The CMO Survey - Highlights and Insights Report - Spring 2024
Nana shichi mmca_f2011_ri2
1. Midwest Seminar on Asian Affairs
Macalester College
October 28-30, 2011
Sound alternation in Japanese
numerals and classifiers:
A case of 七
Natalie Dmytrenko& Rika Ito
Dept. of Asian Studies
St. Olaf College
dmytrenko@stolaf.edu
ito@stolaf.edu
2. The issue
Japanese numerals:
(1) 一、二、三、四、五、六、七、八、九、
十
ichi ni san shi/yo(n) go rokushichi/nana hachiku/kyuujuu
Japanese classifier system
(2) 〜本：slender objects、〜枚： thin, flat objects
(3) 一本、二本、三本
i-ppon (*ichi-hon), ni-hon, san-bon
(4) 四本
yon-hon(* *yo-)
(5) shichi-nin or nana-nin
3. 3 layers of Japanese lexicon
Table 1: 3 strata of Japanese words with the examples of numerals
and classifiers
Strata Numerals Classifiers
Native Japanese hito-, futa- mi- 粒tsubu
棟mune
羽wa
Sino-Japanese ichi, ni, san, etc. 番 ban
年nen
人nin
Loanwords wan, tsuu, surii, メートルmeetoru
(extremely rare) ページpeeji
ドルdoru
4. Dominance of SJ numerals
1. ”diachronic transition in the Japanese classifier
system –the native classifier system is being
replaced with the Sino classifier system” (Shimojo,
1997, cited in Amazaki 2006: 5).
2. “…some speakers appear to feel uneasy using
classifiers collocated with the indigenous numerals
above 'four' or 'five,' switching to Sino-Japanese
numeral at that point although indigenous forms
are available through 'ten’” (cited in Downing,
1996:48).
5. 七：Special case?
"Interestingly, the native numeral nana is
interchangeably used as the Chinese numeral
shichiin many cases" (Amazaki 2006:4).
“Shi and shichiare in some cases avoided
because their similarity in sound may lead to
confusion” (Vaccari 1937)
9. Data & Methodology
• Online survey form (SurveyMonkey)
• Distributed to native Japanese speakers who
teach Japanese in North America
• Data was collected in early fall of 2011
• 50 respondents
• Demographic information (such as age, gender,
home town) was collected
10.
11. Overall Results:
1. SJ is most preferred: 七味 （しちみ）
2. NJ = SJ is the highest, (i.e., a mountain like
shape) : １７、７人、７年、７時間
3. NJ > SJ >> NJ only >> NJ = SJ >> SJ > NJ >> SJ
only：７番目、７本、７ヶ月、７分、７羽
4. NJ only >> NJ > SJ >> NJ = SJ >> SJ > NJ >> SJ
only： All others (SJ classifiers such as ７階、
７回、All other NJ classifiers except ７羽、
Loan classifiers)
12. 80
70
60
50 十七
七番
40
七番目
30 七回
七階
20
10
0
NJ only NJ > SJ NJ = SJ SJ > NJ SJ only
Figure 1: Pronunciation of 十七、七番、七番目、七回＆七階 (SJ classifiers) by
50 native speakers in percentages
13. 80
70
60
50
七個
七頭
40
七足
30 七人
七通
20
10
0
NJ only NJ > SJ NJ = SJ SJ > NJ SJ only
Figure ２: Pronunciation of 七個、七頭、七足、七人＆七通 (i.e., SJ classifiers) by
50 native speakers in percentages
14. 60
50
40
七冊
七本
30
七年
七ヶ月
20 七週間
10
0
NJ only NJ > SJ NJ = SJ SJ > NJ SJ only
Figure 3: Pronunciation of 七冊、七本、七年、七ヶ月＆七週 (i.e., SJ
classifiers) by 50 native speakers in percentages
15. 90
80
70
60
50
七時間
40 七分
七味
30
20
10
0
NJ only NJ > SJ NJ = SJ SJ > NJ SJ only
Figure 4: Pronunciation of 七時間、七分＆七味 by 50 native speakers in percentages
16. 70
60
50
七部屋
40
七棟
七羽
30
七株
20 七粒
10
0
NJ only NJ > SJ NJ = SJ SJ > NJ SJ only
Figure 5: Pronunciation of 七部屋、七棟、七羽、七株＆七粒 (i.e., Native
classifiers) by 50 native speakers in percentages
17. 60
50
40
七ポンド
七ドル
30
七セント
七ページ
20
七メートル
10
0
NJ only NJ > SJ NJ = SJ SJ > NJ SJ only
Figure 6: Pronunciation of 七ポンド、七ドル、七セント、七ページ＆七メー
トル (i.e., Loan classifiers) by 50 native speakers in percentages
18. Findings:
• Nana is preferred over shichiin general
• Loan and native classifiers prefer to nana
• Handful SJ classifiers allow both nana
&shichiequally (１７、７人、７年、７時間)
• The results do not really match with the
treatment in the textbooks
19. Implication to teaching of JPN
• More explanation:
– Acknowledgement of complexity of the issue
• Specific ones (17、７人、７年、７時間）
なな／しち
• All others なな (especially at the
elementary level)
20. Future questions
• Beyond 七 (四、九、＆十）
• Regional difference?
• Age difference?
Data collection from college students from
different regions of Japan
(Hokkaido, Tokyo, Osaka, Kyushu, etc.)
• Why do certain classifiers allow
nana/shichiequally?
One of the first things that you learn in a foreign language might be number system. In Japanese, it’s ”ichi, ni,san…..” But as you see here in (1), #4, 7, and 9 have multiple ways to say the number. Curious learners may wonder why. Some teachers may explain the two different sets of numerals—one for Native Japanese and the other for Sino-Japanese, which originate in Chinese. Students may be fascinated about such explanation. As a semester goes by, students are introduced to the classifier system, which is shared by many East and Southeast Asian languages (Goddard 2005, Matsumoto 1985). This poses several challenges to the learners of Japanese. First, learners need to know how semantically these classifiers categorize the nature of the entities whose number is being talked about. This can be a very “foreign” concept to those whose native tongue is European languages. Second, some classifiers trigger sound alternation both in numeral and the classifier as in (3). “One-slender” object is pronounced as i-ppon, NOT ichi-hon. Anyone who has learned Japanese may remember this as a “nightmare.” Moreover, numbers with multiple pronunciation causes further problems as in (4). “Four slender object” is yon-hon, NOT shi-hon nor yo-hon. Why not? That’s the way it is. But students may be completely puzzled when they learn that “seven slender object” can be shichi-hon or nana-hon as in (5). Classier system is examined mostly in syntax (e.g. Kitahara 1993, Park and Sohn 1993) and child language acquisition (e.g. Matsumoto 1985, Naka 1999, Sumiya & Colunga2005). In the field of pedagogy, while the issue of sound alternation as in (3) is often discussed in Japanese textbooks, the variation of the pronunciation of the numeral itself such as (4) and (5) seems to be overlooked. This presentation examine the sound alternation in number 7 to see whether there is a pattern in the variation with respect to the type of classifiers based on our small data collection.
The Japanese lexicon has three strata: the native yamato, Sino-Japanese of Chinese origin, and foreign loanwords from European languages (Shibatani 1990,Yamaguchi 2007) as shown in Table 1. Among these, Sino-Japanese stock represents the largest proportion. For example, Shibatani (1989) notes that 60% of the vocabulary in the Genkaidictionary published in 1859 was Sino-Japanese origin. Numerals, too, have three sets: the native one (hito-, futa-, mi-, etc.)and Sino-Japanese (ichi, ni, san, etc.),and loanwords. Among these options, Sino-Japanese numerals and classifiers are predominant in modern Japanese (e.g. Shimojo 1997).(((Use of western loanwords (such as ワン、ツー、スリー) is extremely limited (as in ワンピース one piece dress, ツーピー（ス）two pieces dress/suit, & スリーピース three pieced dress/suit)))
There seems to be TWO reasons why SJ classifiers and numerals are used more frequently than native counterpart. As for the classifiers, Shimojo (1997) argues that the replacement of native classifier with SJ classifier system as a diachronic transition. As for the numerals, Downing (1997) notes a tendency among native speakers where SJ numerals are replacing native numerals, particularly above 4 or 5.
If Shimojo (1997) and Downing (1996) are correct, we do not expect #7 to be pronounced shichi, not nana as we saw earlier. However, #7 seems to be a special case as Amazaki (2006) notes here--”Interestingly, the native numeral nana is interchangeably used as the Chinese numeral shichiin many cases.” One possible reason of the avoidance of shichican be attributed to sounding similar to both shi and ichi as Vaccari suggests. The present study attempts to find when nana is interchangeable with shichi.
Let us summarize some of the issues discussed in the previous studies. In her comprehensive study of classifier construction, Downing (1996) points out that Sino-Japanese classifiers tend to co-occur with Sino-Japanese numerals and native classifiers with native numerals (1996: 46).Moreover, she summaries relative frequency of numeral-classifier combination as in this slide. She argues that the most common one is SJ numeral with SJ classifier (marked by a large circle, as pointed by a red arrow). According to her, native numeral rarely occur with SJ classifier (marked by a small circle, pointed by a blue arrow).
However, she also acknowledges “exceptional cases” as seen in (4a-d). The present study focuses on where native numeral nana is used with SJ and (c) where native nana is used with western classifiers. ((However, as we have found in our data, this combination appears quite frequently with the case of nana and SJ classifiers.))
How about the treatment in Japanese textbooks? We examined three popular introductory Japanese textbooks: Genki, Yookoso, and Nakama. Table 3 summarizes the results. As you see here, the treatment of number 7 is far from agreement. This is highlighted In the case of seven people, where each textbook provides distinct “correctness.”
In order to find out the common usages of nana and shichiwith commonly used classifiers by native speakers, we conducted an online survey which was distributed to native Japanese speakers who teach Japanese in North America. Potential respondents were recruited through senseionline, an online community for Japanese teachers in North America. 50 responses were collected in early fall of 2011. The survey contained 38 questions with FOUR different numbers (4, 7, 9, and 10) with classifiers introduced mostly in the three introductory textbooks. These classifiers represent THREE different classifiers (Native, SJ, Western) although the SJ stock has the largest set. Respondents were asked to choose the way they pronounce each word. Our focus on native Japanese instructors was twofold: (1) to see whether they are conscious about this issue or not and (2) to collect most “conservative” usage (as opposed to young speakers who tend to be more “innovative” in language use). Demographic information such as age, gender, and home town information was collected for further analysis. Today, we will present our preliminary results, thus, look at overall results.
This slide shows one of the actual questions from the survey. Respondents are given a word with a classifier, and asked to choose which pronunciation they would use from the 5 choices: The first choice is “Only the pronunciation on the left (here, ななばん, with native number) is natural; Use only the pronunciation on the left.”The second choice is “Both pronunciation are possible, but use mostly the pronunciation on the left (here, ななばん, with native number).”The third choice is “Both pronunciation are possible; Both are equally natural.”The fourth choice is “Both pronunciation are possible, but use mostly the pronunciation on the right (here, しちばん, with SJ number).”The last choice is “Only the pronunciation on the right (hereしちばん) is natural; Use only the pronunciation on the right.”
We are going to show 6 figures to show the responses given by the 50 respondents. But first we summarize the overall results we found. There are FOUR types ofdistribution regarding to the responses among 18 different classifiers presented with #7. First, only ONE shows preference in SJ—That was 七味. Interestingly, this is the only word that is used as a fixed expression, namely a particular product. Second, we found 4 words are identified as both NJ and SJ are natural in the same degree. These are 17,７人、7年＆ 7時間。In the graph, it represents a mountain like shape. The third and fourth types prefer NJ over SJ with minor difference. While the largest portion of the answer in the third type is both NJ and SJ are natural but the respondents use NJ more frequently than SJ, followed by NJ only, NJ and SJ are interchangeable, etc. This type includes 5 words--７番目、７本、７ヶ月、７分, and ７羽. The largest group, the fourth type shows that the largest proportion of the responses was NJ only, then followed by both NJ and SJ are natural but they use NJ more frequently than SJ, followed by NJ and SJ are interchangeable, etc. This last type includes all NJ classifiers (expect 七羽） & Loan classifiers in addition to rest of the SJ classifiers.
((Natalie, you’ll point out some of the patterns here.))
We found that nana is preferred over shichiin general with the common classifiers examined in this study. This tendency is particularly true with loan and native classifiers. This contradicts with Downing (1996). Handful SJ classifiers, such as１７、７人、７年、& ７時間 allow both nana and shichiequally. All these cases were properly mentioned in Yokoso! However, Yokoso! also lists other cases (such as 七階、七冊、七足 etc.) where more than half of the respondents use NJ only. Other textbooks seem to oversimplify the actual usage represented by the 50 Japanese teachers who participated in our study.
What does this mean? While our study is based on a small sample size, our findings suggest that more explanation beyond the treatment in the textbooks seem to be beneficial. Although the explanation of the layers of Japanese lexicon may appear to be too specific and too much details, such information will highlight Japan’s historical encounter with the East and the West; thus, it may stimulate students’ intellectual curiosity. Acknowledgement of the complexity of this issue may facilitate both students and teachers to understand language phenomena more systematically. We also suggest the FOUR classifiers that allow NJ and SJ interchangeably (namely 17、７人、７年、７時間), it seems reasonable to introduce both nana and shichi. All the others, however, may be introduced with nana for simplicity, especially at the elementary level, except the one that takes SJ only (such as ７時).
For the future study, we would like to include the analysis of (四、九、＆十). We are also interested in examining regional as well as age factors. It might be beneficial to collect data from younger speakers from different regions (such as Hokkaido, Tokyo, Osaka, Kyushu) may shed light on our understanding of this issue. Moreover, we would like to answer why certain classifiers allow NJ and SJ equally. We hope that these inquiry would stimulate both the linguistic community as well as classroom teaching.
