This semester is finally winding down. Or, rather, “winding up.” Multiple papers due, studying, finals, etc. If you’ve been to graduate school, you know what I’m talking about. I’ll write more after all the madness has passed.
Hoplophobia /hplfobi/ – From the Greek hoplon (weapon) and phobia (fear). A fear of firearms or of armed citizens. Firearms instructor and writer Colonel Jeff Cooper defined it as a “mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons.”
Obiter dictum /obdr dkt()m/ – [< classical Latin obiter dictum something said by the way < obiter OBITER adv. + dictum DICTUM n.]
An incidental statement or remark; something said by the way. Freq. (Law): an opinion expressed by a judge in discussing a point of law or in giving a judgment, which is not essential to the decision, and which therefore lacks binding authority.
Ever wondered how the ABC’s became the ABC’s? Was English always written like it is today? The answer is a resounding “Nope!” The Alphabet of today has gone through a lot of changes over the centuries. To catalog all of those changes would take a lot more time than I have available at the moment, so in this installation, I’ll just show you a couple of interesting things about Runes and their relationship to our current writing system.
The Runic alphabet is sometimes called “fuþorc” [futhorc] after the first 6 letters, much like our “ABC’s” comes from the first 3 letters and “Alphabet” comes from “Alpha Beta” from the Greek writing system. Futhorc was used by the Anglo-Saxons to write Old English and other languages. Can you see any similarities between the Runes and modern English letters?
Here’s a brief glimpse into the history of a couple of letters that are no longer used in modern English.
Field linguists have discovered a heretofore unknown language in the foothills of the Himalayas near Arunachal Pradesh called “Koro.” According to researchers, Koro “construe(s) reality in very different ways… [It] uniquely code(s) knowledge of the natural world in ways that cannot be translated into a major language.”
“How fluent are you in _________?” is one of the hardest questions for me to answer in the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA).
What does “fluent” even mean? Are you fluent in your own native language? How about when engaging in a conversation on a topic you are unfamiliar with? Do you understand Doctor-Speak? Political mumbo jumbo? Military jargon? Theoretical Physics terms?
Personally, I find the term “fluent” to be too subjective to be of much use. Fortunately, it seems that others agree with me and have created tools that help zero in on more specific, quantifiable levels of linguistic accomplishment.
Defense Language Proficiency Test (DLPT)
The DLPT is used by the United States Department of Defense to measure the Listening (L), Reading (R), and Speaking (S) abilities of military personnel in various foreign languages. It is currently in version 5, and as such, is sometimes called “DLPT5.” Scoring on the DLPT is based on the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) scale.
Scores on the ILR scale break out as follows:
- Elementary proficiency
- Limited working proficiency
- Professional working proficiency
- Full professional proficiency
- Native or bilingual proficiency
In order to graduate from the Defense Language Institute, a student must currently achieve 2L/2R/1S. Military linguists in the field must maintain 2L/2R (speaking is generally not tested in the field), and achieving a certain score on the DLPT may qualify them to receive Foreign Language Proficiency Pay (FLPP). I, myself, have taken the DLPT many times, both in Russian [3L/3R/3S] and Japanese [edit: 3L/3R as of 2011].
DLPT scores, with level and plus-level specifics, break out as follows:
Listening – No practical understanding of the spoken language. Understanding is limited to occasional isolated words with essentially no ability to comprehend communication.
Reading – No practical ability to read the language. Consistently misunderstands or cannot comprehend at all.
Speaking – Unable to function in the spoken language. Oral production is limited to occasional isolated words. Has essentially no communicative ability.
Listening – Sufficient comprehension to understand a number of memorized utterances in areas of immediate needs. Slight increase in utterance length understood but requires frequent long pauses between understood phrases and repeated requests on the listener’s part for repetition. Understands with reasonable accuracy only when this involves short memorized utterances or formulae. Utterances understood are relatively short in length. Misunderstandings arise due to ignoring or inaccurately hearing sounds or word endings (both inflectional and non-inflectional), distorting the original meaning. Can understand only with difficulty even such people as teachers who are used to speaking with non-native speakers. Can understand best those statements where context strongly supports the utterance’s meaning. Gets some main ideas.
Reading – Can recognize all the letters in the printed version of an alphabetic system and high-frequency elements of a syllabary or a character system. Able to read some or all of the following: numbers, isolated words and phrases, personal and place names, street signs, office and shop designations. The above often interpreted inaccurately. Unable to read connected prose.
Speaking – Able to satisfy immediate needs using rehearsed utterances. Shows little real autonomy of expression, flexibility or spontaneity. Can ask questions or make statements with reasonable accuracy only with memorized utterances or formulae. Attempts at creating speech are usually unsuccessful.
Listening – Sufficient comprehension to understand utterances about basic survival needs and minimum courtesy and travel requirements in areas of immediate need or on very familiar topics, can understand simple questions and answers, simple statements and very simple face-to-face conversations in a standard dialect. These must often be delivered more clearly than normal at a rate slower than normal with frequent repetitions or paraphrase (that is, by a native used to dealing with foreigners). Once learned, these sentences can be varied for similar level vocabulary and grammar and still be understood. In the majority of utterances, misunderstandings arise due to overlooked or misunderstood syntax and other grammatical clues. Comprehension vocabulary inadequate to understand anything but the most elementary needs. Strong interference from the candidate’s native language occurs. Little precision in the information understood owing to the tentative state of passive grammar and lack of vocabulary. Comprehension areas include basic needs such as: meals, lodging, transportation, time and simple directions (including both route instructions and orders from customs officials, policemen, etc.). Understands main ideas.
Reading – Sufficient comprehension to read very simple connected written material in a form equivalent to usual printing or typescript. Can read either representations of familiar formulaic verbal exchanges or simple language containing only the highest frequency structural patterns and vocabulary, including shared international vocabulary items and cognates (when appropriate). Able to read and understand known language elements that have been recombined in new ways to achieve different meanings at a similar level of simplicity. Texts may include descriptions of persons, places or things: and explanations of geography and government such as those simplified for tourists. Some misunderstandings possible on simple texts. Can get some main ideas and locate prominent items of professional significance in more complex texts. Can identify general subject matter in some authentic texts.
Speaking – Able to satisfy minimum courtesy requirements and maintain very simple face-to-face conversations on familiar topics. A native speaker must often use slowed speech, repetition, paraphrase, or a combination of these to be understood by this individual. Similarly, the native speaker must strain and employ real-world knowledge to understand even simple statements/questions from this individual. This speaker has a functional, but limited proficiency. Misunderstandings are frequent, but the individual is able to ask for help and to verify comprehension of native speech in face-to-face interaction. The individual is unable to produce continuous discourse except with rehearsed material.
|1+||Elementary Proficiency, Plus
Listening – Sufficient comprehension to understand short conversations about all survival needs and limited social demands. Developing flexibility evident in understanding a range of circumstances beyond immediate survival needs. Shows spontaneity in understanding by speed, although consistency of understanding is uneven. Limited vocabulary range necessitates repetition for understanding. Understands more common time forms and most question forms, some word order patterns, but miscommunication still occurs with more complex patterns. Cannot sustain understanding of coherent structures in longer utterances or in unfamiliar situations. Understanding of descriptions and the giving of precise information is limited. Aware of basic cohesive features (e.g., pronouns, verb inflections) but many are unreliably understood, especially if less immediate in reference. Understanding is largely limited to a series of short, discrete utterances. Still has to ask for utterances to be repeated. Some ability to understand facts.
Reading – Sufficient comprehension to understand simple discourse in printed form for informative social purposes. Can read material such as announcements of public events, simple prose containing biographical information or narration of events, and straightforward newspaper headlines. Can guess at unfamiliar vocabulary if highly contextualized, but with difficulty in unfamiliar contexts. Can get some main ideas and locate routine information of professional significance in more complex texts. Can follow essential points of written discussion at an elementary level on topics in his/her special professional field. In commonly taught languages, the individual may not control the structure well. For example, basic grammatical relations are often misinterpreted, and temporal reference may rely primarily on lexical items as time indicators. Has some difficulty with the cohesive factors in discourse, such as matching pronouns with referents. May have to read materials several times for understanding.
Speaking – Can initiate and maintain predictable face-to-face conversations and satisfy limited social demands. He/she may, however, have little understanding of the social conventions of conversation. The interlocutor is generally required to strain and employ real-world knowledge to understand even some simple speech. The speaker at this level may hesitate and may have to change subjects due to lack of language resources. Range and control of the language are limited. Speech largely consists of a series of short, discrete utterances.
|2||Limited Working Proficiency
Listening – Sufficient comprehension to understand conversations on routine social demands and limited job requirements. Able to understand face-to-face speech in a standard dialect, delivered at a normal rate with some repetition and rewording, by a native speaker not used to dealing with foreigners, about everyday topics, common personal and family news, well-known current events and routine office matters through descriptions and narration about current, past and future events; can follow essential points of discussion or speech at an elementary level on topics in his/her special professional field. Only understands occasional words and phrases of statements made in unfavorable conditions, for example through loudspeakers outdoors. Understands factual content. Native language causes less interference in listening comprehension. Able to understand facts; i.e., the lines but not between or beyond the lines.
Reading – Sufficient comprehension to read simple, authentic written material in a form equivalent to usual printing or typescript on subjects within a familiar context. Able to read with some misunderstandings straightforward, familiar, factual material, but in general insufficiently experienced with the language to draw inferences directly from the linguistic aspects of the text. Can locate and understand the main ideas and details in material written for the general reader. However, persons who have professional knowledge of a subject may be able to summarize or perform sorting and locating tasks with written texts that are well beyond their general proficiency level. The individual can read uncomplicated, but authentic prose on familiar subjects that are normally presented in a predictable sequence which aids the reader in understanding. Texts may include descriptions and narrations in contexts such as news items describing frequently occurring events, simple biographical information, social notices, formulaic business letters, and simple technical material written for the general reader. Generally the prose that can be read by the individual is predominantly in straightforward/high-frequency sentence patterns. The individual does not have a broad active vocabulary (that is, which he/she recognizes immediately on sight), but is able to use contextual and real-world cues to understand the text. Characteristically, however, the individual is quite slow in performing such a process. Is typically able to answer factual questions about authentic texts of the types described above.
Speaking – Able to satisfy routine social demands and limited work requirements. Can handle routine work-related interactions that are limited in scope. In more complex and sophisticated work-related tasks, language usage generally disturbs the native speaker. Can handle with confidence, but not with facility, most normal, high-frequency social conversational situations including extensive, but casual conversations about current events, as well as work, family, and autobiographical information. The individual can get the gist of most everyday conversations but has some difficulty understanding native speakers in situations that require specialized or sophisticated knowledge. The individual’s utterances are minimally cohesive. Linguistic structure is usually not very elaborate and not thoroughly controlled; errors are frequent. Vocabulary use is appropriate for high-frequency utterances. but unusual or imprecise elsewhere.
|2+||Limited Working Proficiency, Plus
Listening – Sufficient comprehension to understand most routine social demands and most conversations on work requirements as well as some discussions on concrete topics related to particular interests and special fields of competence. Often shows remarkable ability and ease of understanding, but under tension or pressure may break down. Candidate may display weakness or deficiency due to inadequate vocabulary base or less than secure knowledge of grammar and syntax. Normally understands general vocabulary with some hesitant understanding of everyday vocabulary still evident. Can sometimes detect emotional overtones. Some ability to understand implications.
Reading – Sufficient comprehension to understand most factual material in non-technical prose as well as some discussions on concrete topics related to special professional interests. Is markedly more proficient at reading materials on a familiar topic. Is able to separate the main ideas and details from lesser ones and uses that distinction to advance understanding. The individual is able to use linguistic context and real-world knowledge to make sensible guesses about unfamiliar material. Has a broad active reading vocabulary. The individual is able to get the gist of main and subsidiary ideas in texts which could only be read thoroughly by persons with much higher proficiencies. Weaknesses include slowness, uncertainty, inability to discern nuance and/or intentionally disguised meaning.
Speaking – Able to satisfy most work requirements with language usage that is often, but not always, acceptable and effective. The individual shows considerable ability to communicate effectively on topics relating to particular interests and special fields of competence. Often shows a high degree of fluency and ease of speech, yet when under tension or pressure, the ability to use the language effectively may deteriorate. Comprehension of normal native speech is typically nearly complete. The individual may miss cultural and local references and may require a native speaker to adjust to his/her limitations in some ways. Native speakers often perceive the individual’s speech to contain awkward or inaccurate phrasing of ideas, mistaken time, space and person references, or to be in some way inappropriate, if not strictly incorrect.
|3||General Professional Proficiency
Listening – Able to understand the essentials of all speech in a standard dialect including technical discussions within a special field. Has effective understanding of face-to-face speech, delivered with normal clarity and speed in a standard dialect on general topics and areas of special interest; understands hypothesizing and supported opinions. Has broad enough vocabulary that rarely has to ask for paraphrasing or explanation. Can follow accurately the essentials of conversations between educated native speakers, reasonably clear telephone calls, radio broadcasts, news stories similar to wire service reports, oral reports, some oral technical reports and public addresses on non-technical subjects; can understand without difficulty all forms of standard speech concerning a special professional field. Does not understand native speakers it they speak very quickly or use some slang or dialect. Can often detect emotional overtones. Can understand implications.
Reading – Able to read within a normal range of speed and with almost complete comprehension a variety of authentic prose material on unfamiliar subjects. Reading ability is not dependent on subject matter knowledge, although it is not expected that the individual can comprehend thoroughly subject matter which is highly dependent on cultural knowledge or which is outside his/her general experience and not accompanied by explanation. Text-types include news stories similar to wire service reports or international news items in major periodicals, routine correspondence, general reports, and technical material in his/her professional field; all of these may include hypothesis, argumentation and supported opinions. Misreading rare. Almost always able to interpret material correctly, relate ideas and “read between the lines,” (that is, understand the writers’ implicit intents in text of the above types). Can get the gist of more sophisticated texts, but may be unable to detect or understand subtlety and nuance. Rarely has to pause over or reread general vocabulary. However, may experience some difficulty with unusually complex structure and low frequency idioms.
Speaking – Able to speak the language with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabulary to participate effectively in most formal and informal conversations in practical, social and professional topics. Nevertheless, the individual’s limitations generally restrict the professional contexts of language use to matters of shared knowledge and/or international convention. Discourse is cohesive. The individual uses the language acceptably, but with some noticeable imperfections; yet, errors virtually never interfere with understanding and rarely disturb the native speaker. The individual can effectively combine structure and vocabulary to convey his/her meaning accurately. The individual speaks readily and fills pauses suitably. In face-to-face conversation with natives speaking the standard dialect at a normal rate of speech, comprehension is quite complete. Although cultural references, proverbs and the implications of nuances and idiom may not be fully understood, the individual can easily repair the conversation. Pronunciation may be obviously foreign. Individual sounds are accurate: but stress, intonation and pitch control may be faulty.
|3+||General Professional Proficiency, Plus
Listening – Comprehends most of the content and intent of a variety of forms and styles of speech pertinent to professional needs, as well as general topics and social conversation. Ability to comprehend many sociolinguistic and cultural references. However, may miss some subtleties and nuances. Increased ability to comprehend unusually complex structures in lengthy utterances and to comprehend many distinctions in language tailored for different audiences. Increased ability to understand native speakers talking quickly, using nonstandard dialect or slang; however, comprehension is not complete. Can discern some relationships among sophisticated listening materials in the context of broad experience. Can follow some unpredictable turns of thought readily, for example, in informal and formal speeches covering editorial, conjectural and literary material in subject matter areas directed to the general listener.
Reading – Can comprehend a variety of styles and forms pertinent to professional needs. Rarely misinterprets such texts or rarely experiences difficulty relating ideas or making inferences. Able to comprehend many sociolinguistic and cultural references. However, may miss some nuances and subtleties. Able to comprehend a considerable range of intentionally complex structures, low frequency idioms, and uncommon connotative intentions, however, accuracy is not complete. The individual is typically able to read with facility, understand, and appreciate contemporary expository, technical or literary texts which do not rely heavily on slang and unusual items.
Speaking – Is often able to use the language to satisfy professional needs in a wide range of sophisticated and demanding tasks.
|4||Advanced Professional Proficiency
Listening – Able to understand all forms and styles of speech pertinent to professional needs. Able to understand fully all speech with extensive and precise vocabulary, subtleties and nuances in all standard dialects on any subject relevant to professional needs within the range of his/her experience, including social conversations; all intelligible broadcasts and telephone calls; and many kinds of technical discussions and discourse. Understands language specifically tailored (including persuasion, representation, counseling and negotiating) to different audiences. Able to understand the essentials of speech in some non-standard dialects. Has difficulty in understanding extreme dialect and slang, also in understanding speech in unfavorable conditions, for example through bad loudspeakers outdoors. Can discern relationships among sophisticated listening materials in the context of broad experience. Can follow unpredictable turns of thought readily, for example, in informal and formal speeches covering editorial, conjectural and literary material in any subject matter directed to the general listener.
Reading – Able to read fluently and accurately all styles and forms of the language pertinent to professional needs. The individual’s experience with the written language is extensive enough that he/she is able to relate inferences in the text to real-world knowledge and understand almost all sociolinguistic and cultural references. Able to “read beyond the lines” (that is, to understand the full ramifications of texts as they are situated in the wider cultural, political, or social environment). Able to read and understand the intent of writers’ use of nuance and subtlety. The individual can discern relationships among sophisticated written materials in the context of broad experience. Can follow unpredictable turns of thought readily in, for example, editorial, conjectural, and literary texts in any subject matter area directed to the general reader. Can read essentially all materials in his/her special field, including official and professional documents and correspondence. Recognizes all professionally relevant vocabulary known to the educated non-professional native, although may have some difficulty with slang. Can read reasonably legible handwriting without difficulty. Accuracy is often nearly that of a well-educated native reader.
Speaking – Able to use the language fluently and accurately on all levels normally pertinent to professional needs. The individual’s language usage and ability to function are fully successful. Organizes discourse well, using appropriate rhetorical speech devices, native cultural references and understanding. Language ability only rarely hinders him/her in performing any task requiring language; yet, the individual would seldom be perceived as a native. Speaks effortlessly and smoothly and is able to use the language with a high degree of effectiveness, reliability and precision for all representational purposes within the range of personal and professional experience and scope of responsibilities. Can serve as in informal interpreter in a range of unpredictable circumstances. Can perform extensive, sophisticated language tasks, encompassing most matters of interest to well-educated native speakers, including tasks which do not bear directly on a professional specialty.
|4+||Advanced Professional Proficiency, Plus
Listening – Increased ability to understand extremely difficult and abstract speech as well as ability to understand all forms and styles of speech pertinent to professional needs, including social conversations. Increased ability to comprehend native speakers using extreme nonstandard dialects and slang, as well as to understand speech in unfavorable conditions. Strong sensitivity to sociolinguistic and cultural references. Accuracy is close to that of the well-educated native listener but still not equivalent.
Reading – Nearly native ability to read and understand extremely difficult or abstract prose, a very wide variety of vocabulary, idioms, colloquialisms and slang. Strong sensitivity to and understanding of sociolinguistic and cultural references. Little difficulty in reading less than fully legible handwriting. Broad ability to “read beyond the lines” (that is, to understand the full ramifications of texts as they are situated in the wider cultural, political, or social environment) is nearly that of a well-read or well-educated native reader. Accuracy is close to that of the well-educated native reader, but not equivalent.
Speaking – Speaking proficiency is regularly superior in all respects, usually equivalent to that of a well educated, highly articulate native speaker. Language ability does not impede the performance of any language-use task. However, the individual would not necessarily be perceived as culturally native.
|5||Functionally Native Proficiency
Listening – Comprehension equivalent to that of the well-educated native listener. Able to understand fully all forms and styles of speech intelligible to the well-educated native listener, including a number of regional and illiterate dialects, highly colloquial speech and conversations and discourse distorted by marked interference from other noise. Able to understand how natives think as they create discourse. Able to understand extremely difficult and abstract speech.
Reading – Reading proficiency is functionally equivalent to that of the well-educated native reader. Can read extremely difficult and abstract prose; for example, general legal and technical as well as highly colloquial writings. Able to read literary texts, typically including contemporary avant-garde prose, poetry and theatrical writing. Can read classical/archaic forms of literature with the same degree of facility as the well-educated, but non-specialist native. Reads and understands a wide variety of vocabulary and idioms, colloquialisms, slang, and pertinent cultural references. With varying degrees of difficulty, can read all kinds of handwritten documents. Accuracy of comprehension is equivalent to that of a well-educated native reader.
Speaking – Speaking proficiency is functionally equivalent to that of a highly articulate well-educated native speaker and reflects the cultural standards of the country where the language is natively spoken. The individual uses the language with complete flexibility and intuition, so that speech on all levels is fully accepted by well-educated native speakers in all of its features, including breadth of vocabulary and idiom, colloquialisms and pertinent cultural references. Pronunciation is typically consistent with that of well-educated native speakers of a non-stigmatized dialect.
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)
CEFR is a guideline developed in Europe that is used to quantify the achievements of foreign languages learners. CEFR has far fewer categories than the DLPT and seems, to me, to be a bit “nicer.”
|A1||Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type. Can introduce him/herself and others and can ask and answer questions about personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows and things he/she has. Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help.|
|A2||Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment). Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters. Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need.|
|B1||Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. Can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst traveling in an area where the language is spoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes & ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans.|
|B2||Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics, including technical discussions in his/her field of specialization. Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without strain for either party. Can produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options.|
|C1||Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recognize implicit meaning. Can express him/herself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions. Can use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes. Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organizational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices.|
|C2||Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Can summarize information from different spoken and written sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation. Can express him/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaning even in the most complex situations.|
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)
ACTFL, in concert with Language Testing International has created a testing system of their own which measures Listening, Reading, Speaking, and Writing (to my knowledge DLPT does not test writing ability). Skill levels run as follows:
For more information on the specifics of ACTFL’s scoring method, please see their website.
While you may not have access to take a DLPT unless you are currently in the U.S. Military, the details given above should give you a clearer picture of how to self-assess. The CEFR scale is also excellent for this purpose. Perhaps the best opportunity to have your proficiency in the language(s) of your choice tested by a third party is through ACTFL.
Note that there are other language-specific proficiency tests, some of which are sponsored by the home country. One such example follows.
Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT)
The JLPT, known in Japanese as 日本語能力試験, is probably the standardized proficiency test for foreign learners of Japanese, and is available in most countries throughout the world at specified times and locations. It is often used in Japan to qualify for employment and entrance into universities.
Until 2009, the JLPT scoring system was broken up into four levels, with each level covering kanji, vocabulary, grammar, listening, and reading:
- 一級 (1st grade) – Advanced
- 二級 (2nd grade) – Intermediate
- 三級 (3rd grade) – Basic
- 四級 (4th grade) – Beginner
While the areas covered remain the same, the new JLPT scoring system looks more like this:
- N1 – Can understand Japanese in a wide variety of situations
- N2 – In addition to understanding Japanese as used in every-day situations (to a certain extent), can understand Japanese as used in a more wide variety of situations
- N3 – Can understand Japanese as used in every-day situations (to a certain extent)
- N4 – Can understand basic Japanese
- N5 – Can understand basic Japanese (to a certain extent)
I’ll have to admit a bit of nostalgic fondness for the old system. Something about 一級 just sounds better than “N1.” Oh well… c’est la vie. (Or, as we’d say in Japanese: 仕方がない. “Nothing can be done about it.”)
Other tests of Japanese proficiency are the 日本漢字能力検定試験, The Japanese Kanji Proficiency Test (or 漢検 for short). Scoring runs from 10 (easiest) to 1 (hardest), and, as opposed to the JLPT, which is for foreigners, is designed for native Japanese. There is also something called J-TEST, but I admit to only hearing about it for the first time in the process of writing this article. I do not think J-TEST is anywhere near as widespread and accepted as JLPT.
If you speak a language that was not listed above, do some research online into established proficiency tests for your particular language. If you find something, please leave a comment below and share it with the world!
Ubuntu – /ʊbu:ntʊ/ – “I am what I am because of who we all are” (Leymah Gbowee).
Before the computer nerds in the audience start getting all excited, I’m not talking about the Linux Operating System.
The word ubuntu is an ethical philosophy which comes from a Bantu language of Africa, possibly Zulu (“umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu” – a person is only a person through relationships with others).
Archbishop Desmond Tutu further explained, “One of the sayings in our country is Ubuntu – the essence of being human. Ubuntu speaks particularly about the fact that you can’t exist as a human being in isolation. It speaks about our interconnectedness. You can’t be human all by yourself, and when you have this quality – Ubuntu – you are known for your generosity.
We think of ourselves far too frequently as just individuals, separated from one another, whereas you are connected and what you do affects the whole world. When you do well, it spreads out; it is for the whole of humanity.”
Pesematology – /pɛsəmətɒlədʒi/ – the science of falling
Believe it or not, there is actually a field of science called “feline pesematology,” which studies falling cats.
- to add (sound effects or new dialogue) to a film or to a radio or television production
- to provide (a motion-picture film) with a new sound track and especially dialogue in a different language
When bringing a foreign-language TV show or movie into the United States, the tendency here is to dub it into English. When bringing a foreign-language TV show or movie into Japan, the tendency is to leave the original language in place, but superimpose subtitles.
I generally find the latter to be far superior for two reasons:
- Dubbed voices rarely match the visual and are often comically distracting (see any Kung Fu movie).
- The original language is lost.
The latter is my big peeve. I actually want to be exposed to other cultures and languages. Perhaps I’m in the minority, but I find it pleasing to listen to other languages, even if I don’t understand them.
In the case of a feature-length movie, I will admit that perhaps resorting to dubbing results in a less-taxing experience for the average non-linguist-geek viewer. But in the case of shows like G4TV’s “Ninja Warrior,” I find the dubbing to be absolutely horrible and very distracting. Not only are the translations not always correct (or even close), the announcer makes a hobby out completely mispronouncing people’s names, despite the immediately-preceding original audio giving a perfect example of proper pronunciation. It grates like a spork on a chalkboard to me.
As I write this, I’m watching a program on NHK (basically a Japanese version of the channel PBS in the U.S.) featuring someone taking a “walk” through a French town, “meeting” the locals, and “talking” about whatever happens to be going on. The narrator (who is never seen) asks questions in Japanese, the answers coming in French with Japanese subtitles (in most cases). I find this not only more aurally pleasant, but also a great opportunity to work on both my French and Japanese.
Another phenomenon I often see in Asian TV broadcasts is the use of subtitles (in the native language) to support what is being said on screen. In the case of Japan and Korea, it seems that it is often done in comedy/variety shows to emphasize what is “supposed” to be funny. In Chinese programs, however, it seems to be done to overcome the vast differences in dialects, providing the viewer with a standardized written base so that they can understand what is going on, even if they don’t understand the dialect being spoken. I do not speak Chinese, so this is purely speculative and based solely on observation and conversations with Chinese friends.
Are Americans really so adverse to the sound of foreign languages? Why? How could we benefit linguistically and socially from subtitled foreign languages vs. dubbing? How could using more subtitles and less dubbing help linguistically draw Americans into the rest of the world?
It seems that technology may be creating as many problems as it solves. In this case, the problem created is being called “character amnesia.” That is, Chinese and Japanese youth, online for much of their lives, are forgetting how to write many of the characters used in their languages.
Despite the recent news, this is definitely not a new phenomenon. As far back as the 1980’s, I was already hearing of Japanese forgetting how to write kanji due to the increasing ubiquity of ワプロ or word processors. While the ワプロ of the 80’s may have gone out of style, the use of keyboards as character input devices, be they on laptops or smart phones, seems to have contributed to a loss of ability in writing characters by hand. I, myself, certainly lost much of my ability to hand-write Japanese as I got more into typing the language on keyboards.
According to an article on breitbart.com, there is even a Chinese phrase to describe the phenomenon: 提笔忘字 [tibiwangzi], or “take pen, forget character.”
In another article on cnet.com, Chris Matyszczyk opines, “This amnesia might seem like a problem only for character-based languages, but I wonder whether they’re the only victims. Surely you, too, have seen, say, the English language increasingly tortured by the uncertain hands of those who spend far too long touching keys rather than pens, books, or other humans.”
This has certainly been a concern of mine for a while now. While I can still read and type Japanese with no problem, remembering how to write kanji by hand is a real problem. What are your thoughts?