+- kanji koohii FORUM (http://forum.koohii.com)
+-- Forum: Learning Japanese (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: General discussion (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-8.html)
+--- Thread: How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... (/thread-1020.html)
How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... - Codexus - 2007-12-19
This is madness. Why would anyone want to do that to themselves? It's not just that they are not learning an important skill, it's actually a lot more difficult to learn a kanji without writing it. Writing a kanji helps you break it down into more manageable chunks. Before you write a kanji it looks like random strokes, in some cases there is a general shape that can be identifiable but it's usually shared by more than one kanji. Writing a kanji is not learning to write its *seeing* that kanji for what it really is and how can you learn if you don't do that?
Personally, I couldn't care less about the actual skill of writing kanji, I want to be able to read. But learning to write is the best way to do that.
For a while, I thought that stroke order was a bit silly. I read that Japanese could somehow tell if you didn't write in the correct order but that seemed like BS to me. Then one day, I was looking at some shogi pieces painted with cursive characters. Where the character originally several little strokes, the artists just made one simplified stroke that flowed along a path that followed the stroke order! That was a revelation to me. Without knowing the stroke order I wouldn't have been able to recognize the character! How are those students ever going to be able to do that if they don't even learn proper stroke order?
How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... - dingomick - 2007-12-19
I'm with Codexus all the way. The usage of writing Japanese, or English or any world language being engulfed by technology, is definitely on the decline. But it's utter foolishness to discard it as a learning tool or skill. It is essential. I would argue every learning specialist in the world would agree that learning writing with reading creates the strongest reinforcement of all.
Also, Codexus' example of reading cursive is spot on. Before Heisig, I couldn't even recognize kanji on menus and signs and such even if I "knew" them. Now, I can recognize them because I know how they were produced.
How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... - timcampbell - 2007-12-19
This thread is really exploding. I better get a few thoughts in here before it runs away from me.
First, you might argue that learning to write the kanji isn't essential. And with computers, it does seem almost unnecessary at times. But I'll tell you what, it's pretty darned handy. If you take the advice (like on AJATT, and many other sites) to get away from romaji as quickly as possible and use katakana/hiragana and kanji, (which I also strongly advise), then it's awfully useful to be able to write down a japanese sentence completely in Japanese, is it not? I take few notes in my conversation classes, since I want to emphasize speaking (though there are no shortage of Japanese exchange students who are more than willing to write out lists for me to remember) - however, being able to jot down an example, or a new word, or phrase, COMPLETELY IN JAPANESE, is unquestionably the best way to immerse yourself in the language. Plus, writing out a kanji by hand is a great way to remember it.
Could you imagine learning German or French or Spanish and saying "Well, you don't actually expect me to write it out, now, do you?" It's almost disrespectful not to, isn't it?
I also think that any Japanese will take your language learning more seriously (and treat you more respectfully) when they realize you can scribble out a Japanese sentence on the back of a napkin.
The second big point I wanted to add here, which was the reason the thread started - was people arguing against Heisig. Maybe we should all just take a step back and look at the front cover of the book. It says "Remembering the Kanji." It doens't say "How to learn and master the Japanese language in three months while holding down a full-time job and raising five kids." It says REMEMBERING THE KANJI. That's all. That's what this whole book is about. Yes, volume one doesn't teach the sounds, it doesn't teach all the meanings. OK. So what. In my six weeks here I've learned 900 kanji, spending a couple hours a night at it. No one can convince me that I could have learned that many that quickly by simply rote repetition. I know, I tried. It's not going to happen. And even if I did, it would have taken me many more hours of study, and I certainly wouldn't have known all the meanings and sounds either. Are you kidding? Of course it's a long process, and hard, but heck, we're learning a new language here folks that's different than English in almost every way. Heisig came up with a simpler method for adults to REMEMBER THE KANJI. And for that, it works. Of course it's not complete. Heck, I've used English for 40 years and work full time as an editor and I'm still learning things about the English language, so give Heisig a break. I don't live in Japan, but being in Vancouver I'm possibly in the most kanjified city in Canada. And I'll tell you that even here, from menus to store fronts to newspaper headlines, I'm starting to recognize kanji everywhere. It's no longer a strange, elusive, unattainable ability. And I owe that to Heisig's method. Sure, it's not the only method. Try others if you want. But this one, to misquote from Seinfeld, is real, and its spectacular.
Heisig[kana] san doumo arigatou gozaimashita [/kana]
How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... - revenantkioku - 2007-12-19
Being able to write kanji is key. Even in conversation. If I can't remember the word but somehow I remember the kanji (trust me, it has happened!) I draw out the kanji on my palm in front of the person and nine times out of ten the conversation is able to go on smoothly!
Laura, I fail to see your point. People have gotten a mastery of Japanese language without Heisig? No shit, neh? Perhaps most of the people who have are spending time doing things other than bitching on a message board.
I did convince an 1kyuu toting person to use Heisig's book though. He's loving how it's giving him a "firmer" grasp on his kanji skills.
That all said, having finished RtK1 just last week, of course I'm not totally literate but I've been noticing a sharp increase in my recognition. Time will tell but I feel like literacy is just an arm's reach away!
How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... - JimmySeal - 2007-12-19
The Man Himself Wrote:There are those who simplify matters by deciding that there is no need for persons educated outside of the Japanese school system to bother learning how to write the language. If you can read, you will remember how to write a few hundred of the kanji along the way and you can leave the rest to computers to handle for you. Or so the argument goes. It has the full support of most Japanese who have never met a Western-educated individual who can write the kanji with the same fluency as they and have somehow decided that, without the benefit of an education in writing that begins at the pre-school level and goes all the way up to the last year of high school, there is no way they ever could. This is not only the case for ordinary readers of Japanese but also for the great masses of scholars of Japanese scholarship in the West. The hiragana and katakana, and perhaps a third-grade level of writing, but more than that is unreasonable to expect.Anyone who wants to be a normal member of Japanese society, for whatever period of time, needs to know how to write. I find occasion to write kanji for paperwork, memos, &c. quite often. The idea that "even Japanese can barely write kanji anymore" is a grave overstatement. The typical Japanese person can still write over a thousand kanji from memory, and there is a lot of handwritten Japanese going on. Japanese do not do all of their writing on computers and cellphones, and they do not carry dictionaries, electronic or otherwise, everywhere they go.
If you accept the argument, you are solidly in the majority camp. You would also be as wrong as they are. To begin with, there is no reason you cannot learn to write the kanji as fluently as you read them, and in a fraction of the time it takes to do it through the Japanese school system. What is more, without the ability to write, you are forever crippled, or at least limited to walking with the crutch of an electronic dictionary or computer. Finally, by learning to write you have helped to internationalize the fullness of the Japanese language beyond the present-day limits.
How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... - dukelexon - 2007-12-19
I'm watching the developments of this thread I created with a keen interest, but I will step out of the shadows long enough to say this:
The fact that it is technically POSSIBLE to learn to "read" kanji characters without being able to "write" them does not mean that one SHOULD, nor does it mean that it is "advisable." Particularly with Heisig, the extra step it takes to ensure that you can produce a legible version of a kanji at the SAME TIME as memorizing it takes mere seconds. If you're honestly the sort of person who just wants to move on to the next flashcard in your pre-printed deck ... then fine. It's your choice.
Understand, however, that you're not necessarily saving yourself any time. There's a lot of research that indicates that you'll get to a point of "simplified recognizability" a LOT more rapidly if you're familiar with the stroke order and writing of a kanji. If you're just trying to memorize the visual shape of it alone, it's a far more daunting task for your brain. This is a well-documented, scientific fact ... the act of writing a kanji uses your motor-memory to help burn the shape into your mind.
There's NO point in "skipping" the writing of kanji. It doesn't save enough time to warrant crippling yourself like that ... if it saves any time at all, which I don't believe it does -- it's going to take you longer to mentally pull a nearly identical-looking kanji out of a group of 50 for what it is if you can't write them ALL, and thus ... know exactly WHAT makes them different.
It's the rough equivalent of handing a kid a calculator, and never bothering to teach him HOW long division and multiplication works, WHAT it is, and WHY it works. Don't make yourself dependent on electronics like that ... the power can go out, computers can glitch, and batteries can drain. Your mind, so long as you're conscious, alive, and healthy, does not suffer from the same flaws.
If your goal is functional fluency and literacy in Japanese, you can't ever really say you're there if you can't write the language. A subjective opinion, perhaps, but I'd say nigh on everyone would agree with it.
One more thing:
The "too much time" argument against Heisig kind of uses circular logic. Yes, Heisig is hard. Yes, it takes the patience and passion to make it through hundreds of man-hours of study in order to get through all the jouyou kanji in this way. But, guess what? Heisig is hard, but ANY OTHER METHOD is MUCH harder. Heisig takes a while, but ANY OTHER METHOD takes AEONS by comparison. I don't think it's a stretch to make a blanket statement like that, as most of us probably have experience with at least three or four different methods.
In my opinion, there is almost ZERO use in "incrementally" learning kanji. It would really only be useful in a course of study SPECIFICALLY designed to start "layering" in the kanji as you learn it ... the sort of drivel one finds in college-level textbook that give you the "ten new kanji for this chapter."
In real-world applications, it doesn't help at all. Knowing 150/2000 jouyou kanji in the Ministry of Education's grade-level order won't get you any closer to reading a Japanese novel than will 150/2000 in "Heisig" order. The difference is, Heisig's would have taken you a week (that's me being conservative), and the textbook's presentation would have taken all semester.
Japanese literacy is very nearly an "all or nothing" proposition. You either know most-to-all of the jouyou, or you don't even come close to TOUCHING comprehension of a novel, newspaper, etc. If you can't make it through Heisig because you suddenly realize that you don't want to learn 2,000 kanji ... you're basically admitting to yourself that you never intend to become literate in Japanese, and it's more of a "casual" pursuit for you.
That's fine, but don't maintain any delusions. If you intend to learn kanji, the path with the absolute LEAST amount of headache and frustration lies with Heisig's method. You don't have to apply it exactly as he does, nor do you need to use all of his keywords ... but the core of the idea is invaluable. If you can't make it ... if the idea of learning 2,000 kanji is too daunting for you, and you just want to get your feet wet immediately and start learnin' the ol' nihongo ... Well, realize that you may as well know NO kanji if you're going to stop at 300 (where most college courses end) for all the good it'll do.
If you're serious about fluency, do yourself a favor, and take the time to finish the jouyou kanji. If you can't make it, it's time to re-examine just how motivated you are. Leaving the kanji in your study texts to remain a foreign mass of squiggles will only serve to seriously slow the rest of your Japanese language study, as long as you keep it that way.
Impatience is illogical. You want to get going faster? Fine. Skipping a comparitively easy, crash-course lesson in kanji from RTK1 will only SLOW YOU DOWN IN THE LONG RUN. Realize that, and use your impatience where it can do you the most good -- in finishing that first set of 2,000.
Okay, now I should quit arguing, and get back to studying. T_T
How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... - Nukemarine - 2007-12-19
If you think about it, Heisig by proxy chose an arbitrary number for the amount of Kanji you should know for literacy. He used the Jouyou as the list to use, which is an arbitrary list. It's made by a similar group that seperated that list into grade lists for the children to learn.
There's nothing magical about the 2042 Kanji he chose. Most happened to be on the Jouyou list. Some, although they were taught as primitives, are actually other Kanji (so you know more than 2042). While some are not Jouyou, just examples at the end to explain what else you can expect from other Kanji not on the "official" list. If for some reason the list were 2000, or even 1900, are you now illiterate when you learn pronunciation and contextual use? I'd say no, for the same reason you would not be more literate had the list been 2100 or 2200 (or 3000 in case of RTK 3).
However, RTK seems to be the only book that will: List kanji in primitive order, give UNIQUE English keywords to each of the Kanji. So, if you WANT to learn some other arbitrary number (say, 1000 or so of JLPT 2 list), you're gonna be hard pressed as such a book does not exist outside a fan designed list that may be floating around on the ethernet. Which means, to be functional when using RTK, your gonna need to weed through some low yield yield kanji to get to fairly common ones that come near the end. It's the nature of the method is all.
Put it this way: Would a person that can learn 400 kanji in a "traditional" manner, go onto fluency in Japanese and then go on to finishing the Jouyou with the help of RTK qualify as a success? What about a person that finished RTK1, went onto literacy in Japanese, then decided to finish RTK 3? Consider a person that used the Heisig method on a list that is 1000 (NOT the first 1000 of RTK, but the JLPT 2 list I've been mentioning), then goes onto literacy (though limited) decides to add on the next 1000 (kinda like the first example) then adds more literacy and finishes up with RTK 3. Each got the actual result (literacy), just utilized RTK at different points.
We do not know the motives, limits, or desires of each person. That's why I'm a big believer in options (or at least an organized spreadsheet). Anyway, forgive the typos. It's a late night here.
How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... - Biene - 2007-12-19
It's quite unfair to state that people who can't make it through RTK1 are never able to become literate in Japanese and that they should question their motivation.
And stating that you need to know most-to-all jouyou kanji to be able to even touch comprehension of novels, newspapers and such is quite irritating....what about all those Japanese kids who haven't learned all the jouyou kanji yet, don't they have anything available what they can read? Reading kids stuff might not be as satisfying as reading articles and novels written for adults, but it might help to motivate and get more acquainted with the Japanese language and their way of thinking.
I'm not over the hill yet, but already I would have been glad if the book had been combined with RTK2 and then divided into two books. In the way that you'd learn 1000 kanji (preferably very common ones or the fist few grades) and then learn their pronunciation. Then you could either go on with the next 1000 or stay for a while at 1000 and use them while concentration on vocabulary and grammar. Since I haven't completed either of the books I don't know if something like that would be possible.
Learning 2000+ kanji just with a keyword and how to write them IS a VERY demanding task, especially if time is a limiting factor and you therefor need longer than the often mentioned 3 months. Sooner or later you get the feeling that maybe the time would be better invested into learning vocabulary and grammar. The time *might* not be better invested but that's not the point at the time you're thinking this.
I'm one of those people who need to get results quickly or else I loose interest. That's a major problem when you try to finish RTK1 in order to be able to go on and tackle RTK2. That's why I start to understand that people said it would be better to start with Heisig AFTER you have learned some basic Japanese, which I read AFTER I started with RTK1...
How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... - revenantkioku - 2007-12-19
Nothing stops you from learning grammar and vocab while working on RTK1...you'd have to be a fool to think that.
But let me tell you that having finished RTK1, learning vocab is much easier. I don't have to worry about how to write the kanji for the words. It's just so much easier.
And if you lack patience, well, that's your problem and not the method's, haha.
How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... - nac_est - 2007-12-19
What's the point in arguing this much on every aspect of the method and analyzing after a certain point? 99% of the people who finished the book are satisfied with it, are happy to have used it and don't think that it was a waste of time. They also feel ready to suggest this method to anyone.
You don't need to say much more than that. If one still doesn't like the method, sorry for him, I think you'll get to fluency faster and easier than him. That's it.
How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... - Laura - 2007-12-19
まあHeisigだだっ子ぽいねえ。
How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... - Biene - 2007-12-19
Oh, I never said that it's the methods problem. Silly! ;P
But as I see it is RTK1 a book which teaches and then uses and enforces a method, not a method in itself. The method is great and simple and difficult all at the same time. Without this site though I'd have given up when the stories stopped, since I was/am not used to mnemonics and had/have to get used to this way of learning and thinking.
And as for vocab and grammar, it's very often either those or RTK1 in the evening, which again delays finishing with RTK1. Hearing again and again that finishing RTK1 immensely helped with vocab learning later on is one reason that keeps me going.
No matter what method, in the end it probably boils down to dedication, persistence, and motivation.
So back to learning...
How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... - billyclyde - 2007-12-19
Wow!
First, I think we all agree writing is good? Remember that we're talking about hypothetical arguments, heard & imagined, against RTK.
@dingomick, 300-400 takes a year? You're probably right.
@revenantkioku, about Laura's point? She was addressing Codexus' digust with the idea that one can learn to read kanji without learning to write. As C. had stated reading required a knowledge of writing, she gave a counterexample backing up my counterexample. Seems pretty clear; I don't think she was "bitching on a message board." We're all here talking, you included. At this point I can't tell if you're trolling or not ("your problem and not the method's, ha ha"). Laura, I of course can't speak for you, but it was originally my point, so...
@Jimmyseal, I don't think anyone played the "japanese people forget them all the time" card. My point is many foreigners (who no matter how hard they try will never be fully accepted as a "normal member of society" anyway) have chosen not to learn writing, but I don't see it hurt them like it admittedly would a native Japanese. But you have more experience in a Japanese workplace than me. If I'm fluent speaking & reading, and have a computer and a foreign passport, will no writing skill be an obstacle? Occasionally or every day? Do any of the non-JLPT certification tests (JETRO, say) have a writing component?
For a larger view, think of it like this: when writing was introduced, in any language, the tradeoff was a loss of memory. We shifted from an oral tradition, in which l-o-o-ong stories were memorized using mnemonic devices like poetic meter and repetition. With writing, books did the remembering for us. Likewise, when calculators came about, we lost calculation skill-- some people (to my amazement) cannot now do long division. Perhaps it hurts them occasionally, but they function in society just fine. The same pattern happens all the time when technologies come about, for better or worse.
Put simply, the computer could have the same effect on Japanese writing; it already has on Japanese-language education for foreigners. That's just a fact.
How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... - timcampbell - 2007-12-19
I wouldn't argue against anyone learning kanji outside Heisig's method, if that's what they want to do. But then don't argue against Heisig's method if you do so. Sure, it's nice to know all the commonly used kanji to be able to even read a children's book. So along with Heisig I've also learned a number of simple kanji on my own to help with that, since I'm also impatient, like many here. However, as a whole, if the goal is to remember all the 2042 kanji, then this is the most efficient method. If you only want to learn a couple hundred for directions and menus, go somewhere else.
Yet the order of Heisig's kanji are important, I believe. In learning by groups of primitives, you reinforce those primitives in your memory very quickly and efficiently. For example, if you see KING (Excuse me me here, I haven't figured out how to get kanji into the forum yet.) anyway, if you see KING, you will see it again in DISPLAY, then again in AMBITION, then again in HOLY, and so on. This is reinforcing not only the new kanji, but the old one AT THE SAME TIME. That's one reason the order in this book is efficient. The examples of this are endless, but the organization of the book is not just random. If you want to learn the kanji in the same order as the japanese ministry of education says you should, go ahead. If you want to learn them, and I mean all of them, in the quickest and easiest way possible, you can't overlook Heisig.
As for learning other Japanese at the same time, that seems to be a personal choice. I've been combining self-study of the language with conversation classes, which makes what I learn very practical. I'm not sure I could learn all 2042 kanji before starting ANY other Japanese lessons. However, if that's what you want, go for it. Either way, it doesn't dissuade me from believing that Heisig is the most effective and efficient way for those of us from non-kanji countries to stick all these symbols into our brains.
Which reminds me of another quick point, talking about keywords. Sure, they sometimes get in the way when switching to Japanese. But if you already know the kanji from another language, like Chinese, then the Chinese words will also get in the way - sure, some words are the same, but not all of them, and the pronounciations, though sometimes similar, can be wildly different. Is anyone going to argue then that a Chinese student knowing all the kanji from his or her native language will have any kind of disadvantage when learning to read Japanese? The opposite is true. The keyword is just that. It's a single word to hang a basic meaning on a kanji that, to us westerners, had absolutely no meaning before. Once we learn that, then we can add sounds, further meanings, etc., but the keywords are the hook to latch those kanji onto our memories.
Sorry for the long rant, now I'm going to be late for work.
How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... - Chadokoro_K - 2007-12-19
Yikes, this thread has really exploded on the topic of the importance of learning to write and read or just to read. So this is now off-topic, but I wrote it so I'll keep it here.
revenantkioku Wrote:Because in the great end, the keyword is thrown away, so it's not entirely relevant. Heisig weans you to the point where you're doing things yourself instead of relying upon him the whole time. It can be painful, but it's for the best, I'd say.I am a believer in the basic RTK method of presenting the kanji in an order that logically builds on itself, I just argue that there is room for improvement in presentation of the material.
The first time I completed RTK I had a lot of "keyword interference" when encountering unknown words. The keywords would pop into my head, which was helpful when they were representative of the kanji's meaning in usage but not so helpful when they were minor meanings and/or Heisig's creative meanings -- i.e. "but of course" (the real meaning of which is "conditions, situation, state of affairs"). It was also frustrating when my keyword meanings were "off" because I had used the wrong connotations/meanings in memorizing them.
It could just be me and the way my brain is wired, so others may not have this difficulty, but I never experienced the "natural falling away of the keywords" that Heisig described. The keywords continued to pop into my mind even though I tried to move on to a more direct association with the Japanese words they are used in.
timcampbell Wrote:Which reminds me of another quick point, talking about keywords. Sure, they sometimes get in the way when switching to Japanese. But if you already know the kanji from another language, like Chinese, then the Chinese words will also get in the way - sure, some words are the same, but not all of them, and the pronounciations, though sometimes similar, can be wildly different. Is anyone going to argue then that a Chinese student knowing all the kanji from his or her native language will have any kind of disadvantage when learning to read Japanese? The opposite is true.Yes, native Chinese learners of Japanese have a huge advantage despite the fact that kanji between the two languages may have a similar form but different meanings. But Westerners who use RTK are starting from scratch so all I'm saying is that it would be nice to use a list of clearly identified keyword meanings that is as faithful as possible to the Japanese meanings so as to minimize the difficulties that differences might cause.
When I discovered Reviewing the Kanji (Thank you, Fabrice!) and tackled RTK again I looked up every single character in a dictionary to make certain of its meaning(s). This meant that it took me significantly more time to finish RTK but it was worth it for me because now when the keywords and English meanings pop into my head they are always more accurate (and feel less intrusive and disjointed) than after that first pass through RTK.
I agree that it is best that Heisig weans people by giving full stories, then plots, then only keyword and primitives, but hey I paid money for the book and would like him to include clarification of the keywords.
Other people may not have the same trouble with the keywords that I did, but even so, this is an area that Heisig improved in "Reviewing the Hanzi" why not benefit RTK users by making the same improvement?
How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... - Magnadoodle - 2007-12-19
"How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method."
I think that's a rather provocative title considering the number of people who are actually arguing against the Heisig method on various internet forums. There might be a lot of ignorance, but there are also valid criticism.
As Nukemarine pointed out, the fact that you have to learn all of the jouyou kanjis in one shot is a big problem. Not everyone has the time to do that and even if they do, the fact is that it will take a long time for anyone to really be able to use all of those kanjis. Does it make sense to teach JLPT1 kanjis to someone who is just starting out when they will only be able to use them in a few years? They'll probably forget them by the time they know enough vocabulary. RTK is not perfect. It's a different way to solve the kanji problem and it's a good solution, but not a perfect one. It's adapted to individuals who can spare the time for the method and then follow up with some serious study.
You also have to consider the fact that all Japanese learning material and Japanese classes are more or less centered around the Jouyou/JLPT order. Most people will prefer learning in a group environment rather than locked up in front of a book or a computer screen. RTK doesn't make for the most convivial learning experience, even if it's effective.
In the end, it's better not to be too dogmatic about one approach or another. Heisig has its merits, which I don't really need to mention, and it has its failings. To each his own. I'm very interested in Nukemarine's idea about a KanjiLite though. The Heisig order is important, but If you were to split it in two parts, taking the JLPT2 list as a reference, it would probably still work.
@revenantkioku "Perhaps most of the people who have are spending time doing things other than bitching on a message board." Thanks for lowering the average mental age of this thread revenantkioku. And I'm glad to see that you're not spending any of your time bitching on message boards.
How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... - Chadokoro_K - 2007-12-19
Magnadoodle Wrote:I'm very interested in Nukemarine's idea about a KanjiLite though. The Heisig order is important, but If you were to split it in two parts, taking the JLPT2 list as a reference, it would probably still work.This idea has been put forth before (perhaps by Wrightak?) and I also think it is an interesting and valid approach -- especially for people new to Japanese. While I agree that the serious student of Japanese will *eventually* need a few hundred more characters than even those included in RTK1, it would be a nice option for those so inclined to use the Heisig method for 1,000 or so characters. The JLPT2 is as good a list as any to go by, of course the 1,000 most common characters as listed in the "Kanji Learner's Dictionary" has its merits as well. They could then follow up with serious study of the reading and usage for these kanji as well as Japanese grammar, speaking, etc, to round out their Japanese abilities before next tackling the remaining RTK1 kanji. After this an RTK3Lite might even be in order. Or perhaps the most useful RTK3 kanji could be added in with the remaining RTK1 kanji. (This has also been discussed on this site.)
Every student of Japanese has differing needs and time. As long as one follows the basic principle behind the order in which the kanji are introduced, breaking one's studies into these types of blocks should lead s.o. to the same ultimate destination as doing all of RTK1 (or all of RTK 1 & 3) in one go -- provided that they follow through with their studies on the reading and usage of the characters.
The only drawback to an RTKLite might be how many kanji functioning as building blocks would need to be added in to the list. If this number is very high this whole argument could become moot as it might be better to stick with RTK1 the way it is.
Has anyone ever tried to figure out the total number of kanji needed for an RTKLite (based on, say, the JLPT2)?
How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... - revenantkioku - 2007-12-19
Perhaps this isn't a place for jokes?
I'm really not getting this RtKLite thing. Isn't the required kanji for JLPT2 1000+? How much time are you really saving? If you need to get kanji faster for JLPT2, it's my honest opinion that you aren't ready for JLPT2.
How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... - Magnadoodle - 2007-12-19
Was it a joke? Things can sound more aggressive when written in a forum post I guess.
If you compare learning 1000 vs 2000 kanjis using RTK, there's a world of difference. Getting halfway is pretty easy and something most people can manage really quickly. Now, since you would have to introduce more primitives per kanji, learning the 1100 or so kanjis required for RTKLite would be slower than finishing half of Heisig's book. Still, it would allow people who think that 2000 kanjis is too much a way to benefit from the Heisig method.
Quote:If you need to get kanji faster for JLPT2, it's my honest opinion that you aren't ready for JLPT2.I don't really see the link between finishing RTK and passing JLPT2. You only need a thousand kanjis for JLPT2, why would you need to learn more? There's a whole lot of other stuff to learn for the exam so, if a RTKLite can give you extra time... Plus people don't like to learn useless stuff if they can avoid it. Of course, the extra 1000 kanjis are not useless in the long term, but in the short term you won't be seeing any of them (without furigana) in your studying materials.
How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... - dingomick - 2007-12-19
Some responses:
revenantkioku Wrote:If I can't remember the word but somehow I remember the kanji (trust me, it has happened!) I draw out the kanji on my palm in front of the person and nine times out of ten the conversation is able to go on smoothly!I do that ALL the time! Even for words I don't know, I'll draw kanji I know encompass the meaning and the Japanese person most often has an "Ahh!" moment. I have totally neglected recognizing that that bonus from RTK. :lol: I use it several times a week. Also, the Japanese person will often finish writing an actual word for me using my kanji in a correct compound, so I gain a new word, its pronunciation, and gather its meaning from actual conversation context.
--Jimmyseal, thanks for providing a quote from the man himself. Dukelexon, thanks for expanding on my first argument about motor-memory reinforcement. Whether to neglect writing or not shouldn't even be a question to debate...
--Dukelexon, thank you also for expanding a lot more on the relative time argument. Huzzah! That should be a sticky. =D Students should learn some survival Japanese when they first arrive in Japan, or first start studying Japanese. But it is a lack of vision that would let anyone argue that Heisig is a "waste of time", imperfect a method as it is.
--I don't think anyone here is arguing that NOT doing RTK will keep you from becoming literate in Japanese, but a lot of people are taking it that way. People, including myself, are just impassioned that is one of the best steps to quickER and easiER fluency compared to other methods. No, Heisig's arbitrary choice of kanji does not ensure fluency. But the jouyou list of kanji exists for a reason: they cover the vast majority of commonly used kanji. Numerous studies of every major language show that comprehension explodes up to around 80% vocabulary level before leveling off. Even if you've seen this graph and explanation before it's a good reminder of how Japanese students perceive the English they study, and how we perceive Japanese. A key excerpt:
"Here is what a text looks like to someone who knows the most frequent 2000 words and no others. Words that are not on the 2000 list have been replaced by gaps:
If _____ planting rates are _____ with planting _____
satisfied in each _____ and the forests milled at
the earliest opportunity, the _____ wood supplies
could further increase to about 36 million _____ meters
_____ in the period 2001-2015. (Nation, 1990, p. 242.)
(Text A: 80% of words known)
Text A has 40 words, seven of which are unknown or (7/40 =) 16%. It seems clear that someone reading this text would get a some idea of the topic, but not exactly what was being said about the topic.
Here is the same text with 95% of its words known, or 5% unknown:
If current planting rates are maintained with planting
targets satisfied in each _____ and the forests milled
at the earliest opportunity, the available wood supplies
could further _____ to about 36 million cubic meters
annually in the period 2001-2015.
(Text B: 95% of words known)
In Text B, the main idea of the text is reasonably clear. And the concepts needed to fill the two remaining gaps are also clear, so that if these had been new words instead of gaps there is a good chance the words would have been understood through inference."
Of course knowing the meanings of a kanji as opposed to the meanings of the compounds they are in is a lower level of comprehension, but it is still drastically farther total comprehension than non-RTK methods can even come close to providing. I rely on it every day.
Chadokoro_K Wrote:I looked up every single character in a dictionary to make certain of its meaning(s). This meant that it took me significantly more time to finish RTK but it was worth it for me because now when the keywords and English meanings pop into my head they are always more accurate (and feel less intrusive and disjointed) than after that first pass through RTK.I did this and save myself a lot of trouble. I started RTK a year ago almost exactly and finished a couple months later. This site wasn't as populated as it is now, and some stories revolved around an incorrect grasp of the meaning of a keyword. You'll see a lot of the older stories have a 'NOTE' tag or something to warn people that stories at the time were using the wrong definition. "DISCRIMINATE" comes to mind as an example. Most stories used it in a sense of racism rather than fine taste. Granted, some people use a more memorable story with a different meaning to lead them to the correct meaning. But it's an extra step, and I think many people simply didn't know the difference because they didn't look up the kanji while they were studying, something Heisig of course endorses.
How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... - dingomick - 2007-12-19
Also, as for RTKLite, I've had many daydreams about making just that. It would require a bit of plotting primitives, and it may even be a good idea to start the book with a "primitive alphabet" for the user to memorize first, but I definitely think it would be possible to create a list using the same method of progression as RTK but only covering 1000-1100 kanji. RTKLite2 would require a few backpeddles to cover some missed primitives and/or rehash some primitives that are introduced in the first half but are mostly used in the second, but I don't think it would tax the learner much.
I'm going to ignore this tempting project until after I finish the kanken Feb 3...
How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... - Nukemarine - 2007-12-19
dingomick Wrote:Also, as for RTKLite, I've had many daydreams about making just that. It would require a bit of plotting primitives, and it may even be a good idea to start the book with a "primitive alphabet" for the user to memorize first, but I definitely think it would be possible to create a list using the same method of progression as RTK but only covering 1000-1100 kanji. RTKLite2 would require a few backpeddles to cover some missed primitives and/or rehash some primitives that are introduced in the first half but are mostly used in the second, but I don't think it would tax the learner much.Well, if there's a sub-list of Primitives that one could access and maybe even add stories too, that could help. Obviously, it would only apply to the primitives that don't have a heisig number. To further help it along, perhaps tag it with the closest Heisig number with a alpha tag on the end such as Frame 32a for "animal legs" or something like that. Would REALLY help those that do not have the book as reference for the non-Heisig number primitives. In fact, if there is a "RTKLite" list, it would help there too.
I'm going to ignore this tempting project until after I finish the kanken Feb 3...
How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... - usis35 - 2007-12-19
dingomick Wrote:Also, as for RTKLite, I've had many daydreams about making just that. It would require a bit of plotting primitives, and it may even be a good idea to start the book with a "primitive alphabet" for the user to memorize first, but I definitely think it would be possible to create a list using the same method of progression as RTK but only covering 1000-1100 kanji. RTKLite2 would require a few backpeddles to cover some missed primitives and/or rehash some primitives that are introduced in the first half but are mostly used in the second, but I don't think it would tax the learner much.I definitely think that RTKLite is a great idea. Why? Motivation.
I'm going to ignore this tempting project until I finish the kanken Feb 3...
Motivation is the powerful engine that moves you towards success and accomplishments in every area.
When you are beginning to study Japanese, you have to take a huge decision. As time is limited, you have to choose between spending time studying grammar/vocab, or RTK1. The first one gives you a sense that you are learning the language right from the start, this is very motivating. The second one (RTK1) is maybe the more time efficient, as knowing RTK1 will speed the grammar/vocab learning, but you can only enjoy this benefits when you master all RTK1 set. Besides, devoting all the time to study RTK1 before studying any other Japanese material, requires to invest a lot before you can see results. You are spending time learning kanjis that you probably won't need for a long time until you master an extensive vocabulary. Maybe you will even want to discontinue you Japanese studies, and you would have wasted a lot of time and energy, because you will forget almost all the kanjis if you don't continue reviewing.
Of course you can choose to tackle both topics simultaneously. By the way, this is the path I am following right now. But this path is an extremely time demanding path, taking the time necessary to finish RTK1 to more than double that it would take if you devote to it all your Japanese quota.
So, what a big solution would be to have an RTKLite, that will surely take considerably less than half the time to master all RTK1, even considering that we should learn some extra primitives. This will demand us a lot less daily reviewing to keep the kanjis that we have learnt, thus allowing to devote more time to grammar/vocab, profiting much earlier from the benefit of knowing the kanjis. All in all, we would be much more motivated, by seeing results much earlier. Then , we will have time and motivation to study RTKLite2 and even RTK3.
How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... - revenantkioku - 2007-12-20
Magnadoodle Wrote:Well, no, there is no like between finishing RTK and JLPT2. But this RTKLite sounds like it's trying to rush something. And if you're rushing for JLPT2, I don't see you as being ready. That's all.Quote:If you need to get kanji faster for JLPT2, it's my honest opinion that you aren't ready for JLPT2.I don't really see the link between finishing RTK and passing JLPT2. You only need a thousand kanjis for JLPT2, why would you need to learn more? There's a whole lot of other stuff to learn for the exam so, if a RTKLite can give you extra time... Plus people don't like to learn useless stuff if they can avoid it. Of course, the extra 1000 kanjis are not useless in the long term, but in the short term you won't be seeing any of them (without furigana) in your studying materials.
I personally think if you're worried about the time spent on the rest of the kanji in RTK, you've not really the time for JLPT2 just yet. Unless you have some crazy situation where you need JLPT2 ASAP (which uh, you've got a year for until the next one!) you really don't need to cut out the kanji.
How can anyone POSSIBLY argue against the Heisig method... - Biene - 2007-12-20
Amen to that, usis35.
If something like RTKLite1 and -2 would exist it could be really motivating for a lot of people. After all, it is less intimidating to learn 2000+ kanji in two chunks of 1000 instead of one big step. In the end it might not be as fast as RTK1, but the result should be the same (if kanji and primitives are well choosen following Heisig's method).
So how about starting a new thread for discussing how to best tackle a RTKLite-project? I wouldn't know where to put such a thread, so I won't start one.
