Classical Japanese Grammar Illustrated with Textsby Tadashi Ikeda;A Grammar of Classical Japaneseby Akira Komai

Classical Japanese Grammar Illustrated with Texts by Tadashi Ikeda; A Grammar of ClassicalJapanese by Akira KomaiReview by: Marleigh Grayer RyanThe Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Sep., 1979), pp. 220-225Published by: American Association of Teachers of JapaneseStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/489050 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 21:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Association of Teachers of Japanese is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.69 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:17:14 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=atj

http://www.jstor.org/stable/489050?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


220

Journal of the Association Vol.XIV, No.2 of Teachers of Japanese

CLASSICAL JAPANESE GRAMMAR ILLUSTRATED WITH TEXTS, by Tadashi Ikeda. Tokyo: The Toho Gakkai, 1975, viii, 356 pp . $25.00.

A GRAMMAR OF CLASSICAL JAPANESE, by Akira Komai. Chi-

cago: Culver Publishing, 1979, xiii, 206 pp. $18.00 (hardcover); $9.00 (paperback).

Reviewed by Marleigh Grayer Ryan

Despite several notable differences in presenta- tion, either of these two books would provide the ad- vanced student of modern Japanese with a great deal of information concerning the classical language. In both cases, the information is provided in ways which con- form with the analyses commonly accepted among scholars of pre-modern language and literature, and both authors have designed their texts specifically so that the student would have no great difficulty reading textual studies about the classics in Japanese upon com-

pleting these introductory books.

Both authors have labored to organize a vast body of information into manageable segments. The Ikeda

book, being far larger and more handsomely printed, with wide margins and spacing between sections, seems, perhaps for those reasons alone, easier to handle. The Komai book is reproduced from photo-offset, with hand- written Japanese, and inevitably suffers by comparison with the elegant volume printed from movable type in

Japan. Furthermore, Komai's system of digital organi- zation (for example, 4.3, note 1) tends to put one off somewhat and contributes to a sense of confusion as one reads through the book page after page. But both authors are painstaking in their effort to be absolutely precise and clear about a subject matter that is essen-

tially imprecise and unclear, and for this effort they are to be highly commended. Both authors assume that the student has completed Hibbett and Itasaka's MODERN JAPANESE; in other words, that the student has been work-

ing on the modern Japanese language for two and a half



221

to three years in a serious program. Grammatical terms are given in Japanese, in romanization and

characters, and with English equivalents. Examples are written out in Japanese script, romanized, and then translated into modern Japanese and into Eng- lish. In the Komai book, each major point is fol- lowed by drill sentences presented only in Japanese script. The Ikeda book concludes with passages from ISE MONOGATARI, MAKURA NO SOSHI, KOKIN WAKASHU, presented three times each: once with each part of

speech identified, a second time with numbers key- ing segments of the passages to items studied earlier in the text, and a third time in romanization. These

passages are the sources for many of the examples cited by Ikeda in his text.

Although not explicitly stated, Ikeda appears to assume that the student will work through the book

essentially on his own, or perhaps with an instructor not necessarily trained in teaching classical Japanese. Since the Japanese material is offered in so many dif- ferent versions--at times, maddeningly so--further assistance from an instructor would probably be super- fluous. On the other hand, Komai does not romanize or translate the drill sections following each major point of grammar, and an instructor knowledgeable in the classical language would be essential.

Ikeda elects to deal exclusively with the lan-

guage of Heian literature, believing that it will provide the basis for all other classical studies. While

concentrating on Heian language, Komai includes information on later developments as well, and is thus close to doing what P.G. O'Neill attempted in his self- instructional PROGRAMMED INTRODUCTION TO LITERARY- STYLE JAPANESE (School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1968). Komai's terse, direct

style frequently reminds one of the O'Neill text as

well, where the very format demands limited verbiage. Ikeda is, by contrast, expansive, and at times redun-

dant, as explanations offered in one section recur--

perhaps inevitably--in later sections.

The greatest contrast between the two books under review occurs in the lines of classical Japanese included as examples of individual points of grammar, and, in the Komai book, for drills as well. Ikeda



222

draws the majority of his examples from the passages included at the end of the book, and the re- mainder from other recognized Heian masterpieces. Komai, on the other hand, depends for more than half of his examples on what he calls "made-up sentences." Some of these include words which occur in modern

Japanese but not in Heian Japanese. In his introduc-

tion, Komai anticipates his critics and argues that "... (1) Were one to use only examples taken directly from authentic sources, the unfamiliar grammatical elements and vocabulary would severely hinder under-

standing, and the examples would therefore not illus- trate clearly the grammatical points they were in- tended to; (2) Many of the sentences from authentic sources are so long and meandering that it seems nec-

essary to shorten them, making them even more difficult to understand; (3) While it is true that most sentences in the real Classical Japanese texts are much more complicated than the illustrative sentences in this book, and that the student must learn to read these texts eventually, it is highly desirable for him to learn thoroughly the basic grammar first..."

(pp. ii, iii).

O'Neill faced the same problem in his PRO- GRAMMED INTRODUCTION and, having elected to use authentic examples, was forced to provide a considerable amount of vocabulary for his reader. Ikeda uses translation to provide the same kind of assistance. One cannot help sympathizing with Komai's dilemma, for it is certainly true that the intrusion of unknown

vocabulary in classical texts often distracts the student from the significance of the grammatical pro- blems. The O'Neill text is at times a maze of notes and subnotes, and there are lines in the Ikeda text that will inevitably stymie the student for their lexical rather than their grammatical mysteries.

However, Komai's book does suffer as a conse-

quence of his decision to use made-up sentences. Most serious is the student's sense that the work is not

authentic, that it is constructed as a kind of game, with the unreality recognized by the author and user as a temporary convenience to be discarded when the student is ready for the "real" thing. Many studies



223

in generative grammar use artificial constructs in building evidence and such constructs have entered contemporary language teaching texts in languages other than Japanese. Nevertheless, the practice continues to be troubling and needs to be questioned wherever it is employed.

What has been lost by using "made-up sentences" is a sense of the beauty and excitement of the classical language. It is difficult to imagine why students would want to learn the classical language if it is not to read the literature in which it is written. To simplify the language is to deny its richness to the students; in a real sense, to cheat the student of the very quality for which he or she is studying the language. Artificial languages may be stimulating for the linguist but they are dull for the rest of us, for we want to enter the world of the language we are studying directly and do not want it made easier or more "accessible." The practice of making up sentences for the language classroom is a return to a traditional practice many of us had hoped had been discarded decades ago; it is saddening to see it back with us again.

Despite the relative paucity of authentic material, Komai's book would be more useful in the classroom than Ikeda's. Komai has divided his material into pedagogically manageable units, and the instructor would be able to control the student's workload in a reasonable fashion. For many of the drill sentences, vocabulary from the pre-modern literature has been provided, so that the student will

acquire a limited amount of preparation for reading actual texts after finishing the book. The Ikeda book, by contrast, would be exceedingly difficult to use as a classroom text, largely because it is so inclusive, and rapidly takes on the dimensions of a one-volume encyclopedia of classical grammar rather than a language textbook. While each page contains valuable material, students would be overwhelmed by the text if confronted with it chapter by chapter, and only the most imaginative and determined instructor could sustain them through it all.



224

There remains the question of student interest. In most programs, classical Japanese is taught essen-

tially by reading classical texts, much as Latin and Greek have been taught for centuries. Generally, a limited effort is made to outline the inflections of verbs and adjectives in third year courses, while the student is primarily working on the modern lan-

guage. Certain key usages of the classical language are also described and perhaps drilled for a week or two. Later, the student enrolls in a classical course where he or she is asked to start reading a text such as the HOJOKI after a brief review of the "essentials" of the classical language.

This is not a satisfactory procedure, and many have felt uncomfortable with it for years, but it has one distinct advantage: it is interesting. The Komai book would require a full semesterl of grammatical instruction before a single text is read, and we must

seriously question whether any students would willingly remain in a course of classical grammar unless required to do so. It could be argued that students must learn the classical language and that they therefore have no

right to expect it to be interesting. However, there are only a dozen or so programs in which classical

Japanese is required, and that only for doctoral candi- dates in Japanese--a group whose number has never been

large and is now diminishing rapidly. For the rest of the programs, the number of students completing the third year modern language is pitifully small, and of

those, very few can be persuaded to take up the classical language. If we were to ask such students to en- dure a semester of grammatical instruction, I doubt

any would survive. The attraction of classical Japa- nese is the beauty of the literature, not (for any but the most dedicated linguist) its structure. Having set aside the literature to present the grammar as

simply as possible, Komai has taken away the primary attraction of the study.

For some, a compromise might still be reached by continuing to make use of O'Neill's PROGRAMMED INTRODUC-

TION, and reserving the two volumes under review for reference or drill work. The O'Neill book is truly self- instructional. An intelligent undergraduate or beginning



225

graduate student can work through it in two weeks and return to class more or less able to begin to cope with a classical text. This "coping" will be quite imperfect, and much will have to be corrected, but it is a method which enables the student to feel a sense of contact with the civilization whose language is being studied. While O'Neill may name his classifications differently from either Komai or Ikeda, his analysis is generally in agreement with theirs, and with the mainstream of Japanese scholarship. It is possible for a dedicated student to work from the O'Neill book to an ability to read about classical Japanese in the Japanese language within a semester. In the meanwhile, the student has been experiencing the language in the only living form we can present it, that is, through the literature. Just as we would not tolerate teaching modern Japanese without speaking and listening to it--because we feel compelled to work with it in its living form--so perhaps we ought not to withhold the reality of classical Japanese from our students while they are engaged in memorizing grammatical structures.

NOTE

1. Komai says the book would require from "eight to twelve weeks of instruction, depending on the nature of the class" (p. v).



Documents

Classical Japanese Grammar Illustrated with Textsby Tadashi Ikeda;A Grammar of Classical Japaneseby Akira Komai