Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,492
Thanks:
50
If you don't understand the definition then don't stress yourself out about it and check a Jp-En dictionary for that particular word. It's better to actually get it than to be stubborn and end up not learning anything =).
If you don't understand it because you know the words but don't get what they're trying to say then don't worry, that's due to lack of practice and you'll get used to it in time, if you don't understand it because you don't know all the words then just look up those words too. In time it'll fix itself.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 206
Thanks:
0
I know this may sound stupid but could you give me an example lets say I was looking up the word 行く in a mono dictionary.
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,492
Thanks:
50
... Mono Dictionaries actually won't tell you anything for 行く. Too simple, I guess ^^'.
Take the random word 検査。Goo has ” [名](スル)ある基準をもとに、異状の有無、適不適などを調べること。「所持品を―する」「適性―」”
Say you don't understand what it says. You go off to a JP-EN dictionary and find out the english equivalent to find out what it means. (in other words, just because you switch to a monolingual dictionary doesn't mean you have to limit yourself to one)
If you know all the words and simply can't understand what the general idea is, it's just lack of reading comprehension exercise, which will fix itself as you read more. If there are unknown words in the definition, you can just look them up and add those to the words you learn. Either way, just read the definitions, try to understand what they mean, and keep trying to learn the words in the definitions as well as the ones you're looking up.
V Quark said what I was trying to say, but he did it better.
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 188
Thanks:
0
Honestly, don't stress about it. You don't need to go completely J-J right away. There's no harm in doing a little of both.
When I'm looking up new vocabulary word, I check the J-J definition first. If I can understand it, then it gets written in my notebook and put into Anki. If not, then I look at the J-E definition and use that instead.
At the beginning, there were very few J-J definitions that I could understand, but I'm now gradually using more and more. It just seems more efficient and less confusing than doing the 'branching' method of looking up the J-definitions of the words that were used in the definition of the word that you were originally looking up.
Edited: 2013-04-14, 5:51 pm
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 324
Thanks:
2
Bilingual definitions help too. They use shorter JP definitions while providing the translation in the more understood language, English.
Most online dictionaries use Kenkyuusha for bilingual searches.
Edited: 2013-04-14, 6:52 pm
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
Thanks:
0
Isn't the most important thing understanding? J-J dictionaries can be important in clearing up poor translations, or extending on non-trivial definitions, but they're far from the holy grail. Your choice of dictionary isn't going to improve your Japanese unless it's actually helping you to learn words.
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,541
Thanks:
4
I never believed the switch to mono was all that important, and I still do both. Basically, I am most likely to use a mono definition for a word (on an anki card) when the English definition I found for a word confused me. For example, if I thought the English definition was vague so I wanted to know more. In such a case, I'll use a J-J definition even if I had to look up a word in the definition.
Otherwise, I'll only use a J-J definition for a word if I already understand every word in the definition, and can read it quickly and easily. If not, I'll just use an English definition.
If mono definitions are still difficult for you to read, I wouldn't bother.
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,944
Thanks:
11
I'm going to say the same thing I say every time this comes up -- I've been studying Japanese for 14 years now and passed JLPT 1 in 2004, and I still use J->E dictionaries to this day. I've never understood or agreed with the idea that you should "switch" to J-J; of course you need to be able to use J-J at some point, but "switching" to J-J is totally unnecessary.
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 502
Thanks:
0
Yeah, I think it's bad to think you have to necessarily "switch" 100% right away. Mix for a while. Use both at the same time. I, too, occasionally use J-E together with J-J for proper nouns and words based in Buddhist beliefs and such.
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,944
Thanks:
11
You're greatly overstating the benefit of J-J dictionaries. There are disadvantages to using them as well, no matter what your level.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,093
Thanks:
54
I tend to use J->E dictionaries for sentence examples with English translations, and I use J->J dictionaries for precise definitions, and I use EDICT (mostly via rikai) for a quick English gloss when that's all I need.
I think it is worth spending some time looking words up in J->J first and only looking them up in J->E after you've gotten what you can from the J->J, and I can see it being worth looking up some known words - dictionaries have their own idiomatic way of phrasing things (very tersely!) ; forcing yourself for a period at least to go to J->J first will force you to get used to that, and after you're comfortable you can use whatever dictionary for its own advantages.
As for being a gateway to fluency, I think the only 'going monolingual' that truly matters is when you 'go monolingual' in your own head and read Japanese words and understand them without thinking of an English translation. I think that comes from reading more Japanese, not from the language of your dictionary.
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 298
Thanks:
0
For what its worth I agree with most of the later posters here, I've always used J->E and don't think it makes a huge difference to use J->J. Usually you are looking up a word in context anyway so the english definition will be good enough.
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,492
Thanks:
50
Regarding the benefit of J-J and J-E, I'd like to use my experience using E-Romanian and E-E. I switched to using exclusively E-E about 10 years ago. While you do get extra nuance (especially when it comes to words which are translated using the same word, which happens a lot when translating from English as it has a way wider vocab than other languages), you lose points when it comes to matching the words from one language to another. This is now a big problem for me as I'm basically reading En-Ro dictionaries in preparation for my translations MA, since I know the words in English very well, and the words in Romanian, but I can't match them up well. Then there's words which can easily be directly translated without losing much (names of trees, flowers, foods) where I'm completely useless since i just think of them as "a type of tree/flower/food".
I think the main pro monolingual dictionaries argument is becoming self-sufficient in the target language, which is of course important, but it depends on what you want to use the language for, I guess. I noticed having issues in J-Ro translation classes in which I see a Japanese word, can picture it/explain it, but for the life of me I can't think of a direct equivalent. I'm thinking of making the switch back to J-E dictionaries for this reason.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
Thanks:
0
@Zgarbas
Some great points. I've thought about the exact same thing when people say they just use sentences without any back. I didn't mention it myself because I figured translation isn't important for everyone, but it does make me wonder how well I actually understand the nuance of a word when I can't express it in my L1.
@howtwosavealif3
My post sounded a bit abrasive, but it's nothing personal - I just can't stand anything related to AJATT. I mentioned katakana and definitions containing English, because I was wondering how the more brainwashed among the disciples would spiritually reconcile this with their unwavering J-J commitment.
As for 胡麻, I don't think the images or the J-J definition guarantee someone simply understands it's sesame. There's nothing lost here by using J-E. People should incorporate whatever resources and methods they like into learning, and you seem to agree with that. I just have issues with the idea of (or at least the practice of preaching about) walking tightropes to avoid a quick J-E lookup when it's not only helpful and convenient but may actually be the better option.
As a learner with the intention to be fully self sufficient as the target language as I am in my native language, monolingual dictionaries will be, at some point, of a similar importance as English dictionaries are for my English understanding. Yet there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding (and I'm going to name a name which tends to evoke emotionalism, but try to look beyond that) about the concept and some of this I attribute to the almost dependance many people seem to have in following what Khatzmoto at AJATT has researched and prepackaged for the general audience.
Especially the concept of switching to mono-lingual dictionaries after the arbitrary (and without merit, in my opinion) number of X (1000 or some such) mined sentences in the target language. Yes, using the target language to understand the target language can provide a sense of understanding which ultimately a translation cannot obtain, however at what cost? Most of those using English as their language of choice are likely to be native English speakers (or, like many of the forum members here, not native but f**k me may as well be; better than many natives I've spoken to) and in such their conceptual understanding of the world has a strong association to that language. To simply discard many years worth of complex neurological networks linking up to various sectors of our brain which have honed a greater understanding of the nuanced and idiosyncratic phenomenon that is to exist, is almost unnervingly wasteful.
In due time, with enough repeated exposure, many of these conceptual mappings of our language regions of the brain with eventually adapt to rationalizing the world through the lens and locus of our experiences, as it once did with the language before it. But being able to use the native language as a temporary scaffolding, even in the "advance" stages of learning, provides support, not a crutch.
It does remind somewhat or the similar argument (again, popularized heavily from within AJATT) of "grammar does not exist/don't learn grammar". Yet being able to use already learned grammatical and linguistic concepts, along with a native language accessibility, allows for targeted study of patterns and nuances (made especially easier with the use of the three popular volumes of A Dictionary of Japanese Grammar), as opposed to handing things simply as they come.
I think a lot of people misunderstand the functions of language, and often confuse the map for the territory- particularly in respect to the misinterpretation of Antimoon's 10k Sentence Method, popularized by AJATT, by not taking into account the group was already heavily studied in English before they began the project.
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 428
Thanks:
5
For what it's worth AJATT isn't alone is advocacy of transitioning to monolingual resources. JALUP spends quite a bit of time on this subject and how important it is to switch once you've gotten to the intermediate stage.