Methodologists are faced with a serious research task to develop or select a method of teaching a foreign language that would allow them to quickly and effectively teach communication in Japanese in a short time. The practice of many years provides us with the basic traditional methods used in teaching foreign languages, as well as often used by Japanese language teachers. It is a natural, direct, audio-lingual, communicative, and silent teaching method. Let’s consider each method separately.

According to supporters of the natural method of teaching M. Berlitz, M. Walter, F. Gouin, teaching oral speech, and this, in their opinion, was the main task, should be carried out in the same way as a child learns his native language in life, i.e. .as it happens in nature (Natur) [1, p. 94]. The basic principles underlying teaching using the Berlitz method were as follows. The purpose of training is the development of oral speech. The perception of linguistic material must be carried out directly, that is, immanently. Words of a foreign language must be associated with an object or action, and grammar must be acquired intuitively, because a similar process is characteristic of a child mastering his native speech. The assimilation of material should occur on the basis of imitation and analogy. Therefore, comparisons with the native language and rules are unnecessary. Disclosure of the meaning of words and grammar should be carried out with the help of clarity (objects, actions, pictures). The main form of work is dialogue. All language material is first perceived by ear, then practiced orally and, after a considerable period of time, read, starting with individual words.

All training was built in accordance with these principles. Thus, in the textbook by M. Berlitz, the first pages of the book were filled with drawings with captions depicting individual objects, mainly for the school audience. This oral beginning, which dealt with the introduction of new material in subsequent paragraphs, was justified by the author by the fact that the student must, first of all, hear the original pronunciation and a model that should be imitated. Semantization of vocabulary was carried out with the help of clarity, with facial expressions playing a major role. In cases where these means could not help, the teacher turned to semantization using context. Question and answer exercises were widely used as exercises. Reading instruction was structured in a curious way. Initially, previously learned words were read without breaking them down, and only after a few lessons the reading of individual letters and phrases was explained. In other words, learning to read words, questions and answers occurred as if “from the voice” of the teacher. Thus, the main focus was on dialogical speech. Unlike M. Berlitz, F. Gouin was a teacher and, by his own admission, used different methods. In general, he came to the conclusion that they were unproductive. The main place in F. Gouin’s system is occupied by the position that it is natural to teach language based on a person’s actions, his feelings in chronological order. The second position of his system followed from this – the educational unit around which teaching is built is the sentence, connecting both grammar and vocabulary. Gouin first began to distinguish three groups of concepts in the vocabulary: objective, subjective and figurative. In accordance with these groups, series were built based on the decomposition of action. He offered up to 75 series in the textbook, consisting of a number of sentences. The progress of work on such a series was as follows. First, the teacher performs the actions and comments on them at the same time. Then the students repeat each sentence after the teacher. After this, the teacher pronounces individual phrases and the students perform actions. Then the strong student says the sentences, and the others perform the actions. Oral work ends with the naming of actions (by all students) and their implementation. After such practice, students write down the series in their notebooks. It is not difficult to notice that after such training on the basis of semi-mechanical imitation, students mastered mainly oral speech using limited material. Otherwise, F. Gouin adhered to the same methodological principles as M. Berlitz [2, p. 57].

A major representative of the natural method was M. Walter. He, like Gouin, connected teaching a foreign language with the active activity of students, attaching great importance to the sensory side of perception of the world around them. In accordance with this, he tried to bring teaching closer to familiarizing students with the country of the target language. If at the initial stage mastery of language material was based on actions and comments on them, then at advanced levels students acted out scenes and portrayed certain characters. It should be noted that M. Walter was the first to systematize group exercises as a means of memorizing vocabulary. So he proposed grouping words according to the principle of synonyms and antonyms, according to the thematic principle, words with the same root. Concluding a brief review of the basics of the natural method, it should be noted that although it did not have sufficient scientific justification, and its authors were simple teachers, he contributed quite a lot to the methodology that has remained in it to this day.

The “direct” method arose on the basis of the natural method. Its difference from the latter was that its principles were substantiated by data from linguistics and psychology of that time. It is not for nothing that among its creators were such prominent linguists as V. Fiester, P. Passy, G. Sweet, O. Jespersen, etc. The work of B. Eggert speaks about the impact of these sciences, in particular psychology. The name of this method is due to the fact that its supporters demanded to directly and directly connect the word of a foreign language with a concept, bypassing the word of the native language.

Representatives of this direction considered the main goal of teaching foreign languages to be teaching practical proficiency in the language being studied. The methodological principles of teaching using the direct method were as follows. The basis of learning is oral speech, since any language is by its nature sound and the leading place is occupied by sound and kinesthetic sensations, which has been proven by psychology. Exclusion of native language and translation. Particular importance was attached to phonetics and pronunciation, since mastering the sound side of speech is an indispensable condition for oral communication. In this method, it was proposed to study words only in context, i.e., as part of sentences, and grammar based on induction. Based on a well-researched text, students made observations on the text and extracted rules. O. Jespersen called this “observational grammar” [3, p. 128]. Subsequently, these rules were brought into the system.

The lesson using the direct method was structured as follows: the teacher named the objects in the picture and repeated them by the students, then questions and answers, descriptions of the pictures and lexical exercises. Everything ends with a retelling, a dialogue based on the material studied. If a text was used as the basis, then first the text was read three times by the teacher and the words were explained, then exercises were done, and only after that the text was read in transcription and traditional writing.

The audiolingual method is an updated modification of the direct method. Its creators were the linguist-structuralist C. Friz and the methodologist R. Lado. The creation of this method was significantly influenced by the work of the prominent linguist L. Bloomfield. The advantage of the audio-lingual method is the development of basic language skills – speaking and listening (listening comprehension), – i.e. those skills that are usually difficult to develop using other techniques. In addition, practice shows that when using the audio-lingual method, the acquired language skills are durable, which is explained by the natural process of language acquisition. What is the mechanism of action of this method? Language acquisition occurs in an initial separation from the text. Any new language material is perceived by ear. Then, through special oral speech exercises and techniques, the material is practiced in speech. And only after careful oral speech work and achieving comfort in using the target material in their speech, students become familiar with the texts. And by reading, they learn what they can already say themselves. Thus, and this plays a key role, in the learning process there is no initial connection to the written word, which greatly inhibits the active process of independent speaking and forms mainly passive language skills (reading and translation, not speaking). Through systematic ear training, listening skills develop. When learning to listen, it is very important to listen to the material without relying on the text, without preliminary reading; otherwise, the listening skill develops poorly, since the student already knows what he will hear. Thus, the acquisition of foreign speech occurs in a natural way, as close as possible to the process of language acquisition by a child. Initial perception of the material and its oral elaboration without relying on the text provides a huge advantage, compared to other programs and methods, in the formation of speaking skills, and also, no less important, in the ability to perceive foreign speech by ear at a natural pace. In addition to the main textbook, the program material includes educational and authentic audio and video materials, speech development aids, news and other radio and television programs.

The training is aimed at oral communication with native speakers, so the bulk of speech samples are made up of dialogues that are read, memorized, acted out by students in pairs, and then individual structures from these dialogues are practiced through intensive training, drill. Exercises such as repeated repetition of phrases, substitution of words, transformation of structures according to a certain pattern are especially often used. The use of students’ native language is kept to a minimum during the learning process also because they should have an additional incentive to communicate in a foreign language during classes [4, p. 128].

Unlike audiolingual and other methods based on repetition and memorization, the communicative method sets exercises “with an open ending”: students themselves do not know what their activities in the class will lead to, everything will depend on reactions and answers. New situations are used every day. This maintains students’ interest in classes: after all, everyone wants to communicate meaningfully on meaningful topics.

These are some of the main traditional methods used by teachers of both Japanese and other foreign languages today. Thanks to these methods, students effectively learn a foreign language. The teacher’s task is to choose the necessary method or combine these methods to achieve the desired result.

1. S.D. Krashen “The natural Approach”, – Alemany press, California, 1983.
2. Гальскова Н.Д. Современная метолика обучения иностранным языкам. Пособие для учителя. – М.: АРКТИ: Глосса, 2000.
3. Миролюбов А.А. Аудио-лингвальный метод. Инос­транные языки в школе. – М., 2003.
4. O.F. Allard “Learning Japanese the silent way”, -U.S.A., 1991.

Все статьи автора «author»