English and Japanese Tense and Aspect Features - Essay Example

English and Japanese Tense and Aspect Features Introduction It is observable that in numerous languages, the speakers are mandated by the language grammar to pay unceasing consideration to time orientation. This is to help them select appropriately among the forms habitually known as 'tenses' (Suwono, 1993). Similarly, it is correspondingly or even more common that language speakers are mandated to select among diverse forms referred to as 'aspects', the semantics of which have a tendency to be additionally subtle than that of tenses. Tenses and aspects fit in to the things in an individual’s inherent language that one is likely to take for granted. Over and over again, they have only engrossed the thoughtfulness of grammarians who have had to elucidate the purpose of such classifications in one language to speakers of alternative language in which the arrangement is dissimilar (Dahl, 1985). The discussion that ensues is going to focus primarily on English tense and aspect features in comparison to the tense and aspect features of the Japanese. The discussion will also analyze the pedagogical implications of these tense and aspect features for Japanese English language learners. English Tense and Aspect Features Aspects are diverse modes of observing the interior chronological constituency of an event/ situation or of tense as grammaticalized setting in time (Greenbaum & Nelson, 2004). The succeeding two English sentences can be used to demonstrate tense peculiarity: a) It is raining today and b) It was raining yesterday. The fact that two distinctive sentences are concerned with an interlude in time which exclusively heralds the idea of language elicits the choice of the “Simple Past” verb usage was somewhat than the “Present” is. These two sentences give an illustration of a myriad of properties characteristic of tense features. First they are articulated by the choice of one of numerous conceivable morphological formulae of the determinate verb or the ancillary verb. Second, they are semantically reliant on the connection between the specific time that 'is talked of’ in the illustrated sentence and the time that the act of the speech took place. The time that the act of the speech took place is frequently known the deictic center. Lastly, tenses have to be conveyed. It is important that the tense choice form has to be made. It does not take into account whether or not there is the presence of an unequivocal indicator of time, for example the existence of an adverb in the sentence (Okaura, 2014). None of the features described above can however be considered as necessary without unjustifiably constraining the concept of tense. Given an opportunity to choose one of the features as being significant from the other two, it will be too natural to choose the weaker feature which is the second one (Dahl, 1985). It is common knowledge to many people that tenses definitely have a connection with regards to time. The difficulty, nevertheless, is whether this can be through in the absence of abating the situation so much that we embrace things that usually cannot be termed as tenses. Comrie (1985) delineates the word tense as a grammaticalized manifestation of position in time. He asserts that while a number of languages in the globe possess tense, there are certain languages that do not possess tense, given his characterization. Since he restricts the term to relate solitary to grammaticalized methods, it would eradicate supplementary means of designating the chronological setting of an event, such as adverbials. Nonetheless, this constricted of conception leaves us with disproportionate methodologies in relation tense and aspect. Comrie (1976) provides a much broader characterization of the notion of aspect. It will therefore be accurate to contend that tense is any linguistic countenance of setting in time. This characterization comprises grammaticalized tense creators and other linguistic components with scarcer limitations on their dissemination such as adverbials (Huddleston, 1996). Comrie additionally differentiates two sub-categories of tense. These are the absolute tense and relative tense. He delineates absolute tense as arising when the orientation point for the setting of a condition at some point given by the background, not unescapably the contemporary moment. The alteration between these two categories of tense can be apprehended by the association among three perceptions, specifically utterance time, reference time and situation time, all of which were initially presented by Reichenbach (1947) in somewhat diverse terms. The utterance time denotes to the moment that a presenter yields a particular expression. The situation time is the chronological setting when the occurrence designated in the statement truly transpires. The reference time characterizes an intangible conception which delivers the sequential point of understandings on the condition. To rearticulate Comrie’s characterizations for absolute tense and relative tense by embracing these three conceptions, the previous continuously arrays the reference time conterminous with the time of utterance; on the one hand, the time of reference of the concluding contrasts, conceivably but not automatically concurring with either the time of utterance or the time of situation. The word aspect is a calque of a Russian term vid, which is associated to the terms view or vision (Watanabe, 2008). Owing to its foundation, the term aspect was formerly well-defined as an obligatorily grammaticalized countenance, which is typically conjugation or morphological. However, Comrie (1976) encompasses the conception of aspect. He describes the word aspect as the mode of observing the interior sequential area of a situation. Olsen (1997) and Smith (1991, 1997) contend that the aspectual meaning of a sentence results from the interaction among numerous components of the sentence. These are situation aspect, viewpoint aspect and adverbials. I embrace the methodology that the term aspect denotes the mode of observing the interior chronological structure of several linguistic units, such as adverbials, verbs and grammatical makers. In addition to the aspectual connotation of an all-inclusive clause results from the collaboration among the numerous linguistic components as well as logical factors. This classification of the aspect will therefore help us to get a clear understanding of the differences that exist in the tense and aspect features of the English and Japanese. It will also help us to understand why the Japanese speaking learners find it extremely challenging to learn the English language. The following is also an illustration of a typical distinction of aspects in a sentence: a) When I got your postcard, I was writing a letter to you and b) When I got your postcard, I wrote a letter to you. The progressive aspect was expressed in the writing in the first sentence shows that the course of writing a letter was in development at the time of the advent of the postcard. This is devoid of any suggestion of its accomplishment. In contradistinction, the second sentence portrays the writing as an event that has been concluded, beheld in its entirety. Aspect therefore is concerned with the arrangement of the things happening in the state designated by the sentence. The difficult with this classification of aspect cannot however be taken in sequestration from time as both sentences depict two processes or events. The question then arises on what really is the difference between aspect and time since the two seem to be having something to do with time. Of importance to this discussion is that aspect has non-deictic features while tense has deictic features. Comparison between English and Japanese Tense and Aspect Features and their Pedagogical Implications for Japanese English Language Learners There are substantial dissimilarities that exist between the English tense and aspect features as compared to the equivalent in Japanese and more so in the structure of sentences. This makes it extremely difficult for most of the Japanese students to learn the English language as quickly as possible compared to their Swedish or German colleagues. The tense and voice in Japanese is borne through vicissitudes in the form of verbs, just like it is done in English. The difference however occurs in the use of auxiliary verbs. It is noteworthy that there are no auxiliary verbs in Japanese. This makes it quite challenging for the Japanese who are learning the English language as they are presented with immense difficulties while forming either perfect tenses or progressive tenses. These Japanese also have problems surrounding the issue of negation or the formation of questions in simple tenses. The Japanese verbs do not adjust for number or person (Oigara, 1998). This presents a scenarios whereby the letter‘s’ is often omitted in the present simple tense for a third person. Examples of present simple tense for a third person in the context of Japanese would be “she go” or “my father work”. This is unlike the English context where there is existence of letter’s’ in which it would be said “she goes” or “my father works”. It will therefore be extremely difficult for the Japanese learners to be able to choose the precise tense to apply in order to convey their envisioned meaning. The Japanese English learners can be lured to put into use the present simple tense to put across a message concerning future events as that is what they are used to in their own native Japanese language (Mori, 2000). They would for example say that “I help you after work” instead of saying “I will help you after work”. The existence of the differences in the situations in which Japanese and English employ the use of passive and the ways in which the sentences are constructed may also present unique challenges to the Japanese English language learner. The Japanese would for example say “He was cut his hair” when he or she actually means “his hair was cut”. The Japanese learner can also say “when were you come to the United States of America?” instead of saying “when are you going to come to the United States of America? This shows that the intended meaning of the sentences of these Japanese learners will not easily be perceived or conveyed to their intended audience. It is generally assumed that in all the languages present in the world at large, people have unique methods of pinpointing events on a temporal scale. It is however noted that there is a clear difference in these temporal expressions from one language to another. It is unfortunate to note that the Japanese speaking people learning the English language are not able to effectively internalize the tense realization system in the English language. This difficulty is especially heightened in the use of subordinate clauses. The morpho-phonological forms in the two languages differ due to the variations in the tense realization limitations (Bong, 2002). This is the reasoning behind the challenges that are experienced by the Japanese learners. They are not able to properly construct their English language sentences because of these discussed tense realization system. The manifestation or nonexistence of the categorization of tense rule differentiates between English and Japanese. Japanese lacks arrangement of the effects of tense. In Japanese, the past tense of the milieu clause does not potency the tense of the conveyed clause to be in the past. This can be demonstrated in the following sentences: “Chen said that Remington was there” and “Chen said that Remington will come”. A native and original English speaker would have put these sentences properly as “Chen said that Remington had been there” and “Chen said that Remington would come” respectively. These two sentences give a clear illustration of the variances in the relative tense organizations in Japanese and in English. Japanese speaking learners are faced with hitches in securing the tense-matching property owing to their relative tense property (Bong, 2002). In Japanese, there is only a precise diminutive list of state verbs as compared to English. A lot of English state verbs are frequently articulated in Japanese by the amalgamation of accomplishment verbs and -te i. this is unlike in English where states are designated by state verbs that do not permit for any advanced marker in a number of cases. For example: Japanese: Remington-wa kare-o shitte iru. (State of result) English: Remington is knowing him. From the above examples, it can be observed that Japanese permits for the imperfective aspect marker -te i to be joined with accomplishment verbs devoid of the perception of accomplishment incongruity as established in English. Japanese learners with therefore be forced to constrict their first language acquaintance about arrangements between the verbal lexical and the imperfective marker aspect (Juan & Zhao, 2011). It is therefore important for the instructors of such learners to correctly point out the differences in the sentence structures of these two languages. A proper explanation will make the students to appreciate the diversity and work towards the learning of the same in an efficient manner. However, a poor explanation of these differences by the instructors will only attract negative energies from the learners. It is common knowledge that a negative environment is not conducive for learning and therefore negative energies from the students will make the learning of the English language even more challenging (Juan & Zhao, 2009). Tomioka (1994) indicates that many Japanese reading materials and textbooks just momentarily elucidate the usage of “be V-ing” under a segment of the progressive aspect. They also basically offer a number of verbs which do not take into consideration the progressive aspect. When instructors explain progressive aspect in this manner, learners are definitely misinformed to have the imprint that English “V-ing” is the correspondent of the Japanese “V-te i”. They are also easily deceived to accept that there are only a restricted number of exemptions. Consequently, when instructors offer diminutive unequivocal rule teaching and undesirable substantiation, broad-minded marking would prove to be more thought-provoking for Japanese learners who have a habit of turning to their first language conception for the reason that this kind of teaching cannot warranty a well adopted second language concept. In this case, it is exceedingly indispensable for instructors to deliver unambiguous deleterious evidence by indicating out the cradle of inaccuracy and proposing further enlightenment in order to increase learners’ responsiveness of it (Tomioka, 1994). Juan and Zhao (2011) indicate that the influence of the first language is the major contributing factor for the progressive negative evidence rule possessed by the Japanese speaking people learning the English language. The first language immensely affects how these learners perceive the tense and aspect features in the English language. This therefore makes it extremely challenging for them to learn this English language. Had the instruction mode been different where they are sufficiently taught the differences between the Japanese and English tense and aspect features, maybe the learning would have been made much easier for them. Juan and Zhao further indicated that the partial intersection between the first language Japanese progressive aspect and that of the second language English may activate first language intrusion demonstrated in sophisticated reception of inappropriate advanced marking on accomplishment and state verbs on the part of the Japanese students. It is also clearly indicated that negative classroom instruction methodologies have a great impact in the reception of a second language (Juan & Zhao, 2011). They only help to aggravate the challenges that are faced by these learners and it is not of any benefit to them. It is also notable that most of the Japanese learners learning the English language first and foremost collect their thoughts together in their Japanese language before they can translate the same to English. This will also give rise to all the problems that have been discussed above. Conclusion From the foregoing analysis, it can be correctly argued that he Japanese learners therefore demonstrate a lot of difficult in their study of the English language because of the numerous challenges that they face. The most notable feature is the influence that their Japanese language, which is their first language, has on their learning experiences. The Japanese and English languages have different characteristics of the tense and aspect and this is the foundation of the problem. All these challenges would not have been experienced if there were similarities in tenses and aspects in these two languages. It is also important to note from the above analysis that the teaching modalities that these Japanese learners are exposed to also play a big role in their learning. It has been noted that most of the instructors do not take their time to explain the difference between the two languages. This makes the learners to be influenced by their first language in the sentence structures. Such kinds of mistakes are bound to keep re-occurring if proper modes of instructions for the learners are not put in place. References and Bibliography Bong, H.K. (2002). English and Japanese tense realizations in subordinate clauses. NUCB Journal of economic and information science, volume 51, issue 2. Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cutrone, P. (2009). Overcoming Japanese EFL learners’ fear of speaking. Language studies working papers, volume 1, pp. 55-63 Dahl, O. (1985). Tense and aspect systems. UK: Basil Blackwell Ltd. Danqi, D. (2005). The acquisition of Chinese as a third language by Japanese LI/English L2 speakers. University of Edinburgh. Greenbaum, S. (1996), The Oxford English Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press Greenbaum, S. and Nelson, G. (2004). An Introduction to English Grammar, London: Longman. Huddleston, R. (1984). Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Huddleston, R. (1996). English grammar: An outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Juan, D. & Zhao, S. X. (2011). Understanding the influence of LI and lexical aspect in temporal acquisition: Quantitative and Qualitative Studies. Asian EFL Journal. Mori, S.M. (2000). Primacy of aspect in the acquisition of Japanese. The economic journal of Takasaki City University of Economics, Volume 43, no.3, pp.1-16. Oigara, T. (1998). Tense and aspect. University of Washington. Okaura, Y. (2014). Verbs in the essays by L2 learners of English in Japan and the pedagony. International journal for cross disciplinary subjects in education (IJCDSE), Special issue, volume 4, issue 3. Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of symbolic logic. The Macmillan Company. Smith, C.S., (1991). The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher Smith, C.S., (1997). The parameter of aspect. (Second edition) Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher Suwono, S. (1993). Tense, aspect and time concepts in English and Bahasa Indonesia: Pedagogical implications. Edith Cowan University Tomioka, T. (1994). A study of ‘V-te iru’ in Japanese. Online Resource. Retrieved from http://homepage3.nifty.com/park/aspect.htm. Watanabe, K. (2008). Tense and aspect in old Japanese: Synchronic, diachronic and typological perspectives. Cornell University Read More