Teacher Discussion Forums

A new JHS textbook is out in Japan. Basically it's just a revision with some very interesting add-ins.

The first:
Onigiri is a food.

I know a coffee, a beer and some others have become common place but is "a food" acceptable?

The second:
I've lived in Japan for 5 years, and I've loved Japanese music since I heard it for the first time.

The whole since clause is giving me problems. Is it just me? Can someone dissect that for me? It has the feeling of needing some "awk" or "ros" markings.

"since I heard it for the first time" gives 314 returns when googled.

"since I first heard it" gives 52,000. I would correct the sentence, if it came across my desk, like this second one. The Japanese teacher is asking me "Why?" "Why?" "Why?" "Why?" "Why?!!"


AS an aside the onigir add-in continues...
Onigiri is a food. It is made of rice. Like a sandwich for Americans, we often eat some onigiri on a picnic or hike.

Are Japanese people really like sandwiches?

I can't see anything wrong with either of your examples:

Onigiri is a food. - I presume you're thinking of food as an uncountable noun, so you shouldn't be able to say a food. In this example, food refers to a class; beer is a drink, ragwort is a plant, and onigiri is a food.

I'm still not clear what your query is with the second example, but there's nothing wrong with it in my English.

fair enough, that's why I put it out there. They strike me as odd and unnatural, but I realize I'm not the only one who uses English.

So, you're saying it's OK to use "a food." That it's common place or not wrong. That was my question.

I feel differently. "It is a type of food." seems like what we should be teaching.

Also, the clause "since I heard it for the first time" in this example strikes me as awkward or run-on. I can't grammatically find any problems with it but again, it bothers me.

'Onigiri is food' would be a bit strange, but 'Onigiri is a food' (actually, a Japanese-style snack) isn't really that strange; as lol has pointed out, we are talking 'class', 'a type of food'. Actually, this sort of "explanation/expansion" is useful to teach to Japanese people to help them avoid "Twenty questions" whenever they mention anything that a foreigner might not know:

Japanese: Do you know Okonomiyaki?
Foreigner: Um, no....
(silence)
Foreigner: Is he a sumo wrestler? Is it a nice place? etc etc.

>>> Do you know Okonomiyaki? It's a type of food.

(NB: 'Have you (ever) p.p' would make it even clearer that X is a place [been], food [eaten/tried] etc)

I'd agree that the shorter 'since' sentence sounds a bit better, and the Google stats speak for themselves, but that's not to say that there's anything wrong with the longer alternative (apart from it being more inefficient and perhaps not presenting the 'first' in its usual position) or that it shouldn't be presented. Maybe the textbook writers felt that the extra "clarity" (=obviousness) of the 'for the FIRST TIME' made more sense...also, sentences can begin with 'The first time I (did something), I...'.

(Edit: I was typing as you posted again, mesmark! If I have further comments after reading what you further wrote, I'll obviously make another post myself!).

Seems like we were thinking along the same lines regarding the 'a type of' at least, mes!

BTW, what textbook are you using? I'm assuming it's the new edition of the 'Sunshine' course. My school's yet to give me a complete set, so I haven't been able to compare it to the previous edition in much detail; my general impression so far is that it's been linguistically beefed-up somewhat, but is not as "cute" as before (and perhaps therefore potentially less appealing or involving for students).

mesmark - do you have the same reservations with Beer is a drink and Ragwort is a plant? Sure, if you add a type of to both it would make it clearer it's not indespensible.

The exact meaning of food will vary depending on the context - sometimes it will refer to a type, sometimes a quantity, it depends what you mean.

You might want to take a look at the "Semantics and Context" thread I started a while back to see what I'm getting at:
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... highlight=

...which tells you HOW MUCH of certain nutrients a food contains.
Most commonly this will be a food the athlete eats every day
Souls are a food so sweet and mild that they make us fat

Taked from the Cobuild Concordance and Collocations Sampler.

Yes, 'a type of' isn't indispensible. It would certainly be out of place in the COBUILD examples.

I didn't post it before, just to see first what type of response I would get, but I do think if defined it makes more sense, or seems more natural.

Onigiri is a food often eaten on pinics in Japan.
Onigiri is a food of Japan composed of rice and seaweed.
Onigiri is a food that is consumed in great quanity at drinking parties.

The textbook (New Horizon) maybe avoids this as it hasn't been introduced yet, this meaning relative clauses. However, it just seems unnatural the way it was presented. in this case "a type of food." sounds more natural.

Most commonly this will be a food the athlete eats every day
Most commonly this will be something the atlete eats every day
sounds better to me

Souls are a food so sweet and mild that they make us fat
Souls are a food.
Would you do nothing with that if it crossed your path?

Ah, New Horizon. I'm not very familiar with that (most schools I've been at have used Sunshine, or Columbus), but no doubt the grammar syllabus especially is pretty similar.

Most commonly this will be a food the athlete eats every day
Most commonly this will be something the atlete eats every day
sounds better to me

To my ear, the first is better expressed.

mesmark wrote: Most commonly this will be a food the athlete eats every day
Most commonly this will be something the atlete eats every day
sounds better to me

Instead of "sounds better to me" I should have said seems more like what we should be teaching (especially at beginner levels.) I also think it's more likely what the average person would say. Again, I'm not arguing it's incorrect.

I'll give you more elegant and colorful for the cobuild example.

I will concede the point on 'a food' and accept that it may just be me. But, for me, it has definitely been a food for thought.

If foreign-produced textbooks started presenting things like 'a furniture' or 'a news', I'd be worried, but 'a food' is fine; 'food' is much more divisible (into types, portions of a type etc at least, with the 'type of' then ellipted) than, it seems, is furniture, news etc.

Since no one here has asked about the meaning of either of these sentences what is the problem?
Maybe this is a case where 'ownership' of the language is being questioned?What is the problem if publishers publish syntax which is questionable to the minority of 'native speakers' if the vast majority of English users have no problem communicating?

mesmark wrote:
"since I heard it for the first time" gives 314 returns when googled.

"since I first heard it" gives 52,000. I would correct the sentence, if it came across my desk, like this second one. The Japanese teacher is asking me "Why?" "Why?" "Why?" "Why?" "Why?!!"

It's a shame that the Japanese teacher (or most native speaker teachers for that matter) can't learn to accept as an answer: "Because it occurs more frequently." From one perspective, grammar is nothing but the sedimented result of historical frequency. BTW, I think this idea of using Google to get a feel for frequency is a great.

On an intuitive level I also feel that "since I heard it for the first time" is a bit awkward compared to "since I first hear it." I think one reason why the former would probably be favored in EFL materials (here in Japan) is that it is more amenable to dissection and bit by bit translation: (since)(I heard it)(for the first time). The second version can't be dissected as neatly and really needs to be learned (and therefore taught) as a semi-fixed lexico-semantic frame ("since I first/last PP it"). And while in theory a huge number of verbs might grammatically fit this frame, I'd bet that 3-4 lexical items account for 99% of the actual usage. Ditto on the pronouns.

Frequency IS a reason!