43346
This is the first sentence of the
[article](http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/easy/k10010868241000/k10010868241000.html):

> ヨーロッパでは日本料理の人気が高くて、だしを作るためのかつお節を使う **量** も増えています  
>  Japanese cuisine is popular in Europe and the **amount** using katsuobushi
> to make dashi is increasing.

**Amount** of what? Is 量 referring to the number countries in Europe that use
katsuobushi? The number of people in Europe that use it? Or have I totally
mis-parsed it?

My other thought was that だしを作るための might modify 量 rather than かつお節. So we have
だしを作るための量も増えています "The amount (of katsuobushi) for making dashi is increasing",
and かつお節を使う量も増えています. I couldn't make much sense out of this part so I
discounted it.

Is there any difference if I say:

> だしを作るため **に** かつお節を使う量も増えています

so that だしを作るために adverbially modifies 使う?
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-09T16:27:00.903
43341
2017-02-09T19:10:47.267
2017-02-09T17:59:00.913
7944
7944
question
grammar reading-comprehension
What is 量 referring to in this sentence?
Due to grammatical constraints 「かつお節を使う 」 is modifying 「量」 and 「だしを作るための」is
modifying 「かつお節」.

Grammatically it forces the literal meaning "the amount of katsuo used to make
dashi is also increasing due to the popularity of Japanese cooking in Europe",
which is ambiguous.

Semantically, we can rule out the meaning that the katou/dashi ratio used in
cooking is increasing.

Grammatically, it cannot mean that making dashi is another reason why the use
of katsuo is increasing. However 「だしを作るために、かつお節を使う量も増えています。」could have that
meaning.

We are forced to the logical conclusion that "the amount of katsuo used to
make dashi" has already been mentioned earlier in the conversation, and that
the popularity of Japanese cooking in Europe" is another reason for its
increasing use.

Note: It is easier to translate if we look at

  * 「かつお節を使う量」

as the atomic semantic unit to translate and don't try to match the grammar
within. Then we get something like:

  * "katsuo usage" or "katuo use" or "use of katsuo"

without even using the English word "amount".
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-09T17:15:14.880
43343
2017-02-09T19:10:47.267
2017-02-09T19:10:47.267
14250
14250
43341
answer
だしを作るためのかつお節を使う量 is "how much [European people] consume _katsuobushi_ for
making _dashi_." So this 量 refers to the amount of かつお節.

Consider the following "original" Japanese sentence:

> ヨーロッパの人々はだしを作るためのかつお節を **{たくさん|100グラム}** 使う。  
>  European people consume {a lot of | 100 g of} _katsuobushi_ for making
> _dashi_.

Note that the amount is [expressed
_adverbially_](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/42184/5010) as usual in
Japanese. だしを作るための modifies かつお節, not 量. Let's omit the obvious subject:

> だしを作るためのかつお節を **{たくさん|100グラム}** 使う。

Replace the bold part with 量 and pull it out to the end to form a relative
clause:

> だしを作るためのかつお節を使う量 …①

* * *

You can express the same thing using the passive voice. Starting from this
sentence:

> （ヨーロッパでは、）だしを作るためのかつお節がたくさん使われる。  
>  (In Europe,) a lot of _katsuobushi_ for making _dashi_ is consumed.

By pulling out the たくさん part, you get this noun phrase:

> だしを作るためのかつお節が使われる量 …②  
>  how much _katsuobushi_ for making _dashi_ is consumed

The noun phrases ① and ② say the same thing. The only difference is that ① is
active and ② is passive.

* * *

Here are some similar examples of ["adverbial-head" relative
clauses](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/39551/5010):

>   * 13時に昼食を食べた。 I ate lunch at 13.  
>  → 昼食を食べた時間 the time when I ate lunch
>   * 東京でその映画を見た。 I watched the movie in Tokyo.  
>  → その映画を見た場所 the place where I watched the movie
>

Obviously you don't eat 時間.

* * *

Lastly, in this example, you can change だしを作るための (modifying the following
noun) to だしを作るために (modifying the following verb) without altering the meaning
of the sentence.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-09T18:53:04.987
43346
2017-02-09T19:05:28.593
2017-04-13T12:43:43.857
-1
5010
43341
answer