Re: [Lingo] Correct particle to use

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

N.B. I shall express myself forcefully; this is the mainline of my
thinking on this matter.  But I have little confidence in my
conclusions.  Just more in mine than I have in yours, yet. ;-)

David J Iannucci writes:

 > I was deliberately avoiding the term 日本人論纔瘢韭絎竢蹠\xC2 矼竅椵\xE5 \xC9 聽繻 蜚
 \xBE 鱚聽鴦 捃 \xE1 胙蜴艱 繻纃緕\xF4 抅癆 蜩 鈿\xF4 鈬竇齠癇蛹\xF9 鱚頏纉緕懲拄洹\xAE
 \xBE \xC9 蜴扖鈔繖日本人ism to be the similar but more benign sort of
 > attitude you're likely to find in the typical, mostly open-minded 
 > おばさん :-)

Who in my experience in general is thoroughly convinced that Japanese
are unique in some important way, although there may be no specific
examples she would agree to. :-) However, they do pop out with genuine 
日本人論纔瘢韭絎竢蹠\xC2 竰癩蜴纉\xF3 闔 \xE1 鱚苺赱\xF2 矚皷鶤

壽\xE5 捕鞜鈬黼 ĥ鱚\xAA 粡聿纈緕廊  宝齡 癈 総纈蜒瘤鵺 汝緕竏\xAC 咐齠蛛銖\xAC
秩轤閼蛛銖\xAC 礼艱鱸瘤鵺 瘤\xE4 倚跂齡蛛銖 癇\xE5 粡聿纈緕廊  怦癆 轣諷\xF3 \xE1
竟皷拄闔 日本人論纔瘢韭絎竢蹠\xC2 蜴 逋 迚鈔 蜩 抅\xE5 竚瘟\xED 閹 蜴蒹鱚銓 捕鞜鈬黼
棱蜻梅鈬齠\xAC 抅\xE5 捕鞜鈬黼 纔竇頸蜿釶跚鼾\xAE  おばはんもそんなことを言纔瘢韭絎竢蹙よ。

 > > It is the very cognitive dissonance created by the ambiguity and context-
 > > dependence of the native language that creates both the need for and
 > > receptivity to extensive borrowing from other languages, since almost
 > > by definition those borrowings will be well-defined and restricted to
 > > specific context.
 > 
 > Hmmm, I'm not sure this argument would stand up on purely linguistic
 > grounds :-)

If you stick to purely linguistic grounds you're not going to
understand these issues, I'm pretty sure. :-)  You've read Orwell's
_1984_, right?  And/or Ayn Rand's _Anthem_?  I don't subscribe to
either's politics, though I'm closer to Orwell's, but I think their
description of the political use of language change is powerful and
relevant to real phenomena.  Cf. the progressive wing's ripoff of the
term "liberal" in the U.S., leaving us true liberals either with
"liberatarian" which correctly sounds right-wing, or without a
convenient label.  Ditto rms's screeds on "freedom".

 > In principle it would be easier for the J to alleviate the
 > ambiguity and context-dependence problem by evolving their language in
 > that direction using their own linguistic resources. Esp. so, I think,
 > because there's nothing inherent in the language which makes it
 > *inevitably* ambiguous (admittedly certain features are a hindrance,
 > primarily the lack of anything that could properly be called pronouns).

Isn't the huge prevalence of homonyms an ambiguity inherent in the
language?  How about the fact that it's *impolite* to use clear terms.
And that is inherent in the language (use of the passive voice as
honorific, as one glaring example---knowledge of 目上／下 is very
often extra ^linguistic).  And how about the example that kicked this
subthread off (男好き)?  Nor do I understand why you think it would be
"easier" to evolve the language with native linguistic resources,
because those by definition already have linguistic roles, and will
therefore have to overcome substantial inertia of habit.  (Especially
in Josh's case! <snicker />)

 > I've met J who can and mostly do speak their language in a perfectly
 > straightforward and unambiguous way,

I have yet to meet a Japanese scientist capable of ordering a
McDonald's hamburger in English who does not prefer to do (what I
consider to be) serious work in English, both reading and writing.
The sample is biased, because economics is a field where "even the
French" write all their high-level stuff in English.  But it does
include a number of physicists and computer scientists, at least.
They may be brainwashed by western education, but they evidently
really believe that it's hard to express logic in Japanese.

I forget what it's called, but do you know that there is a standard
format for writing essays in Japanese, which goes something like
"introduction thanking your teachers for inducing your interest
without explaining what that interest is -- problem description --
random and completely unrelated disgression triggered by word play --
conclusion supported by appeal to the authority of your teachers"?

That's the description a Japanese gave to me.  Of course it's in large
part exaggeration, but the "digression" part is real.  Editors of
serious Japanese journals tell me it's an important problem both with
elderly scholars and very young ones not yet exposed to the rigors of
international journal review.  Of course it tends to cause immediate
rejection unless the reviewer is a sympathetic Japanese.

Of course all of this is very touchy-feely and anecdotal, and of
course there are many Japanese who don't do things that way.  But as
van Wolferen put it, the Japanese are "more so" than other peoples,
enough to constitute a qualitative difference.  And I know many
Japanese who testify to it.

 > No, I'll stand by at least this much of my argument: the Japanese
 > borrow extensively because it is in their nature (national
 > personality, if you will) to adopt anything they feel is useful,
 > regardless of its origin.  They are then left to deal with the
 > social/psychological consequences.

But they don't adopt wholes.  As one Japanese (IIRC; it might have
been the guy who wrote that famous History of Japan several decades
ago) famously put it, the Japanese are inveterate collectors of the
flower of foreign cultures; but they don't transplant the roots, so in
the end they are left with (at best) dried petals.

It's not really clear to me what is meant by your statement that
"Japanese borrow extensively", since in everyday language most
borrowings get thoroughly bashed by Japanese culture, and many become
both morphologically and semantically unrecognizable to native
speakers of the source language.  Contrast the borrowing of Japanese
into American culture, such as "deshou" (exact; limited to Oahu Is.
AFAIK), "tsunami" (exact), "sushi" (typically conflated with
"sashimi"; the Japanese do that too, but they know the difference) and
"futon" (the object is mashed into conformance with American consumer
economics, but it's recognizable).  Can you think of any Japanese
words borrowed into English that a Japanese wouldn't recognize, even
if they might criticize usage or implementation somewhat?  Or any
recent borrowings from other languages (Sputnik, perestroika, detente,
g'day).  But consider フリーター or even アルバイト itself -- one
German told me he was shocked at the usage, or パート which
idiomatically means 残業のできる非舌皛逅跂勉闕社員 AFAIK, whereas in American
English "part-time" means something much closer to アルバイト.

 > > Another way to put it, is that 日本人論纔瘢韭絎竢蹠\xC2 黼纃\xF3 捃 瘰鞳癇 迴齡
 \xBE \xBE 鱚痲蛹\xF9 犛緕 \xE1 頏蝟蛹繚\xE5 黶釿拄闔繖 磔 揥痲蜚蜿釶\xEC 椵瘍\xE5 蜩 棱粤\xF2
 \xBE \xBE 抅鱚癆 蜴 抅\xE5 跚艾\xF4 閹 竢逅癇蜩闔 捃 肬鱚蜃\xEE 頏痺拄竇鶤
 \xBE 
 \xBE 弟逾\xF4 肬跛阯\xAE  祷瘢韭綽

岪\xAC 鈿\xF7 籙攩洹 苡\xF4 辣 齡癇扖筮  酪鉉纖鼈阯 ㉚孤异奮愍\xCA) gave my
faculty half a million dollars to do a feasibility and best practice
study to support widespread introduction of one-year doctoral programs
at ranking research universities.  The motivations given for setting
up these mail-order doctorates are egregious.  (1) Japanese project
managers and the like are humiliated because their counterparts
overseas, who they meet at conferences or over the bargaining table
very often have doctorates, while the Japanese rarely if ever do.  (2)
About 4 years into their careers, Japanese engineers begin to have
acute feelings of job insecurity because they're way out of touch with
the state of the art.

(1) is just a non-starter.  If you make Japanese technical doctorates
purchasable on the corporate market, *all* Japanese degrees will be
cheapened.  Only in the case where the counterparty is stupid enough
not to know what's going on will the pseudo-doctorate help.  When I
pointed this out at a round-table (in polite Japanese with all sharp
edges filed down and burnished), one speaker said "well, it's really
important for foreigners to recognize the unique Japanese
circumstances," and the others nodded in approval.  Then they shook
their heads: sadly enough, Prof Turnbull really doesn't seem to
understand Japan even after nearly 20 years here....  Note that I
posed the problem as a question of spin control; I didn't criticize
the basic idea (I tried that earlier, but the consensus is that
"Monkeyshow is going to do this, so let's take their money") in this
more or less public forum.  Nonetheless, the need to deal with foreign
perception was brushed aside with ご理解頂きたいのです。

(2) is also interesting.  Apparently it's motivated by the number of
young researchers who are going on to get PhDs in the traditional way,
but then asserting a right to job mobility, and indirectly higher pay
and better working conditions.  The research department directors are
frantic to find a way to put a lid on this trend (they're well-aware
of what happened with software engineers and securities traders in the
late 80s and early 90s).  They also need to balance the rewards
received by the "good ol' workers" who joined as junior researchers
with MS or even BS and work their way up with the upstarts who expect
(with good reason) to jump over the most junior levels.  The one-year
doctorate is a perfect solution.  The engineer gets a sabbatical to
soak up recent advances and refresh his spirit, and the company can
point out that he got a degree and his salary, so even though he's
worth a lot more to the company, he's not going to get a corresponding
raise (in fact a small raise may come before he goes on sabbatical).

Best of all, the doctorate is worthless on the open market; one year
is not enough time to acquire the attributes that people possess
having studied a single field in depth for 8-15 years (typically
including the same major as an undergrad, which helps add depth and
breadth even if it's not at the same level as grad study).

All of this is bogus as hell.  My grad students already suffer an
inferiority complex vs. people with foreign degrees (whether nihonjin
or gaijin).  They don't need their degrees cheapened even further.  If
*Japan* really wanted to do this, I would not object.  But I don't
think it does.  I think that the only entities that benefit from this
are the corporations, the R&D elite management who can keep their
docile workforce, Monkeyshow and its bureaucrats who will get a budget
increase from the public sectors, the universities who will charge fat
tuition fees, and the elite university faculty who will get salary
increments and "educational research expense" support for
participating in the program.  Everybody else gets to tread water,
where if they were left alone their bargaining power would increase.
And the international value of Japanese doctorates will tank in 2010
or so the way Japanese stocks did in 1991, I suspect.  All it would
take is one critical editorial in the AAUP journal or an article in
J. Education (or Nature).

This whole boondoggle is feasible only because both the kachigumi and
the makegumi in the scheme subscribe to the notion that Japanese are
unique, so foreign standards shouldn't apply.  How convenient!

But all of these people freely admit that Japanese intestines are
perfectly capable of digesting Kansas beef.