11236
I always thought that besides Kanji, one of the most difficult things about
Japanese was its immense amount of homophones. For example, 花 (はな), which
means flower, and 鼻 (also はな) which means nose. In the sources and books I
read, I am simply supposed to tell the difference by context, and this isn't
always easy. Let me elaborate:

> [甘美]{うまみ}の花は赤く見える  
>  [Talking to Umami] Your flower looks red.
>
> [甘美]{うまみ}の鼻は赤く見える  
>  [Talking to Umami] Your nose looks red.

If I was talking to Umami before that statement and it was clear we were
taking about her flower or her nose than yes, I suppose context would help.
However, if this was the starting statement, it might not be completely clear.
Hypothetically, if she was sick and bringing me a red flower, she wouldn't
know from the context and I would have wasted my time specifying that I was
talking about the organ or the plant.

Would pitch be helpful or even necessary to differentiate the subject in this
case? If so, then why do English sources leave it out? If anything, it should
be one of the first things learned, seeing that I basically had to re-learn
all of the words I thought I knew how to pronounce perfectly.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-02-01T05:13:00.537
11106
2013-02-15T20:43:32.503
2013-02-06T08:46:27.873
162
3136
question
learning resources pitch-accent
Why do English sources for learning Japanese leave out pitch?
Very insightful point! I think you are right that pitch matters. As a case in
point, say if my daughter is reading a textbook aloud in homework and gets a
pitch wrong, I would correct her, because it's noticable.

On the other hand, Japanese dictionaries written for Japanese do not have the
pitch information either, and people from different regions often speak the
same word with drastically different pitch, yet that doesn't make it any
harder to understand what they are saying.

So all in all, I'd say it's not outrageous that many English sources leave
this out.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-02-11T04:00:48.037
11192
2013-02-11T04:00:48.037
3059
11106
answer
Not all ambiguous pairs can be distinguished by pitch, and we could just as
easily provide you with loads of other ambiguous statements where NOTHING
other than context could lead you to the right meaning.

This kind of thing happens in all languages: in English, if I tell a female
friend "You have a nice pair/pear", she'll rely on context (I hope) to tell
which I meant.

As for why pitch isn't dealt with in general in Japanese courses, my
conclusion so far is that 1) the vast majority of teachers (at least non-
university teachers outside of Japan) do no possess enough knowledge about how
pitch accent works to be able to teach it, and 2) not all Japanese native
speakers are comfortable enough with the pronunciation of Standard/Tokyo
Japanese to be able to dictate how words should be pronounced.

Similarly, most English teachers would probably struggle to explain why plural
-s sounds different in 'houses', 'cats' and 'dogs', or how stress is assigned
in noun compounds -- although these are generally simpler issues than pitch
accent as a whole.

Unfortunately, minimal pairs are not generally a very conducive way to argue
in favour of teaching pitch accent. Personally, I would think that allowing
students to be more easily understood would form a better argument. I also
think that having a better understanding of how Japanese is pronounced leads
to better comprehension, communication, vocabulary retention and fluency.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-02-15T20:43:32.503
11236
2013-02-15T20:43:32.503
801
11106
answer