In the martial arts there is an argument that suggests that language in the form of verbal explanations and descriptions gets in the way of learning techniques and skills. Maybe it is time to take a closer look at how language, verbal explanation and description is used.
Here are the questions.
Is it possible that dissecting, analysing, verbalising or even naming techniques can be a hinderance and prevents us getting to the heart of what we are trying to do?
In our enthusiasm to be the best that we can be, are we inclined to over-think what we are doing and ignore a more direct route to mastery?
Is it also possible that there is another approach; one which has no space for the forests of verbiage we are liable to encounter in our training? Look at the way we can tie ourselves in knots wrestling with Japanese concepts, rules and principles and end up struggling with a language barrier which instead of giving us clarity just muddies the water still further. Is there a better way, or do we just need the right compass?
Part of solving the problem is to take a deep dive into why the language and the verbal descriptions are there in the first place.
Firstly, split it into categories; define the areas that need looking into. These are:
· The describers used day to day in the Dojo; the names we give specific techniques – at a very basic level. (For the majority of us, always in Japanese).
· Concepts that we can apply, including; strategies, timings, admonitions, principles, which are often the key identifiers of the Ryu or Style. (also… mostly in Japanese).
· The deliberate avoidance of language and description.
· Antiquated names of kata (Solo or paired).
· The way we choose to use language as part of our teaching pedagogy/methodology.
The Elephant in the room.
There’s no getting round this one; it’s the language thing.
Here’s where I put my credentials on the table and have to admit that my knowledge of the Japanese language is very very basic. This is where I have seen other westerners trip up when describing concepts in Japanese; I have done it myself.
If you are struggling to get to the bottom of a particular Japanese concept it is better to ask a native speaker; preferably somebody who knows the martial art concerned. If you ask a modern Japanese speaker to help you out with a particular concept, word or kanji they might well not know what the hell you are talking about, as it is liable to be so specialised. In addition, it’s worthwhile remembering that the type of Japanese you are referring to might be antiquated Japanese that barely exists in the modern world.
An example from me would be a long conversation I had with my Sensei regarding the naming of our organisation (and the logo) Shikukai. As chief instructor, Sugasawa Sensei was able to carefully unpacked for me the various double-meanings, symbolisms and coded messages contained within the kanji as well as the implications of the chosen colour. You can read the resulting blog post here, https://shikukai.com/2021/08/04/the-story-behind-the-shikukai-name-and-logo/
How the Japanese language is used in the average Dojo session.
As mentioned above, these are the descriptors we use on a regular basis. I am not going to dwell on this but there are a couple of points worth mentioning.
Recently, we had someone training with us as a beginner who was well versed in the Japanese language. Although she wasn’t confident in actually speaking Japanese, she had grown up listening to Japanese people in a multi-national multicultural environment, so she understood how the language worked. After training she quizzed me about the Japanese terms we used in the Dojo and was surprised how literal the descriptors were, and said that they were really really basic. She also commented that the language used in the Dojo was incredibly old-fashioned, ‘like something that old people would use’ (again, that would be the archaic language and terminology).
Many years ago I did a short course in business Japanese; the same points came up, but in contrast, the teacher complimented me on my pronunciation; she even pegged it as coming from a specific region; I have my Sensei(s) to thank for that?
Concepts.
When it comes to complicated concepts and the use of Japanese terminology in karate training, I find myself increasing irritated by the seeming fixation of ‘clever’ Japanese phrases, which, instead of clarifying things are inclined to cause needless complications. While it is true that some concepts struggle to cross the cultural divide, others tend to be so incredibly matter-of-fact as to be hardly worth commenting on and are generally in the domain of simple common sense.
The deliberate avoidance of language and description.
A common view is that historical Old School Japanese martial arts offered no verbal explanations; ‘just do it’ was their attitude. The idea was that learning should happen just through direct experience, a physical transmission of information, no need for words, in fact completely bypass the intellectual process, cut out the middle-man and go straight to the heart of the matter; learning by osmosis.
My worry is that we can take this idea too literally; perhaps the method of transmission in the old days was more nuanced?
I think that there were also other cultural factors at play; key amongst those was deference, respect and relationships in the Dojo hierarchy. For example, explanations may lead to the asking of questions from student to teacher; in traditional Japanese systems maybe that is a step too far and could clash with the ‘work it out for yourself’ method of learning, an approach much loved in Confucian education theory.1
In his essay, ‘Cultural Friction in Budo’2 kendo Sensei Abe Tetsushi described his puzzlement on observing western kendo teachers explaining and breaking down a technique into parts, something that was never seen in Japan, where the approach to the technique was to see it as a whole, not made up of parts than can be dissected and then reassembled.
What evidence supports this idea of the suppression of verbal explanations?
Sticking with what I know and have experienced, within Wado karate circles, most of the Japanese Sensei will say that from their own early experiences explanations of the verbal kind were not really a part of their own learning process – again, ‘just do it’.
The irony is that in many cases Japanese Sensei who currently teach in the west are brimming over with verbal explanations, lectures and whiteboard diagrams, particularly if they have the language skills. My view is that they have largely embraced the modern (western) ways of imparting information, because they have come see the strengths in such methods. That is not to say that they are unaware of potential pitfalls; particularly those of over-intellectualisation or suffering from ‘paralysis by analysis’.
The late Suzuki Tatsuo (of Wado Ryu), being very old school, was openly scornful of other Sensei who were eager to embrace the verbal explanatory way of teaching3. My own experiences of training under him suggested to me that he was not always comfortable diving into lengthy explanations that were not in his native language.
But, language barrier or not, I found it interesting watching recently unearthed film of the Wado Ryu founder Otsuka Hironori Sensei teaching. Although the film had no sound there seemed to be an awful lot of explaining going on, accompanying his physical demonstrations on various partners. This was also true the year I encountered him in the UK (1975) where he taught assisted by an able translator. The second grandmaster of Wado was similar and gave lengthy and detailed explanations, all delivered with such enthusiasm that his translators had trouble keeping up with him.
Antiquated language.
This refers to names attached to single techniques but more likely paired kata (I am not going to deal with the names of solo kata in karate, as that would need a delve into linguistic etymology that is way beyond me).
There are examples of Japanese names given to the older origin paired kata that are deliberately obscure or even poetic. I am not talking about simple functional labels given to techniques/kata in judo or other more recent systems, (e.g. a ‘Koshinage’ is just a ‘hip throw’) they just are what they are, no ambiguity. Instead, there are others which have coded meanings, which in-part, are meant to act as a kind of insider-language, only for the initiated; the kind of names you would find written on ancient scrolls of transmission. Some these names are only partly opaque, in that all you need is a very basic piece of information and you can decode them, while others are completely mysterious. I have even come across ones that are kinds of crude nicknames, shorthand semi-visual reference points, sometimes of a graphic nature that provide an easy handle to grasp what’s going on.
Of course, in Chinese Tai Chi they embrace the flowery poetic names for individual techniques; examples; ‘White crane spreads its wings’, ‘Parting the horse’s mane’, ‘Repulsing the monkey’, ‘Playing the lute’. While in Aikido, they stripped everything back to numbers, examples; ‘Ikkyo’ first principle, ‘Nikkyo’ second principle, ‘Sankyo’ etc. The ‘kyo’ part really means ‘lesson’, to designate them as ‘first lesson’ etc. i.e. ‘the first thing you are taught’ etc.4
Whatever these antiquated forms mean, I am sure that there are martial arts nerds who will obsess about them endlessly, but I wonder if such agonising analysis will actually improve their performance?
Conclusion.
My view is that it is essential to have your own compass to navigate through this landscape. Language has a place, verbal description and explanation have their uses. If the student is discerning and judicious and understand the pitfalls of over-analysis, then they have everything to gain from this additional dimension, but it is too easy to get bogged down in detail.
In part, it is the instructor’s responsibility to drip-feed the information at the right time. I sincerely believe that the instructor needs to tread the delicate balance between the temptation of spoon-feeding students, and carefully drawing them out to go on their own journey of discovery, a bit like an expert fisherman with lure and bait tempting, taunting, leading the student into the zone of self-discovery - don’t make it easy for them, if you do, they won’t value it. What comes from your own sweat is cherished and personal to you, after all, it came at a greater price than that which is offered to you on a plate.
Paraphrased from Confucian ideas; ‘If I show him [the student] one corner and he cannot construct the remaining three, I do not repeat the lesson’.
‘Budo Perspectives, Volume 1’. Edited by Alexander Bennett. 2005.
A piece he wrote in his final years, which was subsequently published at the event of his funeral in 2011, made this point very clearly.
] In some branches of old school Aikijutsu: Ikkyo is ‘Ude Osae Dori’ (‘Arm press hold’) Nikkyo is ‘Kote mawashi’ (Wrist turn in), Sankyo is ‘Mochi Mawari’ (Grip turning).