Adverbial particle (副助詞) vs. binding particle (係助詞)

Bunpro
#1

The question is mostly towards the Bunpro staff, but doesn’t really fit the bug report thread.

It’s a thing I noticed during my new lessons, that you tend to call は an adverbial particle/副助詞, both in English and Japanese. Is that intentional? On the wikipedia page for particles, the 副助詞 category includes particles like ばかり, まで etc., and は is noticeably absent. It is listed under the 係助詞 section, along with も, こそ, でも etc. I know that some particles can fit multiple roles, like の, but in that case it’s listed under all relevant sections.

Since you specifically went out of your way to say 副助詞 even on the English version of the lesson, I assume there’s some rationale behind it, but at first glance, it seems like a mistake to me. Japanese (non-wikipedia) dictionaries also don’t list は.

I know it’s kinda nitpicking, but they are N1 lessons, not complete beginner ones, so correct usage of the linguistic terms should be important. So I’d like to know if it’s an actual error, my mistake, or you’re just using a slightly different model for the language.

Thanks!

Edit: it seems like you also call やら a 副助詞, when it’s a 並立助詞. Do you just call all non case-marking particles 副助詞?

Edit2: Digging around a bit, it turns out, in Japanese middle schools, they teach a simplified categorization, and only teach 係助詞, 並立助詞 etc. in high school. So my actual question changed, could you confirm if that’s the reason you went with 副助詞? Thanks!

2 Likes
#2

I can’t answer your main question but just to add to the discussion: You may be interested in this blog post.

I think the only person who can answer your question about why Bunpro chose one term and not the other is @Asher

3 Likes
#3

Thanks, it was very informative! (and effing hard, I know almost nothing about classical Japanese)

So if I understood correctly, through the article and a little bit of research:

  • This 山田孝雄 guy invented the term 係助詞 (and made a model of Japanese grammar btw)
  • This influenced the work of this other guy called 橋本進吉, who also made a different model of Japanese grammar, that became the basis of the grammar taught in schools
  • But for various reasons (e.g. it’s easier to teach), the ministry of education decided on a simpler version, e.g. four categories of particles, は and も are considered 副助詞
  • High school introduces 係助詞, but that’s about classical grammar, and the definition they use there doesn’t match what 山田孝雄 said originally
  • There’s confusion, even among Japanese students

But I guess it answers my question then. “Officially”, there’s no modern 係助詞, that’s for linguists only.

As a side note, I really liked the 「はしけはひどく揺れた。」 passage and its explanation, that was really eye-opening about what is considered ambiguous if you only have superficial knowledge.

1 Like
#4

Glad you got a lot out of the blog post!

The issue of how to categorise parts of speech is tricky in any language but there is quite lively debate about it in Japanese even today. Two key reasons for this are the large influence of Indoeuropean linguistic/grammatical theories being retroactively imposed onto Japanese and also the “school grammar” (this is the grammar based on 橋本’s work, as you mention) which is taught in schools and is largely unchanged for decades. What even is the purpose of a grammar? If it is meant to be descriptive then it could be argued, and some do, that even concepts like “subject” are inappropriate for Japanese. Equally, if you want to somehow tie contemporary Japanese to classical Japanese, which most grammars attempt to do to at least some degree, then things become quite murky and hard to prove past a certain point.

Of course this also means you can read around and choose whatever theory or naming conventions you personally think is best! I’ve had many lively discussions about this kind of topic with natives and there isn’t a prescriptive authority for most of these questions. Equally, if you don’t have a special interest in all this then sticking to the middle school level school grammar naming conventions is more than enough. Most natives forget it all after a few years anyway, in my experience.

2 Likes