Quote:
A Japanese noun is pronounced the same way whether it is singular or plural, so to indicate plurality, speakers use number words paired with special endings known as counters. The phrase three fish could be rendered three (small animal)-count fish. Without these counters, a phrase is considered grammatically unsound and may be perceived as rude. The regional dialect, age, or even occupation of the speaker may dictate which counter to use. However, many speakers across the country apply certain counters more broadly than is traditional: even whales might be described using the small animal counter, as if saying number animal-count fish.
Which of the following can be most logically inferred on the basis of the information in the passage?
If you know anything about me by now, you probably know that I cannot resist a fun and quirky question. Where else are you going to come across a GMAT™-like question on Japanese counters? The passage map is easy to follow:
- The first sentence introduces the idea of counter usage to indicate plurality in Japanese nouns
- The second sentence provides an example of a translated phrase
- The third sentence explains the importance of using counters, which extends into both grammar and culture
- The fourth sentence illustrates just how specific counter usage can be
- The last sentence tells us that many speakers are now using a blunt approach to counters, and provides another example (perhaps traditional usage labeled mammalian whales fish, and at least this linguistic tradition hung around)
Because our task is to infer something based on the above information, I would not waste a second thinking of what the answer choices might hold in store. Just get cracking.
Quote:
(A) A person from Hokkaido, the most northerly of the main islands of Japan, would have trouble understanding someone from Okinawa, located over a thousand miles to the south.
Notice that counters have completely dropped from the picture here. This answer choice is broadening the scope of the passage to say that someone from the far north would not comprehend the
Japanese that someone from the far south was speaking. There is no information from the passage to support such a contention.
Quote:
(B) Few elderly speakers would use the same counter as younger speakers to refer to an animal such as an elephant.
Again, we really cannot say. It is true that the fourth line of the passage tells us that the
age… of the speaker may dictate which counter to use, but
may is not the same as
will, and without being fluent in Japanese ourselves, we have no way of knowing in which context counters may differ between elderly and younger speakers. Just because whales (from the passage) and elephants are large animals, we cannot conclude that what holds in one case will necessarily hold in another.
Quote:
(C) A Japanese person would probably grasp the meaning of a phrase with or without a counter, even if that person would use a different counter.
We have a few clues that lend support to this answer, not the least of which are the two examples,
three (small animal)-count fish and
number animal-count fish (in reference to whales). It does not seem like a stretch to assume that a native speaker would grasp
three… fish and
number… fish, the phrases surrounding the counter words. Also, that seemingly throwaway third line comes in handy:
Without these counters, a phrase is considered grammatically unsound and may be perceived as rude. How can a phrase be considered
grammatically unsound if it is not understood? Evidently, enough of the phrase must be grasped to be evaluated in such a manner. This does not require a real-world assumption, but a careful consideration of the information the passage provides.
Quote:
(D) A non-native speaker who did not know to use a counter would likely be met with disapproval when placing an order for two fish skewers at a restaurant.
Context is everything. We have discussed above how
may be perceived as rude is not the same as
will be, so
likely seems more speculative than what the passage supports. It could be the case that a restaurant worker would scowl at a non-native speaker butchering the language, but it could also be true that many native speakers would assume a non-native speaker would not know to use counters and would grant that person a free pass for a linguistic faux pas. (I think of how I might react if someone I understood to be from a non-native English-speaking background said, on the model of
I caught a cold, said something like
I caught the COVID.)
Quote:
(E) A major city such as Tokyo, with tens of millions of inhabitants, would be less likely than a smaller city to see regional variations in counter usage.
Like (B) and (D) before, this answer choice rates the likelihood of something loosely related to the passage. We are in no position to tell whether Tokyo would see more or fewer
regional variations in counter usage. There could be a standardized Tokyo dialect that pretty much everyone adhered to, or there could be a lot of variation because of the sheer number of people in and around such a metropolis. We also cannot assess what may be true in a different city.
Out of the five options, (C) is the only one that can reasonably be inferred from the information in the passage, no drawing from real life required.
I hope you enjoyed this one as much as I did. Game on, even if you did stumble.
- Andrew
close
14 Jul 2022, 08:00
61%
(02:51)
wrong 
