Kyoto Entrance English common mistakes
Kyoto Entrance English · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When translating an English sentence into Japanese, the candidate replaces each English word with a Japanese word in the same order, producing Japanese that keeps English word order (e.g., rendering a relative clause after the noun it modifies, or placing the object after the verb).
Under time pressure the candidate processes the sentence word by word instead of parsing its structure first; Japanese SOV order and pre-nominal modification require reordering, and the candidate has not practised holding a clause in memory while restructuring it.
What to do instead
Before writing any Japanese, bracket the English sentence into subject, predicate, and modifiers, and identify where each modifier attaches. Then build the Japanese from the predicate backward: verb last, modifiers before the noun they modify. Practise with 10 sentences a day, writing the bracketed analysis in the margin before the translation, so reordering becomes automatic.
The candidate translates content words correctly but drops or mistranslates function-bearing elements: articles (a/the), singular vs. plural, tense and aspect (has been -ing vs. was -ing), modal auxiliaries (may, must, should), and negation scope.
These items carry little meaning in isolation, so the candidate skims them, yet Japanese must encode number, tense, and modality explicitly or the translation is judged inaccurate; the candidate also conflates 'may' with 'will' and 'must not' with 'need not'.
What to do instead
After drafting, run a checklist pass over the English source marking every article, plural -s, auxiliary, and negative word, and confirm each is reflected in the Japanese. Build a personal table of modal renderings (may = ...kamoshirenai, must = ...ni chigainai, should = ...bekida, must not = ...shite wa naranai) and drill it until recognition is instant.
In shakudoku-style paraphrase questions the candidate copies a phrase from the passage verbatim or gives a vague summary ('the author thinks it is important') instead of stating the specified content in the candidate's own words within the word limit.
The candidate treats the task as 'find the sentence and copy it', misunderstanding that the question asks for interpretation; copying also feels safe because it cannot be 'wrong', and the candidate has not practised compressing a clause into a shorter equivalent expression.
What to do instead
Practise the three-step routine: locate the relevant span, underline its core proposition (who does what to whom, under what condition), then rewrite it with different wording at the required length. Train paraphrase pairs (e.g., 'is likely to' → 'probably will', 'not necessarily' → 'not always') and always count characters against the limit before finishing.
On Japanese-to-English translation, the candidate writes English that mirrors Japanese structure: topic-comment sentences without a clear subject, overuse of 'it is ... that ...' calques, missing subjects in subordinate clauses, and run-on sentences joined by commas.
Japanese permits omission of subjects and freely drops pronouns, so a literal transfer yields English with dangling subjects; the candidate also lacks practice in choosing a subject and verb for each clause, which English requires grammatically.
What to do instead
For every Japanese sentence, first decide and write down the subject of each clause, then choose a finite verb for it. Split long Japanese sentences into two or three English sentences at natural boundaries. After writing, check every English sentence for an explicit subject and a main verb, and read it aloud to catch comma splices.
When rewriting a sentence structurally (e.g., turning a that-clause into a participial phrase, passive into active, or direct quotation into indirect speech), the candidate changes the grammar but silently alters meaning, tense, or emphasis, or produces an ungrammatical hybrid.
The candidate focuses on the target form and forgets that the instruction is 'same meaning, different structure'; transformations such as passive-to-active require reassigning the subject and adjusting pronouns and tense backshift, which the candidate has not automated.
What to do instead
Use a two-column check: write the original proposition in plain form (who, does what, to whom, when), perform the transformation, then verify all four elements survive. Drill each transformation type separately (five items per type) with an answer key, and specifically practise tense backshift and pronoun changes in reported speech.
On English free composition, the candidate writes an essay with no explicit thesis, paragraphs that each introduce a new topic without development, and a conclusion that merely repeats the introduction; or the candidate memorises a template and forces unrelated content into it.
The candidate has practised sentence-level grammar but never paragraph architecture, and under exam time pressure writes down ideas in the order they occur; template memorisation substitutes for planning because the candidate fears having nothing to say.
What to do instead
Spend three minutes before writing on a one-line thesis plus a three-point outline, one point per body paragraph. Give each body paragraph the shape claim → reason → concrete example → link back to the thesis. Practise with 15-minute timed essays on past-style prompts and self-check against a fixed rubric (clear position, paragraph unity, linking words, no repetition).
The candidate uses advanced-looking vocabulary incorrectly: wrong collocations ('do a decision', 'strong rain'), wrong register in an academic essay ('a lot of', 'kids', contractions), and near-synonyms with different grammatical patterns (e.g., 'discuss about', 'explain me').
Vocabulary is learned as isolated word-plus-Japanese-gloss lists rather than in collocations and example sentences, so the candidate knows a word's rough meaning but not what it combines with or how formal it is.
What to do instead
Learn new words only in collocation chunks and one full example sentence, recording the preposition or pattern the word takes (discuss X / explain X to Y / be responsible for). Keep a register column marking formal vs. informal, and in essays replace informal items with academic equivalents before submitting.
On grammar-in-context items the candidate chooses the option that 'sounds right' in Japanese translation rather than testing the English structure, and so mis-selects on tense agreement, subjunctive, participle vs. gerund, and preposition choice after verbs and adjectives.
The candidate reads the sentence translated mentally into Japanese, where the distinction may not exist (e.g., subjunctive mood, article use), and the distractors are designed to match that Japanese intuition.
What to do instead
For each item, identify the grammatical trigger before reading the options: a time expression, a verb that requires a gerund, 'if' plus past perfect, a comparative construction. Decide the required form from the trigger, then match the option. Keep an error log of every missed item with the rule it tested and review it weekly.
On reading comprehension of argumentative prose, the candidate answers from general knowledge or personal opinion, or mistakes the author's cited opposing view for the author's own claim, and cannot distinguish the main conclusion from supporting evidence.
Argumentative passages deliberately present counterarguments and concessions ('admittedly', 'critics argue'), and the candidate reads for topic words rather than for argument structure; the candidate's own views also contaminate the answer.
What to do instead
Annotate as you read: mark the thesis with a single line, counterarguments with 'C', evidence with 'E', and conclusion with '∴'. For each question, locate the exact lines that justify the answer and reject options that are true in the world but not stated in the passage. Practise identifying the function of each paragraph in one phrase.
On integrated summary and cross-passage tasks, the candidate summarises each passage separately and lists points rather than synthesising, or imports details from one passage into the summary of another without noting the relationship (agreement, conflict, or different scope).
The candidate treats the task as two separate comprehension exercises and has not been taught to compare claims; the summary then becomes a list of facts rather than an organised account of what the passages jointly say.
What to do instead
Before writing, build a two-column table of each passage's main claim and key evidence, then state in one sentence how they relate. Write the summary organised by shared theme (point of agreement, point of difference, unresolved question), not by passage order, and check that every claim in the summary is traceable to a specific passage.
In the listening section the candidate tries to write down full sentences while the audio continues, misses the next utterance, and then answers from a fragment; or the candidate waits for exact wording and fails to recognise a paraphrase of the same idea.
Note-taking has not been trained for speed, and the candidate expects the answer to appear verbatim; listening passages typically restate the key information in different words, and the candidate also loses concentration after a single missed word.
What to do instead
Take notes in symbols and abbreviations (arrows for cause, '→' for result, initials for speakers), capturing keywords only, never full sentences. Practise recognising paraphrase by listening to short clips and restating the main point in your own words. If a word is missed, abandon it and rejoin at the next sentence boundary rather than replaying it mentally.