草稿から完成へFrom Draft to Final
Chapter Objectives
By the end of this chapter, you will be able to:
- Turn a project plan into a full first draft while preserving the five-part project statement from Chapter 16.
- Identify and repair structural problems in a draft, including weak transitions, unsupported claims, and misplaced source synthesis.
- Give and receive peer response using accurate, appropriately hedged Japanese.
- Edit a draft at the level of register, word choice, and sentence style, matching the audience and genre named in Chapter 16.
- Proofread a draft systematically, including a final kanji-conversion audit and a ruby-and-typography audit.
- Read and evaluate a revised draft against an earlier version, identifying what changed and why.
- Produce a revised written draft and a short spoken account explaining the most significant changes made during revision.
- Distinguish active production expectations from receptive recognition across all systems introduced in this chapter.
Communication Scenario
Emma now has an approved one-page project plan on how an online reading community discusses figurative language in contemporary short fiction. Her task this chapter is to expand that plan into a full first draft, then revise it before her next meeting with 田中先生. She exchanges a draft with a classmate, 佐藤さん, for peer response, then works through 田中先生's written comments. Along the way she keeps her terminology and verification log from Chapter 16 open, adding entries as new specialized terms and names appear in her draft.
- The learner reviews vocabulary and discourse patterns for drafting, revision, peer response, and proofreading.
- The learner reads a draft passage alongside its revised version and identifies the kinds of changes made.
- The learner listens to a short peer-response exchange and identifies the feedback given and the writer's response to it.
- The learner revises a short draft passage using the feedback techniques modeled in the chapter.
- The learner completes a performance task submitting a revised draft and a short spoken account of the revision process.
Core Vocabulary
This chapter controls vocabulary for drafting, structural revision, style editing, proofreading, presentation design, and adaptation. All items below are productive unless labeled receptive.
| Japanese | Reading | Meaning | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 草稿 | そうこう | draft | title term; contrast with 完成稿 |
| 構成 | こうせい | structure, composition | overall organization of a text |
| 推敲 | すいこう | careful revision, polishing | core verb-noun for this chapter's process |
| 添削 | てんさく | correction and comment (on a draft) | what an instructor or peer does to a draft |
| 指摘 | してき | pointing out (a problem) | used in peer-response and instructor comments |
| 根拠 | こんきょ | basis, grounds (for a claim) | reused with 妥当性 from Chapter 16 |
| つながり | つながり | connection, transition | used for weak or missing transitions |
| 文体 | ぶんたい | style, prose style | reused from Chapter 4 |
| 校正 | こうせい | proofreading | homophone of 構成; context disambiguates |
| 誤変換 | ごへんかん | incorrect IME conversion | core term for the conversion audit |
| 表記統一 | ひょうきとういつ | orthographic consistency | keeping kanji/kana choices consistent throughout a draft |
| 改訂版 | かいていばん | revised version | contrast with 草稿 |
| 査読 | さどく | peer review | formulaic/receptive; formal-register term for peer response |
Receptive only in this chapter: publisher-specific manuscript formatting terminology and formal journal peer-review procedures, which go beyond the classroom-scale revision process this chapter authorizes.
れんしゅう — Practice: Write one sentence using 構成 and つながり together to describe a structural problem in a draft, and one sentence using 草稿 and 改訂版 to describe the relationship between an early and later version of a text.
Script and Typography Focus
This chapter authorizes a final kanji-conversion audit, a ruby audit, and attention to punctuation, captions, tables, and accessibility, building directly on the terminology and verification log begun in Chapter 16.
Before submitting a revised draft, read through it specifically for 誤変換: words that IME conversion accepted but that do not match the intended meaning, since homophone pairs such as 構成 and 校正 are easy to swap by accident. Separately, check every place ruby appears: confirm each reading matches the current word-level reading rather than a leftover from an earlier draft, and confirm that no ruby has been duplicated over okurigana. Finally, confirm 表記統一 — that a term written with kanji in one place has not drifted into kana or a different kanji elsewhere in the same draft — since inconsistency of this kind is a common and avoidable sign of insufficient proofreading.
| Draft Text | Problem | Correction |
|---|---|---|
| 文章の校正を考える | intended "structure," not "proofreading" | 文章の構成を考える |
| 一次資料／一次史料 | same term written two ways in one draft | choose one form and use it throughout |
れんしゅう — Practice: Read through your Chapter 16 project plan and check for any homophone conversion errors or inconsistent kanji/kana choices, adding any newly confirmed readings to your terminology and verification log.
Pronunciation Focus
Reading a draft aloud is a practical revision technique: a sentence that is difficult to read aloud smoothly, or that requires an unnatural breath in the middle, often has a structural problem as well. As you read your own draft aloud, maintain even phrase-level pacing and clear mora timing on specialized terms, and note any point where you stumble, since that point often marks a place where the sentence should be shortened or the transition should be strengthened.
Grammar and Sentence Patterns
This chapter authorizes revision operations at the level of grammar, discourse, register, lexical choice, source integration, and typography. No new grammar paradigm is introduced beyond systems already consolidated in Units I through III; the focus here is applying that control to the task of revision.
1. Pointing out a structural problem
Purpose: to identify a weakness in organization or transition, hedged appropriately for peer or instructor comment.
- 第二段落と第三段落のつながりが弱いように思います。It seems to me that the connection between the second and third paragraphs is weak.〜ように思う (hedged instructor/peer observation)
2. Requesting or explaining a revision
Purpose: to explain what should change and why, in a way that supports rather than merely criticizes.
- この主張には根拠が足りないので、具体的な投稿例を一つ加えたほうがいいかもしれません。This claim doesn't have enough grounding, so it might be better to add one concrete example of a post.根拠が足りない + 〜たほうがいいかもしれない (softened suggestion)
3. Responding to feedback
Purpose: to acknowledge a comment and state how it will be addressed, without simply agreeing to everything.
- ご指摘ありがとうございます。おっしゃる通り根拠が弱いので、次の改訂版で具体例を追加します。Thank you for pointing that out. As you say, the grounding is weak, so I will add a concrete example in the next revised version.ご指摘 + おっしゃる通り (acknowledging feedback formally)
4. Explaining a style or register change
Purpose: to justify a change made for audience or genre reasons, connecting back to the audience decision from Chapter 16.
- 対象読者には専門家以外の読者も含まれるため、この部分の専門用語をより平易な表現に置き換えた。Since the target readership includes non-specialist readers, I replaced the specialized terminology in this section with plainer expressions.対象読者 (Ch. 16 reuse) + 〜に置き換える
5. Reporting what changed between drafts
Purpose: to summarize a revision for a reader comparing two versions.
- 草稿では結論が唐突だったが、改訂版では前の段落との関係を明示することで、つながりを強めた。In the draft, the conclusion felt abrupt, but in the revised version, I strengthened the connection by making the relationship with the preceding paragraph explicit.草稿 vs 改訂版 (contrast) + 〜ことで (means)
[structural problem, hedged] + [suggested or made revision, with reason] + [response to feedback] + [before/after contrast]
This is a discourse pattern drawing on hedged observation forms, the academic and audience-adaptation reasoning built in Chapters 7 and 14, and the source-synthesis language from Chapter 16, organized so that a writer can report on and justify a set of revisions clearly and honestly.
第二段落と第三段落のつながりが弱いように思ったので、根拠となる具体例を一つ追加した。また、対象読者には専門家以外の読者も含まれるため、専門用語をより平易な表現に置き換えた。草稿では結論が唐突だったが、改訂版では前の段落との関係を明示することで、つながりを強めた。
I thought the connection between the second and third paragraphs was weak, so I added one concrete example to serve as grounding. Also, since the target readership includes non-specialist readers, I replaced the specialized terminology with plainer expressions. In the draft, the conclusion felt abrupt, but in the revised version, I strengthened the connection by making the relationship with the preceding paragraph explicit.
Grammar Practice
- Write one sentence hedging a structural criticism using 〜ように思う.
- Write one sentence suggesting a revision and its reason using 〜たほうがいいかもしれない.
- Write one sentence responding to feedback that both acknowledges it and states a concrete next step.
- Write one sentence explaining a style or register change with reference to your audience.
- Write one sentence contrasting a draft and a revised version using 草稿では〜が、改訂版では〜.
- Combine all five into one connected revision report, following the Building Block pattern above.
Model Dialogue
Setting: Emma exchanges drafts with a classmate, 佐藤さん, for peer response before meeting 田中先生 again.
佐藤さん models hedged, specific peer feedback across three levels — evidence, register, and structure — and Emma models acknowledging feedback and stating a concrete next step for each point.
ないようりかい — Comprehension check: What three problems does 佐藤さん identify in Emma's draft? How does Emma respond to each one? What does Emma ask 佐藤さん to do after she revises?
Guided Practice
タスク１ — Giving feedback. Read a partner's (or your own earlier) draft and write two hedged comments following 佐藤さん's model: one about evidence, one about register or structure.
タスク２ — Responding to feedback. For each comment received, write one sentence acknowledging it and stating a concrete next step, following Emma's model.
タスク３ — Self-check. Read your own revision report from the Grammar Practice aloud, and confirm that it names a structural problem, a revision with reason, a response to feedback, and a before/after contrast.
Listening Practice
Ask your instructor, a partner, or a text-to-speech tool to read the following short passage aloud.
きくタスク — A peer-response exchange
草稿を読んで、気になったところが二つありました。一つ目は、二段落目の方言表現の分類が少し分かりにくいことです。具体的な例をもう一つ加えると、読者にとって分かりやすくなると思います。二つ目は、参考文献の紹介の仕方です。二次資料の内容をまとめただけになっていて、なぜその論文を選んだのかが書かれていません。その点を補ってもいいかもしれません。ご指摘ありがとうございます。分類の部分には例を追加します。参考文献についても、選んだ理由を一文加えるようにします。
聞くタスク — Listening task: Listen at least twice. (1) What two problems does the reviewer identify? (2) What does the reviewer suggest for each problem? (3) How does the writer respond to each suggestion? (4) Which vocabulary item from Chapter 16 does the passage reuse to describe the second problem?
Speaking Practice
コントロールされた練習 — Controlled practice: Naming the kind of change
- Given a pair of draft and revised sentences, state aloud in Japanese whether the change is one of structure, register, lexical choice, or source integration.
- Given a vague piece of feedback ("this part is unclear"), restate it aloud as a more specific, hedged comment, following 佐藤さん's model.
コミュニケーションタスク — Reporting your revision
Deliver a short spoken account of one to two minutes explaining the two or three most significant changes you made to your project plan since Chapter 16, using the revision-report pattern from the Grammar section.
ひとりでもできる練習 — Solo practice: Reading the Model Dialogue aloud
Read both roles of the Model Dialogue aloud, paying attention to the hedged, non-confrontational tone used throughout the peer-feedback exchange.
Reading Practice
Read the draft passage and its revised version below, then complete the questions that follow.
どっかいタスク（草稿）— Draft version
読者はコメント欄で比喩表現について自由に意見を書いている。多くの読者が独自の解釈をしている。この傾向は今後も続くと考えられる。
どっかいタスク（改訂版）— Revised version
読者はコメント欄で比喩表現について自由に意見を書いており、たとえば「この表現は登場人物の孤独感を強調していると思う」といった投稿のように、多くの読者が本文には明示されていない解釈を独自に加えている。今回の分析では三十件のコメントのうち二十件以上でこの傾向が見られたことから、この現象は一時的なものではなく、今後もこのコミュニティで継続的に見られると考えられる。
- What concrete example was added between the draft and the revised version?
- What kind of evidence (a number or count) was added to support the general claim?
- Identify one place where the revised version makes an implicit claim from the draft more explicit.
- Does the revision change the basic argument of the passage, or does it strengthen the same argument with more support? Explain your answer.
- Using the terms from the Core Vocabulary, describe what kind of revision this is: a change in 構成, 文体, or 根拠 (or more than one)?
Writing Workshop
Revise your Chapter 16 project plan into a fuller first draft, then produce a revised version applying the techniques from this chapter.
- Expand your project plan from Chapter 16 into a full first draft of two to three paragraphs, keeping the five-part project statement intact.
- Exchange drafts with a partner (or set your own draft aside for a day) and identify at least two structural, register, or evidence problems, following 佐藤さん's hedged feedback model.
- Respond to each comment in writing, acknowledging it and stating a concrete revision.
- Revise the draft, adding at least one concrete example or piece of evidence and adjusting terminology for your named audience.
- Run a kanji-conversion and ruby audit on the revised draft, checking specifically for homophone errors and orthographic consistency, and update your terminology and verification log.
- Write a short before/after summary of two or three sentences describing what changed and why, using the revision-report pattern.
チェックリスト — Revision checklist:
- The five-part project statement from Chapter 16 is still present and intact.
- At least one concrete example or piece of evidence has been added to support a general claim.
- Terminology has been checked against the named target readership.
- Transitions between paragraphs are explicit rather than abrupt.
- A kanji-conversion and ruby audit has been completed, with no unresolved homophone errors.
- Orthographic consistency (表記統一) has been checked for key terms.
- The terminology and verification log has been updated with any newly confirmed terms or names.
- Vocabulary and grammar remain within the systems authorized through this chapter.
Culture and Communication
In many Japanese academic and professional settings, written and spoken feedback on a draft is commonly phrased with hedges such as 〜ように思います or 〜かもしれません even when the reviewer is quite confident about the problem identified. This is generally a convention of collegial communication rather than a sign of uncertainty about the content itself, and learners should not read hedged feedback as weak or optional.
Specific expectations for peer review, instructor comments, and manuscript revision vary by institution, discipline, and generation. The patterns modeled in this chapter reflect common classroom and academic practice rather than a single fixed procedure that applies everywhere.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Error: Writing feedback like 分かりにくいです without naming which part is unclear or why.
Correction: Name the specific paragraph or sentence and the specific problem, following 佐藤さん's model in the Model Dialogue.
Error: Correcting spelling and word choice while leaving an unsupported claim or a weak transition unaddressed.
Correction: Treat structural and evidentiary revision as equally important as surface editing, and check both in every revision pass.
Error: Submitting a revised draft without checking for homophone conversion errors such as 校正 for 構成.
Correction: Run a dedicated conversion and ruby audit as a separate final step, as described in the Script and Typography Focus section above.
Chapter Review
Section A — ごい (Vocabulary)
1. Complete the Core Vocabulary practice above.
Section B — もじ (Script and Typography)
1. Complete the Script and Typography Focus practice above.
Section C — ぶんぽう (Grammar)
1. Complete the Grammar Practice exercises above.
Section D — どっかい (Reading)
1. Complete the Reading Practice questions above.
Section E — かくこと (Writing)
1. Complete all six steps of the Writing Workshop, as part of the Practical Performance Task below.
Section F — はなすこと (Speaking)
1. Complete the revision report from Speaking Practice, as part of the Practical Performance Task below.
Chapter 17 Checkpoint — Identifying and Responding to Feedback
Can you identify structural, register, and evidentiary problems in a draft, phrase feedback with appropriate hedging, and respond to feedback by acknowledging it and stating a concrete next step?
Chapter 17 Checkpoint — Proofreading and Reporting Revision
Can you run a kanji-conversion and ruby audit, check for orthographic consistency, and give a clear spoken or written account of what changed between a draft and a revised version?
Practical Performance Task
パフォーマンスタスク
草稿を改訂する — Drafting and Revising Your Research Project
Complete all four parts below to demonstrate control of this chapter's revision, peer-response, and proofreading systems.
- Listening: Complete the Listening Practice task above and summarize the two problems identified and the writer's responses.
- Reading: Answer the Reading Practice questions comparing the draft and revised passages.
- Written production: Submit your revised project draft from the Writing Workshop, including at least two peer or self-identified comments, your responses to them, and your updated terminology and verification log, checked against the revision checklist above.
- Spoken production: Deliver your recorded one- to two-minute account of the most significant changes made during revision, from Speaking Practice.
Assessment focus: at least two specific, appropriately hedged pieces of feedback with clear responses; a revised draft that strengthens evidence and adjusts register for the named audience without losing the five-part project statement; a completed kanji-conversion and ruby audit; and a clear, connected spoken or written account of what changed and why, with vocabulary and grammar remaining within the systems authorized through this chapter.
Answer Key
Core Vocabulary
Open-ended; representative combinations may pair 構成 and つながり, such as この草稿は構成がよいが、二段落目と三段落目のつながりが弱い。, and pair 草稿 and 改訂版, such as 草稿では結論が唐突だったが、改訂版ではつながりを強めた。
Script and Typography Focus
Open-ended; learners should identify at least one potential homophone risk (such as 構成 versus 校正) and confirm consistent kanji/kana choice for at least one recurring term, adding confirmed entries to the terminology and verification log.
Grammar Practice
(1)–(5) Open-ended; models: (1) この部分は結論と本文のつながりが弱いように思います。 (2) 具体例を一つ加えたほうがいいかもしれません。 (3) ご指摘ありがとうございます。次の改訂版で具体例を追加します。 (4) 対象読者には専門家以外も含まれるため、専門用語を平易な表現に置き換えました。 (5) 草稿では根拠が弱かったが、改訂版では具体例を加えて根拠を強めた。 (6) Open-ended; check that the combined statement moves through all four functions in a connected way, following the Building Block model.
Model Dialogue — Comprehension Check
佐藤さん identifies three problems: weak grounding for the claim in the third paragraph, specialized terminology in the fourth paragraph that may be difficult for the named audience, and an abrupt conclusion that does not connect clearly to the preceding paragraphs. Emma responds to each by agreeing and stating a concrete next step: adding a concrete example, replacing terminology with plainer expressions, and making the connection to earlier paragraphs more explicit. Emma asks 佐藤さん to read the revised version again once she has made all the changes.
Listening Practice — Model answers
(1) The two problems are an unclear classification of dialect expressions in the second paragraph and a source introduction that summarizes a secondary source without explaining why it was chosen. (2) For the first, the reviewer suggests adding one more concrete example; for the second, the reviewer suggests adding a sentence explaining the reason the source was chosen. (3) The writer agrees with both points and states that an example will be added to the classification section and a sentence about the reason for choosing the source will be added. (4) The passage reuses 二次資料 from Chapter 16 to describe the second problem.
Reading Practice
(1) A concrete example post is added: "this expression seems to emphasize the character's sense of loneliness." (2) A count is added — more than twenty out of thirty comments showed the pattern. (3) The claim that readers add interpretations not explicit in the text becomes more explicit and specific with the added example. (4) The revision does not change the basic argument; it strengthens the same argument with concrete evidence and quantified support. (5) This is primarily a change in 根拠 (grounding/evidence), with a secondary effect on 構成, since the added evidence also makes the paragraph's internal structure clearer.
Chapter Review — Sections A through D
Open-ended; check against the Core Vocabulary, Script and Typography Focus, Grammar Practice, and Reading Practice sections above.
Chapter Review — Sections E and F, and Practical Performance Task
These are open-ended, integrated production tasks. Evaluate the revised written draft and the recorded revision account against the assessment focus listed under the Practical Performance Task above.
Looking Ahead
いまできること — What you can do now
You can expand a project plan into a full draft, identify and phrase structural, register, and evidentiary problems with appropriate hedging, respond to feedback constructively, run a kanji-conversion and ruby audit, and give a clear account of how and why a draft changed. This revised draft will carry forward directly into Chapter 18, where you will prepare to present it publicly and defend it under questioning.