Learning Japanese fast - Why not use frequency lists for 80% coverage?

Aijin Wrote:I don't know if the analogy is fair. I'd compare the roman alphabet more to hiragana/katakana, which of course has to be learned before it can be used. But for kanji, it's hard for me to imagine learning only how to write the characters first, and then having to go back and learn all the readings, and then on top of that having to learn all the vocabulary that uses those various readings.

I learned about 200 characters the 'standard' way, by learning the writing, meaning, and readings at the same time. I found it very difficult to do this, and my retention rate was horrid. My theory is that the 'chunk size' of learning everything at once is too large. For me, there was too much information to connect to one character at once. Only learning the writing and a keyword has a smaller, more digestible 'chunk size.'

Incorporating the reading is also more difficult because its harder to make a connection to a seemingly arbitrary reading. Some try to incorporate a reading into their writing mnemonic, but I found I would have to stretch my stories too far to be rememberable.

I never actually went through and learned readings individually; I couldn't do it. After finishing RTK, I went AJATT style and learned readings through new vocabulary. This worked great for me.

Quote:To me it makes more sense to do it at the same time, so that you can instantly use what you learn. If you only learn how to write a character and it's rough English meaning, it has no practical application until you learn the readings and words that use it.

I fail to see how learning an arbitrary reading lets you use a character immediately, unless you already knew words using that reading. I think learning new vocab after knowing characters is more efficient, because you have more things to connect the new vocab too while learning.

Learning a character and its rough meaning doesn't have a direct practical application, but it provides major benefits. For me, it removed the feeling of 'omg what are all these random scribbles I'll never be able to learn this stuff' and replaced it with 'wow, I recognize most of these; I can actually become literate.' I likely would have stopped studying Japanese had I not stumbled upon RTK.
Also, going through RTK allows you to use real Japanese text as study material basically as soon as you are finished. You won't understand much or be able to actually read it, but you can study with something you enjoy, rather than being stuck with boring graded readers for a year or two while you learn kanji the standard way.
Also, when learning new words, already knowing the general meaning of kanji allows you to see the logic behind many compounds, and gives another mental hook to remember the word.

Quote:But, I think that probably both ways of learning have their advantages and in the end equal the same amount of time. So whatever works best for people is great

I would be interested in hearing more about how you guys feel that style helps you/is better than learning everything at once though! Pros/cons would be great.

Basically, I see it like this:
RTK is a 3 month investment of not getting any 'practical' use. In return, you get a huge stepping stone towards literacy. When I decided to go through RTK, I had no need for output, only a desire to understand. I also had stopped taking Japanese classes, and wasn't bound by a specific curriculum.
Standard study gets you through the kanji slower, but nets 'practical' results right away. For those who want immediate results, or need to produce output for class/work/etc, this may be better.