mattyjaddy Wrote:...
Besides, writing kanji a thousand times isn't a bad thing (as you mentioned). I don't know about you, but I wrote each kanji everytime I did a flashcard.
...

Eh... ...a thousand times is not that much.

I started about half a year ago, and I am up to 39,000 times, using this site's SRS and jMemorize.

When I hit 40,000 or two notebook's worth, I'll post a snapshot. Luckily, jMemorize has finally tailed off to around 50 reviews a day, so maybe in a month or so.

My handwriting has improved a great deal, but I figure to reach the point where natives won't be able to tell through my handwriting that I am a foreigner will require around 50-60,000.

kfmfe04 Wrote:

mattyjaddy Wrote:...
Besides, writing kanji a thousand times isn't a bad thing (as you mentioned). I don't know about you, but I wrote each kanji everytime I did a flashcard.
...

Eh... ...a thousand times is not that much.

I started about half a year ago, and I am up to 39,000 times, using this site's SRS and jMemorize.

When I hit 40,000 or two notebook's worth, I'll post a snapshot. Luckily, jMemorize has finally tailed off to around 50 reviews a day, so maybe in a month or so.

My handwriting has improved a great deal, but I figure to reach the point where natives won't be able to tell through my handwriting that I am a foreigner will require around 50-60,000.

I think he meant a single kanji a thousand times. 40,000 reviews for 2100 kanji averages only 20 each. That in itself works against the argument that RTK is rote. Plus, you did not write them out to memorize them. You wrote them out to see if you memorized them. Way different.

PS: You need to sloppy up the handwriting to look like a native. I think writing kanji is the one area where we surpass the average native (based on personal experience). No, I`m not talking calligraphy though.

mattyjaddy Wrote:Thanks, liosama, for taking time away from your studies for a such a long response. Truth be told, I've not done my SRS kanji reviews for almost three weeks. I'm not worried because I trust the method enough to feel that they are still there. It's just that sometimes it takes a second to recall some--I have to resort to the radicals and story to recall the keyword sometimes when I'm reading these days.

Hmm well i'm still at a really early stage in my Japanese study (~4th kyuu probably) So I don't really have much of an opinion on how Heisig will work for me later, but i've felt it work (in exams etc) where i instantly recognize a kanji without thinking of the story meaning keyword whatever, and other times when i had to look at the radicals and primitives etc. I think this is fine and normal, and will get better with more reading, more juko study.

mattyjaddy Wrote:I guess I should have started with what you said, but I don't think I would have gotten as many interesting and helpful responses. I guess my point was if the other methods are rote memorization, then Heisig is also a form of rote learning for kanji, and if Heisig isn't rote memorization, then the other methods aren't rote learning either. People often try to spread Heisig and bury other methods by calling the latter "rote learning" but not really explaining what that means. It seems that many people think those "other methods" rely solely on looking at a kanji and then writing it thousands of times to remember it. Period. If that's what they mean when they generalize by saying it's rote learning, then that is inaccurate and not helpful. There is much more to the "other methods" than that. Many of these methods are also supported by valid research.

Yeah I know quite a few methods of learning kanji as well, im not exactly sure if they're supported by 'research' but the two basic streams i know are;

http://tell.fll.purdue.edu/KanjiWiki/?K25 - kanji wiki -
Which aims to draw some sort of a pictograph from a kanji. Purely out of imagination. It was how I learnt hiragana in primary school (KA for KAT off his head, and TO for THERE IS A NAIL IN MY TOe, and whatever) [I had to relearn it by rote when i started Japanese again at university]. All good and well for ~ 50 phonetic kana but i can't see myself learning ~2k kanji like that. It isn't consistent.

Learning off Etymology.
This is an interesting method of study which i try to stick close to wherever I can, just for purity sake. But the earliest form/forms change SO MUCH that it is a waste of time to learn a character off its etymological roots. It is interesting to read up once or twice. Heck for really obscure etymologies i've actually learned characters this way e.g
必ず which i noticed instantly, by looking at the awkward stroke order that the previous form definitely wasn't heart + some other crap, it was in fact |戈|. A spear held between two poles. I don't think i'll ever forget this. But for most other characters, the previous forms aren't so fun and amazing as my example above. I can't really think of a good one right now to counter learning kanji only from etymology but here goes;
The best example I got right now isr 東. Which you probably learn right after you learn sun and tree. You see the sun rising up through a tree in the east. Excellent mnemonic. Works so easy because you have a physically accurate notion of the sun rising in the east. And a tree is there to justify this 'rise'.
http://www.chineseetymology.org/Characte...j14361.gif was the earliest form (and still was all the way up to the Han dynasty), it was a pictograph of a sack of some sort, the meaning was completely phonetically borrowed. Wow, how is someone going to remember this character when the phonetic was borrowed and implanted into some pictograph which the real meaning was unknown?
I don't know. But it seems in-efficient and useless to me.

There are other books which aim to mix etymology and cute stories together but i find this method futile when you apply them to a large number of characters.
Binary search/sort is hell fast but for 10000 entries, you wouldn't really want to use it, and you'd rather Merge-sort or quick sort which work well for large numbers (but not so well for short )
Different algorithms work well for different numbers.

Heisig praise is all well and good i know, i love it but it is getting a tad redundant on these forums. People say the exact same thing every time (i don't blame them because it is so poorly understood despite how simple it really is).
I have read a book titled something like
"Ideogram: Chinese Characters and the Myth of Disembodied Meaning"
J. Marshall Unger.

Perhaps one of the worst books I've ever read. He makes an interesting point about ideograms in general and aims to relate that, and test results by DeFrances to prove that there is no meaning associated with the characters. A very extreme end i believe. I know that they aren't purely ideographic either, but rather a mix of something in-between more shifted towards the phonetic side (with their earlier forms much closer to the ideographic side though i state this VERY loosely). I have read too little books to have an opinion worth something, but I feel that Marshall (having critized heisig) Should understand what heisig is about before criticizing his method.
I don't want to delve into his analysis but in a nutshell he criticizes Heisig because in his book, where 墓 (grave) was given its meaning by using the 'primitive' graveyard which has 'no meaning' what-so-ever. But he fails to realize that heisig used this primtiive simply as a mnemonic aid for remembering how to write grave. Why is this any worse than the kid who draws his dad edit: wrong link http://tell.fll.purdue.edu/KanjiWiki/?K25
which is probably how J. Marshall Unger. learnt kanji back in his day.

mattyjaddy Wrote:And perhaps this topic is a stray to learning Japanese, but it's not a stray to linguistics and second language acquisition, which is my primary interest. Japanese happens to be the current medium or topic for my linguistic pursuits since I'm living in Japan. Thanks for taking the time to help me get a better understanding of how people view this particular issue.

I'm also interested in this topic (hence my posts). One thing i don't like about linguists, or people that read their papers is that they think once a study 'proves' something, then that is that. I don't classify linguistics a science per se wrt physics or chemistry whereby mathematical models can match practical ones to 10 decimal places.
There are so many things which can be overlooked (which i feel ARE overlooked) in studies[eg; one by John DeFrances which is quoted by so many 'anti-heisig' people] that 'prove' kanji have no meaning and are purely phonetic.

Nukemarine Wrote:PS: You need to sloppy up the handwriting to look like a native. I think writing kanji is the one area where we surpass the average native (based on personal experience). No, I`m not talking calligraphy though.

That's a pretty cocky comment.

Can you tell the difference between fast-written shorthand Kanji/Hanzi and bad handwriting?

To me, bad handwriting looks like what a elementary school pupil writes (and the way most foreigners write).

When an adult native writes fast/shorthand Kanji/Hanji, I think it's much harder to tell what is good handwriting and what is sloppy handwriting - at least I'm not at the level where I can distinguish the difference.

Perhaps your handwriting looks much better than those of the average native - if so, I think you are the exception, not the rule, amongst learners of Japanese. So I don't know what you mean by "we" there (certainly doesn't include ME!)...

Maybe you can post a snapshot of your handwriting sample so I can show all my native Japanese coworkers how much better my gaijin buddy, Nukemarine, can write. That should make them green with envy.

kfmfe04 Wrote:

Nukemarine Wrote:PS: You need to sloppy up the handwriting to look like a native. I think writing kanji is the one area where we surpass the average native (based on personal experience). No, I`m not talking calligraphy though.

That's a pretty cocky comment.

Can you tell the difference between fast-written shorthand Kanji/Hanzi and bad handwriting?

To me, bad handwriting looks like what a elementary school pupil writes (and the way most foreigners write).

When an adult native writes fast/shorthand Kanji/Hanji, I think it's much harder to tell what is good handwriting and what is sloppy handwriting - at least I'm not at the level where I can distinguish the difference.

Perhaps your handwriting looks much better than those of the average native - if so, I think you are the exception, not the rule, amongst learners of Japanese. So I don't know what you mean by "we" there (certainly doesn't include ME!)...

Maybe you can post a snapshot of your handwriting sample so I can show all my native Japanese coworkers how much better my gaijin buddy, Nukemarine, can write. That should make them green with envy.

I'm think by we, he meant we studying Heisig. Not foreigners in general. But that's just me taking a guess.

I think that shorthand sloppy writing is writing. After a while of shorthanding it, the short hand becomes the default as the correct writing slowly fades away.

kazelee Wrote:I think that shorthand sloppy writing is writing. After a while of shorthanding it, the short hand becomes the default as the correct writing slowly fades away.

Just so that we're on the same page, let's take a look at this:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:K...ritten.png

These are examples of print (left) and "cursive" (right).

Maybe the right-hand samples are what Nukemarine considers sloppy?

It's totally subjective, but with the possible exception of 首, I actually think all the right samples actually look better.

In general, I think most people learn how to write the left before they learn to do the right. Unfortunately, I only know how to write the type of characters on the left, but one day, I will take the time to learn the right-hand-side. I've seen books in Japanese bookstores that teach you various ways of writing the right-hand-script.

LOL. I can't understand the right side. @_@

The right side looks horrible IMO. I don't mind when kanji aren't completely straight and boxy but making 3 strokes into one etc...nah, it just looks sloppy IMO.

I just want to thank the OP because this made me realize how stupid these discussions actually are.
I will now close the forum window and get back to actually learning shit.
Thanks!

I would have been able to read all the right side except 月. It just looks weird.

It takes some getting used to - but I think it's neat.

Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cur_Eg.png

The right hand side looks like it can be done in 3 strokes vs 20 strokes on the left hand side.

This is even more abstract than the previous set - falling into calligraphy...

[Katsuo]

kfmfe04 Wrote:Unfortunately, I only know how to write the type of characters on the left, but one day, I will take the time to learn the right-hand-side. I've seen books in Japanese bookstores that teach you various ways of writing the right-hand-script.

NHK will soon be broadcasting a series of twelve 5-minute programs that teach adult handwriting. Title: 簡単ルールで大人の字を書く.

NHK channel 3 (Education) Monday to Thursday 11:55-12:00 (repeated 21:55-22:00 on some days), January 5th to 22nd 2009. Book to accompany the broadcasts is ISBN 978-4-14-827166-9

{There was an earlier series (a couple of years ago) on how to write in an attractive style: 簡単ルールできれいな字を書く。That series was later released in a book + DVD format.}

Tobberoth - the right side may look terrible, but if you have to deal with any handwriting in your daily life, you better learn to read it. My Japanese isn't good enough to where the context and flow help me decipher hard to read kanji and my kanji are still weak enough that hard to read kanji are plenty when handwritten. But I do enjoy the challenge of trying to figure out what they are.

kfmfe04 - What I think is funny is that people have to be taught the right side. It's like kids being taught cursive writing and being forced to write in it. Hello. Where did cursive writing come from? It came from the print writing. Just sped up really fast and made to connect so that it's easier to write quickly. So maybe exercises in recognition (also known as reading) would be worthwhile but forcing people to write in it doesn't seem necessary. I eventually switched back to print after getting out of the phase of schooling where we had to use cursive. And eventually sometime in university a true cursive 's' appeared in my print when I wrote fast. It was a big aha moment to finally find out how the cursive s came from the print s. It just never clicked before that point. I think the right-side kanji are something similar. But, of course, in true Japanese form, someone along the way has likely decided to codify just how this print -> cursive transition should go and wrote a book and created a new Japanese bunka. I remember seeing a lesson on this cursive writing on TV. I guess you could argue that knowing how to write it yourself means you can recognize it easier.

liosama - Yep. More reading. That's the stage I'm in. But recently, I've slacked off on that end as well. And the reading I've been doing has been a children's novel since it's easier to read on the go. I don't need a dictionary as much (not at all, if I don't mind not understanding every word and having a sort of hazy understanding at points). But it also means less time with kanji. I need to get back into reading blogs and 英語は絶対勉強するな！. It was just starting to get interesting.

I like that you put research in quotes--more aptly, rabbit ears. I could see your virtual fingers clawing at the truthiness of the word. Sure research must be questioned, but it has its place. Part of my point was that there's often conflicting research results and therefore there are often conflicting applications, including methods of study.

I would like to ask you to perhaps rephrase your last paragraph. It seems you dislike, not linguists, but people in general who read a study and think it proves something definitively. This is a phenomenon that is perhaps most common with non-experts rather than experts. And definitely not one limited to linguists. Your idea that linguistics is not a "hard science" is one that is shared by many people. There are linguists that wish to make linguistics a "hard science". I think this is a funny distinction. I don't really like it because it implies that it is a soft science, which seems to be derogatory. But it would be silly to think that a field of study involving something as complex as the human brain and human interaction would in any way resemble the science of matter, for example. But when you get to specific topics, there are ambiguous areas in physics just as there are "hard" and definite areas in linguistics. I also think you're comparing apples to oranges when you put a mathematical model and its application next to a linguistic study and its application. Generally, studies are only as good as they are replicable. Often the best use of studies is to take several similar studies and extrapolate a conclusion or hypothesis or application by looking at them all together. For my part, I don't tend to like when people jump to righteousness at the drop of a single study either.

Katsuo Wrote:{There was an earlier series (a couple of years ago) on how to write in an attractive style: 簡単ルールできれいな字を書く。That series was later released in a book + DVD format.}

Excellent!

Thank you, Katsuo - just ordered it from amazon.co.jp, along with the 練習帳

mattyjaddy, I just want to learn the cursive for aesthetic reasons - I think it makes learning Kanji/Hanzi even more enjoyable...

Personally I like semi-cursive kanji.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:K...ritten.png
The problem with using the RtK and RevtK is that all the kanji in print and electronic form, and look slightly different then the handwritten form. (one reason I don't understand why some try to write the kanji perfect based only on RtK examples) Luckily I've had previous exposure to hand written kanji and know how most radicals should look like. (I have me denshijisho for the others) So if I rush, I get something very similar to the semi-cursive examples.

However, calligraphy and cursive abbreviated forms are a different matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cur_Eg.png
I lived with a Japanese family and when I asked お父さん to write something or other I could barely read it. It looked cool, but that a different matter.

As far as this topic goes. RtK is not rote by nature. In the book, Heisig talks about visual memory versus imaginative memory. Visual=looking at and writing until it is memorized. Imaginative=Stories, mnemonics, etc. Rote memorization is akin to visual memory.

I don't understand why some are defending that RtK is rote. I'm on frame 1293 and since around 700 I have not written any Kanji more than 3 times. In fact I make it a policy not write a kanji more than once, unless I write it wrong the first time. Having written around 400 of the later kanji 1 time each I can write them correctly on command. There was never any rote, drilling, writing, etc. I simply polish my stories, when they are perfect, they stick. Period.

kfmfe04 - You're right. I take back some of what I wrote.

Thinking especially of the kanji 子, I was nowhere near writing that as a native would. In some (many?) cases, you have to know which parts of a kanji get emphasized or can change slightly from the print version in order for it to look balanced to a native writer's eye. Natives generally spend a lot of time in a classroom looking at both the correct print and handwritten forms so that even when they are adults and have their own personal handwriting it still looks similar to everyone else's with the correct parts connected and emphasized. So for non-natives, it's good for us to study, especially if we will be writing by hand a lot or just for the pleasure of writing kanji that would be pleasing to Japanese eyes.

revenantkioku - You're welcome. Having fun learning shit!

oregum - If you read the posts in this thread, you might understand how some people can view it as rote as the concept of rote seems to vary from person to person. Also, rote doesn't equal wrote. But as was recently mentioned, writing the kanji as you study the flashcards can really help your muscle memory for when you go to write the kanji in a real context. I preferred doing this by air-writing with my finger, others prefer using a pen and paper. If you plan on mainly typing or reading kanji, perhaps this isn't as important.

And an apology to all. - I know the idea that Heisig is rote is questionable. I feel that the use of rote to describe other methods equally questionable. But I used the forum title I did since I thought it would be more likely to attract some interesting dialogue on the subject. I see now that perhaps what it did in some cases was attract more dialogue typed from a defensive stance rather than anything, which might have hindered the dialogue.

Merry Christmas to all from Japan!

mattyjaddy Wrote:I would like to ask you to perhaps rephrase your last paragraph. It seems you dislike, not linguists, but people in general who read a study and think it proves something definitively. This is a phenomenon that is perhaps most common with non-experts rather than experts. And definitely not one limited to linguists. Your idea that linguistics is not a "hard science" is one that is shared by many people. There are linguists that wish to make linguistics a "hard science".
I think this is a funny distinction. I don't really like it because it implies that it is a soft science, which seems to be derogatory. But it would be silly to think that a field of study involving something as complex as the human brain and human interaction would in any way resemble the science of matter, for example. But when you get to specific topics, there are ambiguous areas in physics just as there are "hard" and definite areas in linguistics. I also think you're comparing apples to oranges when you put a mathematical model and its application next to a linguistic study and its application. Generally, studies are only as good as they are replicable. Often the best use of studies is to take several similar studies and extrapolate a conclusion or hypothesis or application by looking at them all together. For my part, I don't tend to like when people jump to righteousness at the drop of a single study either.

Yeah perhaps i was too rash in my thought when i typed that post up, but certainly yes from what i understand linguistics to be, it is far too vast and complex a topic to be anything really. Perhaps i should read some more chomsky and take up a course on linguistics before i ridicule myself even further

No worries. We all have opinions and should feel free to express them. It's the only way we can get anywhere really. That is if we are open to changing our minds.

Linguistics is a pretty vast field. A lot of attention these days is on the cognitive side of things, which itself is vast. A lot of universities have moved their linguistics programs from the English department to a free standing department or to a combined Cognitive Science/Linguistics department.

Linguistics is a pretty vast subject; it's more defined than "science" but a bit vaguer than, say, astronomy. Probably on par with biology.