot proof. Still, doesn't make Chinese more expressive because of impossible pronounciation.

So I think you are way off on the complexity thing. You can't possibly say all languages have the same level of complexity with a straight face. Even if you are native, language complexity will affect you, just not as much as when you are learning from scratch when you are much older.

A myth? No. In order for a language to be "easier" than another language, it would have to be less expressive in the end. There are languages which are easier for one group to acquire than another (European languages are easier for an already European language speaker to pick up, for example...) However, this is NOT a rating of the actual language itself.

Note that you even put in certain aspects. You`re doing your best not to rate language as a whole.

I have never even once said that one language is easier than another. In fact, I have been fighting to point out that one language is NOT easier than another - and that as English is no less expressive than Japanese it is really an insult to it to be called "easier".

Considering one language "easier" and therefore superior to another is complete and utter stupidity - and that is what I have been trying to point out.

You`re saying that I said something I did not. I have never said that all languages are of equal complexity. Please re-read.

I can say that English and Japanese do not differ in complexity with a completely straight face - and as a linguist on top of that. There are actually few languages that can be considered more or less complex, but yes, they exist.
You yourself point out that languages have strong points and weak points. I have never said that English is less expressive than Japanese - but have pointed out that saying a language is easier to acquire as a first language will carry that meaning. English is NOT less expressive than Japanese, therefore it is a serious disservice to imply that it is.

I find it personally shocking that someone can honestly say and believe that if English were more present in Japan it would be "easier" to learn for all the children than Japanese. That is pure arrogance, and a leap straight on to the English superiority bandwagon, whether the person saying it believes it or not.

Saying that English is a much easier language, and basing that on the number of characters used to write the language is silly. Saying that English has a simpler writing system would be accurate - but the simplicity/complexity of a writing system has very very little to do with the level of the language itself or the acquisition of it as a first language.

You say that Chinese is difficult - Can you say with a straight face that if there were more English media in China, everyone would switch over to "easier" English because their native language is too much of a pain? And that they should do so because English so better and easier?
I seriously hope not.

After reading your response, I don't think we are even talking about the same thing. Anyway I agree with your point, English as second official language is crux.

What I'm trying to say is acquiring a language even as a first language will vary in the effort required. Maybe not spoken but definitely reading/writing as not all languages are created equal (but I'm sure they all are just as equally functional).

As for acquiring a second language, it will depend on your first language. English speakers is going to struggle with Japanese, it's obvious, but ask any Korean and they can learn Japanese with their eyes closed.

Anyway I didn't read all of Aniki's rant but most of it seems extremely flawed to say the least.

Thank you. I think that somewhere along the line my argument and the pro-English set was mixed... I`ve only really been irritated by the great leap (by what appears to be native speakers, at that) to call English an "easier" language.

The end functionality is the point. I personally think that Japanese grammar rules are much easier than those of English. But the written language is harder. In the end these things balance though to create languages of equal complexity and, in a linguistic light, of equal "difficulty".
Both languages are going to require an equal amount of time and effort to acquire complete proficiency in as a native speaker. Exactly where that effort goes isn`t that big of an issue.

Native speakers of one language saying their language is easier than others, and therefore should or would be adopted by another country if possible is one of my pet peeves.

Some of the things you said here didn't sound right to me, so I asked my 3 chinese flatmates for their input. Here it is:

Yes, Chinese characters are hard to learn for the simple reason that there are so many you have to learn. On average, 10 per day when starting school. Other than this, chinese chars are no harder to learn than English vocabulary. Remembering how to write them isn't difficult because there are rules to how you write characters. Remembering the character writing is like remembering the spelling of words in English etc. So as a native chinese learner, the characters don't cause as much difficulty as people may think.

Chinese pronounciation is not so difficult. There are only four tones (unless you count the neutral as another tone) and the more advanced in the language you get, the less noticable they are. i.e. The tone becomes very very subtle unlike when you first start learning where you speak in tone perfect. The tones are only difficult when someone isn't a native chinese speaker. Even then, it's not as difficult as people think.

90%? Where did you get this number? Chinese and many asian languages are pretty known for the fact that the litteracy rate in their respective countries is always extremely good compared to western countries and their languages. If you mean on a speaking level, it either comes down to the fact that people have their own dialects and don't learn Mandarin as well as they should, or just accents.


Back to me:

I'm not sure what you guys meant by "expressing", but out of all the languages I speak, I find English the best for expressing myself in a quick and direct way (of course, this isn't always a good thing. In more complex subjects, I'm prety rubish at debating in English). Kabyle (Mother tongue), hasn't evolved very well in recent history, therefore, there are many borrowed words now. To speak purely in Kabyle without borrowed words becomes extremely difficult. Arabic (Algerian spoken arabic. Literary arabic is a nightmare) is fine for expressing myself. French... well, I dislike French because for me it's a language that just beats around the bush. It's rarely direct and to the point like English. To many, that could be the beauty of it (and I understand). But, with French, it'd probably be because I'd call my level Advanced at most, unlike the other languages, which to me are at a Native speakers' level.

Sure, if that's what the people want. Have they got some sort of public opinion poll or whatnot going?
:ywave:

Yes, at the start of this thread;)

English language is the second languages in JP
 

:D Exactly

I think if English were made an official language in Japan, a lot of people would be in trouble given the sorry state of English education in Japan. Obviously the Japanese people on this forum have a great grasp of English. But I spent a semester in Japan studying the education system, including how English is taught, and it's pretty ineffective considering every Japanese person has at least seven years of English language education (jr. high and high school).

Those on this forum who speak well should be commended for working hard!

Regardless the order such as first or second, official language means permission for using the language on the field of law and politics.

If making contracts or applications for commercial services become permitted, many Japanese people who cannot understand English have disadvantage. Flaud crime using English contract will be increase.

Iｆ the time come that ｄiscussion using English on the comitee of the parliament or govement is taken and conference minutes is translate into Japanese, people who cannot use English lost the qualification to be major member of parliament or government.