3

This is the first sentence of the article:

ヨーロッパでは日本料理の人気が高くて、だしを作るためのかつお節を使うも増えています
Japanese cuisine is popular in Europe and the amount using katsuobushi to make dashi is increasing.

Amount of what? Is 量 referring to the number countries in Europe that use katsuobushi? The number of people in Europe that use it? Or have I totally mis-parsed it?

My other thought was that だしを作るための might modify 量 rather than かつお節. So we have だしを作るための量も増えています "The amount (of katsuobushi) for making dashi is increasing", and かつお節を使う量も増えています. I couldn't make much sense out of this part so I discounted it.

Is there any difference if I say:

だしを作るためかつお節を使う量も増えています

so that だしを作るために adverbially modifies 使う?

  • What is "the" article? Could you link to a copy of it? – Earthliŋ Feb 9 '17 at 17:56
  • @Earthliŋ Done. – user3856370 Feb 9 '17 at 17:59
  • Thanks. I couldn't find it by exact search (probably the furigana?). – Earthliŋ Feb 9 '17 at 18:02
2

だしを作るためのかつお節を使う量 is "how much [European people] consume katsuobushi for making dashi." So this 量 refers to the amount of かつお節.

Consider the following "original" Japanese sentence:

ヨーロッパの人々はだしを作るためのかつお節を {たくさん|100グラム} 使う。
European people consume {a lot of | 100 g of} katsuobushi for making dashi.

Note that the amount is expressed adverbially as usual in Japanese. だしを作るための modifies かつお節, not 量. Let's omit the obvious subject:

だしを作るためのかつお節を {たくさん|100グラム} 使う。

Replace the bold part with 量 and pull it out to the end to form a relative clause:

だしを作るためのかつお節を使う量 …①


You can express the same thing using the passive voice. Starting from this sentence:

(ヨーロッパでは、)だしを作るためのかつお節がたくさん使われる。
(In Europe,) a lot of katsuobushi for making dashi is consumed.

By pulling out the たくさん part, you get this noun phrase:

だしを作るためのかつお節が使われる量 …②
how much katsuobushi for making dashi is consumed

The noun phrases ① and ② say the same thing. The only difference is that ① is active and ② is passive.


Here are some similar examples of "adverbial-head" relative clauses:

  • 13時に昼食を食べた。 I ate lunch at 13.
    → 昼食を食べた時間 the time when I ate lunch
  • 東京でその映画を見た。 I watched the movie in Tokyo.
    → その映画を見た場所 the place where I watched the movie

Obviously you don't eat 時間.


Lastly, in this example, you can change だしを作るための (modifying the following noun) to だしを作るために (modifying the following verb) without altering the meaning of the sentence.

1

Due to grammatical constraints 「かつお節を使う 」 is modifying 「量」 and 「だしを作るための」is modifying 「かつお節」.

Grammatically it forces the literal meaning "the amount of katsuo used to make dashi is also increasing due to the popularity of Japanese cooking in Europe", which is ambiguous.

Semantically, we can rule out the meaning that the katou/dashi ratio used in cooking is increasing.

Grammatically, it cannot mean that making dashi is another reason why the use of katsuo is increasing. However 「だしを作るために、かつお節を使う量も増えています。」could have that meaning.

We are forced to the logical conclusion that "the amount of katsuo used to make dashi" has already been mentioned earlier in the conversation, and that the popularity of Japanese cooking in Europe" is another reason for its increasing use.

Note: It is easier to translate if we look at

  • 「かつお節を使う量」

as the atomic semantic unit to translate and don't try to match the grammar within. Then we get something like:

  • "katsuo usage" or "katuo use" or "use of katsuo"

without even using the English word "amount".

  • 1
    Thanks for the reply. This interpretation confuses me further, because I'd expect 使う to be in passive form. – user3856370 Feb 9 '17 at 18:00
  • I added a note in the answer to address your valid question. – Craig Hicks Feb 9 '17 at 19:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.