College level Introductory Japanese class?

[CerpinTaxt]

I was wondering if anyone has taken a college level Japanese 101 class. If you have can you quickly detail what you learnt throughout the class. Just like an overview of like chapters would be good. Also if you could list the amount of kanji you learned that would be awesome. Main reason why I am asking for this is my old school's Japanese courses were not that great and I just found out that my new schools Japanese 3 class is equal to Japanese 102. I don't think I'm entirely ready for this class, but rather then drop it and take Japanese 2 I'd rather study and catch up. By knowing what I need it will be immensely easier to be prepared for the class. Any help is greatly appreciated.

[gfunk]

My JPN101 class covered half of the Yookoso! 1 textbook (until right before the te form).

First we went through katakana and hiragana for a week, and did introducing people, greetings, and classroom expressions. Also in the introduction part of the semester we did the numbers, asking and telling time, asking what something is, daily activities and events, likes and dislikes, events in the past, inviting someone to do something, weekly schedules weather, asking location, existence and asking price.

Yeah all that was before starting chapter 1...
Then we went to the copula, possessive particle, personal pronouns and demonstratives, interrogatives and use of wa and ga.
Chapter 2 was adjectives and adverbs, arimasu and imasu, location and positional words, counters, polite vs plain form.
Chapter 3 was structure of verb forms, particles showing grammatical relationship, making suggestions, conjoining nouns, negative sentence adverbs, connecting disjunctive sentences and approximate numbers.

And I think that's where we stopped. As for kanji we did 90.

It wasn't too intense, except for the first week, where all the people who don't really have passion to learn Japanese and rather think JPN101 will be a quick fix so they can watch anime in Japanese get filtered out.

[CerpinTaxt]

ah this is great exactly what I was looking for, Thank you very much. It seems my Japanese knowledge is limited to everything you learnt during your intro unit. Although this doesn't bode to well for my plan seeing as how school starts in a week or so. Well looks like I have some studying ahead of me.

I guess it's expected though, the school boasts fluency by the 6th year. Makes me wish I moved to Washington sooner.

[vkladchik]

... fluency by the sixth year?

[Dehitay]

fluency by the 6th year seems like a valid goal for an education system, but I definitely see the problem with a 6 year program for anything outside of PhD.

[Yudan Taiteki]

I'm curious whether vkladchik thinks it should take more or less than 6 years to become fluent in Japanese.

[two_heads_talking]

I'm curious whether vkladchik thinks it should take more or less than 6 years to become fluent in Japanese.

I'm rather curious as to what the school considers "fluent."

[CerpinTaxt]

I too was surprised that they said this. From reading the forum it seems at least 8-10 years would be needed. I'll copy the course description here so you can pick at it.

"Students will develop further proficiency in the language with the emphasis on literature and composition. Class will be conducted 100% of the time in Japanese. Authentic reading materials in a variety of subjects will be used to provide more depth of under-standing of Japanese culture and language The class is conducted entirely in Japanese. By the end of this course students should be functionally fluent speakers of Japanese."

Classes starting at Japanese 1 are instructed in 80% Japanese and then continue at 80% until Japanese 3 where 100% Japanese instruction takes place.

[Sairana]

Classes starting at Japanese 1 are instructed in 80% Japanese and then continue at 80% until Japanese 3 where 100% Japanese instruction takes place.

A quasi-immersion class, eh? Not to bring back your own fears, but I'd be nervous, too. I'd be very tempted to just move back into the J2 class, or even J1, just to get into the "flow", so to speak, of the classes and the way they're taught.

[CerpinTaxt]

Looking at the amount I may just have to go down to the 2nd level but it doesn't hurt to try. I really don't want to go back to 1 since a repeat of hiragana/katakana would bore me heavily. I'm pretty sure I can pick up most instruction fairly quickly.

[two_heads_talking]

I too was surprised that they said this. From reading the forum it seems at least 8-10 years would be needed. I'll copy the course description here so you can pick at it.

"Students will develop further proficiency in the language with the emphasis on literature and composition. Class will be conducted 100% of the time in Japanese. Authentic reading materials in a variety of subjects will be used to provide more depth of under-standing of Japanese culture and language The class is conducted entirely in Japanese. By the end of this course students should be functionally fluent speakers of Japanese."

Classes starting at Japanese 1 are instructed in 80% Japanese and then continue at 80% until Japanese 3 where 100% Japanese instruction takes place.

Ok, so they further explain that by the end of the course, students should be functionally fluent speakers of Japanese. That is much different than just fluent. Funtionally fluent is definately attainable at 6 years.. If not sooner, depending on how well you apply yourself.

[Dehitay]

I'm curious what everybody seems to think fluent is. Apparently, it's thought of as much more impressive than what I and people I know personally think it is. Though I'm not positive about the etymology of the word, I think fluent comes from the word fluid. Fluent Japanese is enough knowledge about Japanese to keep a conversation flowing in a fluid-like manner in my opinion. No sudden stops to rack your brains to remember vocabulary or grammar.

Judging by the reactions of a lot of people on this board, it's as if they think fluency is having exactly as much knowledge about the goal language as your native language. Unless you altogether stop speaking your native language and start speaking another language, this will probly never happen.

[gfunk]

Judging by the reactions of a lot of people on this board, it's as if they think fluency is having exactly as much knowledge about the goal language as your native language. Unless you altogether stop speaking your native language and start speaking another language, this will probly never happen.

Not exactly. (In my opinion) That would be having "native language ability". Which although many people disagree with me about being attainable in a foreign language (mainly because of some who can't even speak their own native language properly), I have seen plenty of examples of being completely possible. Sure, most of them fave been from or towards romance languages, but nevertheless it's an attainable goal.

Fluency is the point where you stop translating, and the thoughts that are created in the conversation can immediately be fluently executed on the spot.

[Hyperworm]

My opinion:
"Fluent in Japanese" doesn't mean being able to hold merely simple conversations fluid-like, it means having the language knowledge necessary to hold a reasonable majority of conversations effortlessly -- the range of conversations that could be expected of a native Japanese speaker.
If you need to express in Japanese the concept of a "metaphor", or an "etymology", or any of that huge set of words that you hardly ever use individually but which (considered as a set) actually turn up quite frequently, do you have to stop and think about how to express yourself in Japanese, or can you find a way of expressing it near-instantly? Could you have found a way to write the posts in this thread without backspacing or pausing that much more than a native speaker, even if you weren't as dextrous with the words as a native speaker?

If you are not (in these situations) "able to express oneself readily and effortlessly" (in Japanese), or your speech is not "flowing effortlessly; polished", you are not "fluent" (definitions from dictionary.com).

This isn't "native speaker" level; that's actually higher than this in that you would be expected not just to be able to express these concepts effortlessly/readily, but also to know the word "etymology" etc, and not have to compromise by describing it. Native speakers will know a lot more synonyms than a "fluent speaker" needs to, too. A complete native speaker vocabulary isn't required for fluency - what is required is a large enough vocabulary and fast enough thinking to compensate without stalling. And near-perfect grammar, of course.

As two_heads_talking said above, there are phrases like "functionally fluent" that can be used for a lower bar.
...Or have I just described functionally fluent?
Ah, we're way off topic anyway. I give up

[two_heads_talking]

I found this on an Iroquois Language discussion board.

http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bi ... uois&P=514

They were mentioning how fluency is determined. In this article it is mentioned that only a Native speaker could determine the level of fluency of a second language student. The article is more or less and FAQ (frequently asked questions).

> Question 1. Are there levels or degrees of fluency? When is someone
> considered fluent?
>
> Response 1. Yes, the are levels or degrees of fluency. A person is
> considered fluency when NATIVE speakers consider the person fluent. Each
> native speaker of a language has acquired/developed an internalized grammar
> of the language that specifies the "correct" way to speak and understand the
> language and the margin of tolerance for errors. Native speakers use this
> knowledge, usually unconsciously, to assess the fluency of others.


I don't whether or not I completely agree with this assessment, it does bring up the point of determination. I'd definately think a native speaker with a degree would be the determining factor, but that's just me.