Is the Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) a good measure of my Japanese language ability?


Given that there has been discussion by the Japanese government to use the
[Japanese Language Proficiency Test
(JLPT)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Language_Proficiency_Test) as
one of the measures by which permanent residences or citizenship might be
granted, how good of a measure of it of actual real world Japanese skill? Does
passing the level N1 test mean that you are on par with a native speaker or
does it just show that you have advanced knowledge of the language?




True fluency is rare, and involves more than passing a standardized test. I
will refer you to [an answer I
gave](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/10335/how-would-you-define-
fluent-level-in-english/10339#10339) in EL&U.SE which I quoted from my
treasured copy of Jack Seward's _Japanese in Action_. He is talking about
Japanese, but I removed all the specific-language references because it's a
good measure for fluency in any language. **EDIT** : I've just added them
back, since I found my copy of the book after cleaning out my office for the
New Year. **(^_^)** The passage is now given as written, with only slight
adjustments.

> To be accurately judged fluent in Japanese, I believe a foreigner should
> have the following qualifications:
>
>   1. He should be able to conduct all his daily affairs (business, visits to
> the doctor, TV-ing, bar-hopping, lovemaking, etc.) completely in Japanese
> without strain.
>
>   2. His accent may not be perfect, but it should occasion no confusion or
> merriment among his listeners.
>
>   3. He should be able to read Japanese (newspapers, weekly magazines, and
> letters in the semi-cursive 行書 style), with only an occasional reference to
> a dictionary.
>
>

He goes on to propose that a test for fluency in the language should require
the test taker to:

>   1. Translate a newspaper article
>
>   2. Speak in Japanese on the telephone, as a test of accent.
>
>   3. Write a letter in Japanese.
>
>   4. Interpret a taped conversation between two Japanese.
>
>   5. Comprehend a newscast.
>
>   6. Identify five major dialects.
>
>   7. Read a letter written in 行書.
>
>   8. Take a dictation test involving the writing of fifty 漢字 (kanji) from
> among the 当用漢字 (daily-use kanji) and give the principal readings of each.
>
>   9. Give the meanings of one hundred technical words or phrases (twenty
> each from the fields of medicine, law, economy, science, and the arts), to
> be selected by the testing committee as being understood by the average
> Japanese college graduate.
>
>   10. Walk down the street and read the first twenty signs to be sighted.
>
>   11. Give a ten-minute, impromptu talk about an everyday topic of
> conversation (sports, politics, travel, traffic, etc.), the topic to be
> selected by lottery.
>
>

BTW, much of the book is dated now, but is still a great source for
understanding Japanese culture and language, and it's also very funny.




True fluency is rare, and involves more than passing a standardized test. I
will refer you to [an answer I
gave](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/10335/how-would-you-define-
fluent-level-in-english/10339#10339) in EL&U.SE which I quoted from my
treasured copy of Jack Seward's _Japanese in Action_. He is talking about
Japanese, but I removed all the specific-language references because it's a
good measure for fluency in any language. **EDIT** : I've just added them
back, since I found my copy of the book after cleaning out my office for the
New Year. **(^_^)** The passage is now given as written, with only slight
adjustments.

> To be accurately judged fluent in Japanese, I believe a foreigner should
> have the following qualifications:
>
>   1. He should be able to conduct all his daily affairs (business, visits to
> the doctor, TV-ing, bar-hopping, lovemaking, etc.) completely in Japanese
> without strain.
>
>   2. His accent may not be perfect, but it should occasion no confusion or
> merriment among his listeners.
>
>   3. He should be able to read Japanese (newspapers, weekly magazines, and
> letters in the semi-cursive 行書 style), with only an occasional reference to
> a dictionary.
>
>

He goes on to propose that a test for fluency in the language should require
the test taker to:

>   1. Translate a newspaper article
>
>   2. Speak in Japanese on the telephone, as a test of accent.
>
>   3. Write a letter in Japanese.
>
>   4. Interpret a taped conversation between two Japanese.
>
>   5. Comprehend a newscast.
>
>   6. Identify five major dialects.
>
>   7. Read a letter written in 行書.
>
>   8. Take a dictation test involving the writing of fifty 漢字 (kanji) from
> among the 当用漢字 (daily-use kanji) and give the principal readings of each.
>
>   9. Give the meanings of one hundred technical words or phrases (twenty
> each from the fields of medicine, law, economy, science, and the arts), to
> be selected by the testing committee as being understood by the average
> Japanese college graduate.
>
>   10. Walk down the street and read the first twenty signs to be sighted.
>
>   11. Give a ten-minute, impromptu talk about an everyday topic of
> conversation (sports, politics, travel, traffic, etc.), the topic to be
> selected by lottery.
>
>

BTW, much of the book is dated now, but is still a great source for
understanding Japanese culture and language, and it's also very funny.

