How far do most people get in japanese before giving up?

[MeAndroo]

There were characters we had to write and characters we simply had to know the readings and meanings of. I don't remember all of them, but I remember 私 and 学生 were on there, and 研究室 was one that we had to be able to recognize. I think 勉強 was on there somewhere too.

Interesting. At this point, I can only wonder how I would've handled kanji that early.

You mean that some students took it upon themselves to study for the JLPT in their own time. In other words, knowing all of the JLPT L1 material was not part of the school cirriculum, correct?

No, my roommate's class used the previous year's JLPT 1 test in class as a measuring stick. I think he took it in class 4 times over the semester, and they were expected to improve every time. They were "strongly encouraged" to take the test, but it's true they weren't required to know all of Level 1 to pass. Unfortunately, that was the year or the year after they changed the format of the Level 1 test to something much more difficult...or so I'm told.

 

[Glenn]

I must admit that it's been a while since I've looked at the Heisig books.
It's my understanding that his first book introduces 2000 characters with mnemonic devices and one-word English equivalents, and without teaching any readings or compounds -- let alone actual examples of kanji used in sentences.
It's also my understanding that he basically states in the introduction of that book that his theory is that the most effective way to learn kanji is to learn how to write these 2000 characters and learn their "meaning" ("meaning" in the sense of an English gloss), before even trying to learn their readings and how they are actually used in writing the Japanese language.
Is this a gross misinterpretation? If it is, I'll reconsider my statements above, but if not, then I'll stand by my assertion that his theories are fundamentally flawed.
Assuming that the student's eventual goal is to be able to read Japanese, it would be much more practical and effective to devote his/her time to learning 500-700 characters, and _really_ learning them -- that is, learn their readings and practice reading them in context -- than to learn 2000 characters completely divorced from their actual role in written Japanese.
I mean, a person could finish Heisig's first book and be able to write ﾂ「窶敕ｷﾂ」 and tell you that it means "subtle" (or whatever "keyword" Heisig chose to associate with this character) but not be able to read and process a mind-numbingly simple sentence as ﾂ「窶堙??堙ｱ窶堙遺?ｰﾂｹﾅ?y窶堋ｪﾂ好窶堋ｫ窶堙??堋ｷ窶堋ｩﾂ？ﾂ」
I don't doubt that people who make it through all three of Heisig's books will have an impressive knowledge of a large set of characters, but his method (especially in its early stages) just strikes me as a backward and unwieldy way of learning to read Japanese.
But if I'm missing something important, please don't hesitate to point it out to me.

You're right that a person could finish Heisig's method and not be able to produce such a mind-numbingly simple sentence like that, if that person didn't study the language at all.

I don't think that his method is worthless. I did start using it after having learned about the Japanese writing system and after having learned intermediate to advanced grammar, though, so I learned them divorced from the language but I already knew the role they played. Aside from that his method made remembering the writings and meanings much easier than the rote memorization method than I had been using and that hadn't gotten me very far. It also allowed me to more easily remember the writings of new characters, like ﾃｨc. His method is the reason that I understand as much as I do when I read now, and can usually correctly guess the meaning and reading of an unknown word.

As for his views, he believes that one could use his method as a beginner and find great benefit in it and that it should only be used as a self-study device. If you want you can read the introduction and note to the fourth edition of book one here (it's a .pdf file).

 

[bentenmusume]

You're right that a person could finish Heisig's method and not be able to produce such a mind-numbingly simple sentence like that, if that person didn't study the language at all.
I don't think that his method is worthless.
<snip>

Hmm. Looking back, I think perhaps I went overboard in my comment. I don't think that Heisig's system is completely worthless. I think that if used by someone who already understands the role of kanji in the Japanese language, as a supplement to actual reading practice, then I think it can be of some value, like you say.

It's interesting, though, that Heisig himself would not suggest doing so, and says so in his introduction. He pretty much says flat out that learning the readings of characters before learning their "meanings" is "harmful." That all 2000 characters and their keywords should be memorized before trying to introduce any actual reading in context. I cannot buy into this.

In my experience, his method just seems to encourage too many naive learners who think that "learning kanji" (learning the characters and what they "mean", in English) is learning Japanese.

Also, I find his mnemonics haphazard. He describes the right hand two elements of 「砕」 as "baseball" and "needle". What do 九 and 十 have to do with 野球 and 針? "Well, he's not talking about the actual Japanese words," someone might say. To which I would respond -- that's the problem.

 

[Gaijinian]

ちゃんと読んどいたらいいっすね

 

[Elizabeth]

・・・ちゃんと読んどいたらいいっすね・・・ｗ

漢字はとても奥が深いですけどね。一つの漢字が漢字の組みあわせや使い方で読み方が変わるのは当たり前の事です。 覚えるのに大変時間がかかりましたよ。
私は、ざんねんながら、ずっと聴覚型のほうが視覚型よりですから。

 

[Gaijinian]

前の返事を闡明させてくださいね。
私は、答えを書いちゃったのに、話題に伴わなくて訂正しましたｗ。

 

[Elizabeth]

前の返事を闡明させてくださいね。
私は、答えを書いちゃったのに、話題に伴わなくて訂正しましたｗ。

「私のポスト」は、なにかの繋がりの説明があった後じゃないけど、
Gaijinian さんのポイントはわかりました。私にとっては「なぜ漢字がそんなに難しい」のか
説明してみました。話が横道へ逸れたらごめんなさいね。今とても疲れています。
次回は、適当な言葉を申し添えるようにします。

 

[m477]

In my experience, his method just seems to encourage too many naive learners who think that "learning kanji" (learning the characters and what they "mean", in English) is learning Japanese.

The title of the series is Remebering the Kanji. Your criticism here is as ridiculous as saying dictionaries are bad because they don't teach you compsition skills. Also, it's not a valid argument to say that the method is not effective just because a few stupid people can't grasp the meaning of those three simple words.

Heisig's method is a structured, systematic way of remembering the writing, reading, and usage for 3,000+ kanji. Stop and re-read that sentence a few times and the consider the implications for a moment.

Let me make an analogy to illustrate what I'm trying to say. Say we're both trying to build a 100-story building. You start by thowing some boards and drywall together, while I consult with an architect and prepare to pour the foundation. At first, you might say to me, "Ha! My way is better! Look, I've got 4 floors built and furnished already while you're just dumping cement into a big hole!" However, while the haphazard approach may give you the impression of quick progress at the beginning, you'll soon discover that it falls apart the further you try to take it.

Software development is another good example. The techniques needed to create a million-line program are quite different from those used to create a program with only a few hundred lines. Novice programmers will often find these more advanced abstractions confusing and overly complicated, but without them it would be nearly impossible to write, maintain, and extend large pieces of code.

Similarly, Heisig might seem counterintuitive to the beginner at first, but when you consider the its large-scale goal, its structured, systematic approach begins to make sense.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking rote memorization. Mnemonics and rote are simply different tools that are each suited to different situations, in the same way that each tool on a carpenter's workbench has a specific use.

For example, rote is probably the better method for learning kana. For such a small number of characters it would probably take more amount of time and energy to invent mnemonics than it would to simply memorize them. Rote might even be a better choice if all you want to learn a small number of kanji in the course of a beginner-level class.

However, if the goal is reading, writing and using 2,000-3,000+ kanji, Heisig is simply a much faster and more efficient tool.

 

[bentenmusume]

m477,

With all due respect, I disagree with your analogies and with your overall point.

The building analogy does not work for me. Consulting an architect, drawing up a floorplan, and building a proper foundation is obviously a necessary step in putting together a 100-floor skyscaper. Memorizing 3000 characters by associating them each with an English keyword is NOT a necessary step in learning to read Japanese.

To say that these two are equally important in terms of being a "proper foundation", and to imply that my idea of spending time from the beginning learning kanji by associating them with their readings, compounds, and actual sentences is akin to trying to build a skyscraper by "throwing some boards and drywall together" is patently ridiculous to me.

And it's not purely rote memorization that I'm suggesting -- you're learning kanji by associating them with the words/compounds they are used in writing, and the contexts that those words are used in, rather than cute little stories and English glosses.

I will express my opinion as simply as I can put it:

Heisig wants people to memorize 2000 characters and English meanings before they move on to actually learning to read real Japanese. You call this "efficient." I call it a colossal waste of time, and say that whatever "foundation" it could give a person is simply not worth it.

 

[m477]

Well, you seem to be able to do nothing other than to keep repeating the same tired old misconceptions, so I'm not sure what else to say at this point.

By the way, what was your score on the kanji section of JLPT L1 and what level of the kanji kentei have you passed? Since your not "wasting time" with any sort of systematic method of learning kanji, your knowledge must be pretty vast by this point, I suppose?

 

[bentenmusume]

I'm not quite sure what's happened here.

I thought we were having a logical debate as to the pros and cons of Heisig's method. You expressed your supporting point of view in the form of an analogy. I felt that your analogy was inaccurate, and pointed out why I believed so.

Your response to this was to deliver a personal attack at me. I haven't the slightest idea why it's relevant to this discussion, but I have passed JLPT 1 (I do not remember my exact score), and 4-kyuu of the Kanji Kentei. I will be trying for 3-kyuu this year, and am feeling pretty good about my chances. Your painting me an as ignoramus who knows nothing about the Japanese language is insulting. Look at my post archives if you are so interested in how well I do or don't know Japanese -- though I couldn't really care less if you do so or not.

You seem to be a serious student who has used Heisig as an effective part of your studies. That's wonderful, and I'm not trying to deny that this can be done. But I've also seen many students who gush about how Heisig has helped them "learn" hundreds many kanji, when all they've really accomplished is associating the characters with English words.

I will not deny that Heisig's mnemonics may very well make memorizing the characters easier for some people. But I stand by my opinion that his method of divorcing characters from their role in the Japanese language and focusing instead on English keywords is not an effective one, particularly at its early stages, when he asks students to memorize 2000 characters before learning how to read Japanese.

I'm done here.

 

[m477]

LOL, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

You come in this thread and start slamming other people's learning methods, calling them a "collosal waste of time."

You've spent pages and pages talking about how superior your way of learning is. So asking you what kind of results you've gotten from them is a "personal attack" and you "don't have the slightest idea" why it would be relevant?

 

[Glenn]

jt_,

I'm curious as to exactly how you learned the kanji. It's hard for me to imagine the conventional approach of writing them over and over again, and learning meanings, readings, and exemplary compounds all at the same time as being effective, but that's due to my own experience. So I'm just wondering why it worked so well for you (assuming that's how you did it).

 

[Glenn]

Let's keep this discussion civil, please. jt_ has already said that Heisig's method may have some merit, allowing for some error in his original assessment. At any rate, I can see his point. There's no need to get all worked up over this.

 

[bentenmusume]

LOL, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
You come in this thread and start slamming other people's learning methods, calling them a "collosal waste of time."
You've spent pages and pages talking about how superior your way of learning is. So asking you what kind of results you've gotten from them is a "personal attack" and you "don't have the slightest idea" why it would be relevant?

I'm sorry, but what exactly is your problem?

Can you not distinguish between the act of criticizing a pedagogical method and insulting the people who use it?

Yes. I think people who use Heisig's method are "wasting their time" in the sense that they could be learning to read Japanese in a more meaningful and more effective way.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to take this personally, but it no longer matters to me, as I am not interested in having a discussion with a person who cannot intelligently debate ideas on merit alone.

I don't want to turn this into a flame war, so I'm just going to put you on ignore. My apologies to everyone else for this ugly incident.

 

[bentenmusume]

jt_,
I'm curious as to exactly how you learned the kanji. It's hard for me to imagine the conventional approach of writing them over and over again, and learning meanings, readings, and exemplary compounds all at the same time as being effective, but that's due to my own experience. So I'm just wondering why it worked so well for you (assuming that's how you did it).

Glenn,

I'm sorry, I don't have time right now to explain in detail, but there are a number of books like Bonjinsha's "Basic Kanji Books", the IUC (Inter-University Center) "Kanji in Context" books published by the Japan Times, and Jorden/Noda's "Japanese: The Written Language" that introduce the characters along with their most common/useful compounds and actual sentences to further reinforce the vocabulary.

In my experience, this sort of meaningful context serves to reinforce the characters more in my mind than stories and English keywords, and also provides real meaningful Japanese reading practice.

Writing the characters "over and over" may seem tedious, but with the right context to reinforce them, they tend to stick in your mind with relatively little effort. At least, that's been my experience.

I'll try to expand on this later sometime when I have time.

 

[m477]

jt,
I'm sorry if I have offended you. However, I think that telling someone that something that they enjoy doing, have gotten benefit from and invested time in is a "complete waste of time" really verges on being insulting and intolerant, or at the very least tactless.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about Heisig.

I wish you the best of luck in your Japanese studies.

 

[Glenn]

Maybe it's just my personality and that I know jt_ decently well from his posts here, but I didn't get that impression at all.

 

[Mahoujin Tsukai]

I've been studying the language for about 14 months and am still interested in going further.

FYI, when I started my Japanese language classes, there were about 15 people in my class. In a month, the no. had dwindled to half.☝

 

[Mike Cash]

I've been studying the language for about 14 months and am still interested in going further.
FYI, when I started my Japanese language classes, there were about 15 people in my class. In a month, the no. had dwindled to half.☝

I remember the Japanese class at my university. It was made up of equal portions of Americans and foreign exchange students from Asia.

Within the first week, practically all the Americans had dropped the class.

 

[willuknight]

I had been trying to learn japanese by myself.

There are no classes in the town i live in, so for now this is my only option.

Thanks to the help of games, i was quickly able to learn kana, however knowing the characters hasn't transfered over to being able to read them with ease. I still read one character at a time, ie HI RA GA NA, rather then a word at a time, and i haven't been able to train myself out of this habbit.

I haven't really done any serious japanese studying for at least 5 months, mainly because i just haven't felt like it. I still want to learn Japanese, but I feel that its too hard to teach myself and motivate myself. I think that if i were in a classroom enviroment with a structured program, i'd likely be much more able to progress.