The first word I found is アフリカ (Africa). It was part of the title of an academic journal I saw in the library. It is a loan word. Since all the textbooks tell us that one of the primary functions of Katakana is to write foreign names and loan words, I thought this was a nice example--the name of a foreign place coming into the Japanese language based on an English pronunciation. It made me wonder what the process (historic, linguistic, political) is for a loanword to become standardized in Japanese. For example, why isn't the katakana for "Africa" based on a German, French, Chinese or some other pronunciation? As for the question of why Hiragana or Kanji is not used here, it seems that just the use of Katakana signals to the reader that the word or concept is not native to Japanese in a way that the other scripts do not do. Writing the name of a foreign country is a good example of the intended effect of Katakana--to highlight a word or mark it as something slightly out of the ordinary of the Japanese everyday experience. Katakana has this effect because by using it the writer sends a clear signal to his reader that the word (in this case the name of a place) is not of Japanese origin. Even if someone didn't know what アフリカ was, the use of Katakana has the effect of making clear to the reader that it is not something "Japanese" since that is one of the primary functions of the katakana writing system.
The next word I found also could be considered a loan word, but I think it is rather different than the first. "メジヤーリーグベースーボール" means Major League Baseball. There is no question as to where this word comes from, it is a proper noun, a brand name and a loan word all at once. What I found interesting about this however, is that in lesson 9 we learn a way to write baseball using hiragana, and yet that word is not used in "Major League Baseball." In this case, the use of katakana seems to be a deliberate choice to emphasize or reinforce the foreign, and specifically American, origin of the word and brand name--there hasn't been an attempt to localize the word or the brand. Katakana in this instance allows the Japanese language to absorb foreign words, brands and ideas without fully assimilating them. By using Katakana instead of Kanji or Hiragana, it is immediately clear to the audience that the word is representing a foreign brand, and in particular a brand from the West. Katakana has this particular effect because both its shape and general usage is much different than the other two writing systems in Japanese. The sharper lines and angles not only make the words stick out from the curves of Hiragana, but the simplicity of the letters also marks a sharp contrast from the more complicated strokes of Kanji. Katakana therefore signals both in its form and usage that the word or idea being represented is meant to stand out from the rest of the sentence or whatever larger context that it is found in. In this case, メジヤーリーグベースーボール as both an imported idea and product is therefore written using Katakana.
Clearly Katakana has many uses and there is no simple or short answer as to how, when and why it should be used. In writing a textbook then, how is an author supposed to decide how to explain Katakana? In an introductory text, the primary objective of the author is most likely to present a broad overview without delving into exceptional cases or other instances in which general rules about Katakana might not apply. I think that's why most books stick to explaining Katakana usage in terms of loan words, onomatopoeia and a few other large categories. The degree to which books explain Katakana differently is probably due to a decision made by its authors as to just how much information is appropriate to present to a student just starting to learn Japanese. Certainly the authors of the texts, as native speakers with training in Japanese pedagogy, would personally have more nuanced and complete ideas about Katakana usage--an introductory textbook probably just isn't the right place to dive into that type of discussion. Once the textbook presents that general framework of Katakana, students who progress in their studies will inevitably discover that the rules set forth do not always hold and that the picture is more complicated than they originally thought. In that sense, the different explanations of Katakana usage in our textbooks can be explained not in terms of different understandings of Katakana, but rather in terms of differing views on the appropriate way in which to introduce Katakana to students of Japanese.
No comments:
Post a Comment