So I am drilling from the keyword to the kanji, but now I'm wondering if that's the system I should be using for the rest of my Japanese studies as well? I'm in a class, and last semester I was able to get an "A" on the mid-term and final, but now all the terms things I knew I have already forgotten.

My question is, have I been studying wrong by going from Japanese to English with flash cards? Should I be doing it the other way around? Anyone with experience in this? Thanks!

isharabash Wrote:I'm in a class, and last semester I was able to get an "A" on the mid-term and final, but now all the terms things I knew I have already forgotten.

Welcome to taking classes.
I am supposed to know every word about ホームレス中学生、as well as all the words in "GO," specifically about 在日韓国人, but I can barely say anything except the word 差別.

I've learned that there is a difference between words you learn for class, and words that you actually learn.
Class is short term, for the tests, for the oral interviews, etc. They are words that you probably won't use in your daily life. You need to learn these words quick, and you need to know how to use them on the exams. That's about it.

Then there's your personal studies, which you get from reading, dramas, conversations, etc. Things you will use.

With that said, perhaps you do want to learn the words to use in class. In that case, they go into the 'words you want to learn' category.

I have found that if I go from English --> Japanese, I retain things a lot longer. Recognition may take a split second longer, but with repetition it comes real easy.

Going from English to Japanese will hurt you in the long run. It will get you used to thinking in translations instead of in Japanese. There are also not many one-on-one translations from English to Japanese (as opposed to the keyword to kanji).

I don't believe that "thinking in translation" fairytale for a second. It's basically the same argument that people use to try to discredit the Heisig method ("you're not going to learn to read Japanese naturally as you'll always think of the keywords first"). Once we get better at the language, we naturally leave the training wheels behind us.

However I believe that reviewing Japanese -> English is much better for several reasons:

1) It's much faster to do it that way.
2) Input is more important than output. Once you understand what you hear or read, you have a good foundation on which to build your ability to express yourself.
3) There are several correct ways to express an idea or translate a word. Going E->J, it's often difficult to decide if your Japanese answer is correct or not.
4) As you get better with kanji readings this benefit will slowly disappear but at first you're still going to have to actively remember the words even when going J->E, so it's almost like reviewing both ways at the same time.

Now forgetting things is natural and part of the learning process. But nothing is ever really completely forgotten. Relearning is easier the second time and even more so a 3rd time and so on... And this even works years after the initial learning when people think they have forgotten everything ("false beginners"). This is why SRS are so effective. So don't panic it's normal to have forgotten things you didn't review. Just relearn, review, forget, rinse, repeat.

I think the best would be J-J. It's a bit trickier to get your head around, but it's doable - I haven't actually done it with Japanese, but have with other languages. Antimoon.com has a description of how to do it from the perspective of an English learner.

Monolingual is smarter because you make the language you're learning a language on its own, not an extensions of one you already know. If you go E-J, you're more or less teaching yourself that "This sentence can be expressed like this as well, when I'm speaking Japanese". When you're going J-J however, you're learning "This sentence expresses these kinds of things, so when I want to express these kinds of things, this is how I would do it". It makes the new language stand on its own.

It's not the only way to learn but it is effective and removes a lot of unneeded crutches.

Actually J-J could have two meanings: Japanese recognition with explanations/definitions of words in Japanese which is fine as long as you are able to understand the studied item or Japanese production (like E->J only without the English) which doesn't seem such a great idea to me.

Well, this is basically for vocabulary, kanji that I don't have primitives for, and small sentences that are examples of grammar...

The vocabulary we use is probably useful later on, because it's very basic, so what would make it stick?

What about picture-Japanese? (For the nouns)

Going monolingual... can I apply that to things like objects and colors?

Tobberoth is usually correct in what he says, at least in my experience, so I think it's generally a safe bet to listen to him. Yes, J->J is good, and that's how our teacher gives us new words, grammar, etc. We're at a level where we can understand it. But...learning it in English, and hearing some examples of when it is used can definitely aid in context, the nuance of the words, etc. This way it's not a 1-1 translation, but you actually learn what the word means and how to use it.

This quote had some things I want to comment on, though:

Codexus Wrote:I don't believe that "thinking in translation" fairytale for a second.

This only applies to some people. As for me, I can attest that I don't 'think in translation' and haven't ever thought like that. If you find yourself doing this, then focus your study differently. It's definitely NOT a true statement for all people.

Coming from me, who doesn't 'think in translation,' (which may or may not be an important point later in the post) these are my thoughts:

Quote:However I believe that reviewing Japanese -> English is much better for several reasons:

1) It's much faster to do it that way.

OK, it's faster, but is that really a benefit? If you can remember it, but you forget it after the test -- have you really learned it? It's really easy to look at a kanji and know what it means, but not be able to use it conversationally.

Quote:2) Input is more important than output. Once you understand what you hear or read, you have a good foundation on which to build your ability to express yourself.

I agree with this to a degree. Through input, you hear a lot, you can pick up on context, and you will subconsciously be learning things. Osmosis, I think they call it. You should definitely be able to understand more than you can produce, and you will learn from it.
However, when actually learning a word, in order to be able to know the word, you should definitely be focusing on output. This doesn't mean E->J, it could also be J->J if you have sentences, definitions, etc.
When you output a word, then you have to know it, you can't tell by context, or the kanji. You need to be able to come up with it -- which means that you know the word.

Your input should be a lot 'wider,' but when you are 'learning' words, you should produce it, because then you learn it on a deeper level.

Quote:3) There are several correct ways to express an idea or translate a word. Going E->J, it's often difficult to decide if your Japanese answer is correct or not.

This problem is easily fixed by learning example sentences, or learning the nuances. This might still be a problem if you 'think in translation' mode, however...

I must admit that I have been drilling all sentences I learn from English to Japanese, and Japanese to English, for ages.

So, from what you guys are suggesting - am I wasting my time with the English to Japanese part? Should I just focus to J to E?

It's hard to say something is a waste of time. I'm sure it's doing something. But I'd be hard to convince it was the most effective route.

For review, I've never really understood the reasons for doing any less than J-J. I don't really even go J-J; just J.

What about starting with J-E and E-J and then gradually replacing E with J?

Doing E-J production cards definitely created stronger memory associations for me. I used a lot of production cards from the material in my deck from the assimil course. The words stuck better and I could recall them in conversations easier than the words from equally old recognition cards.

Now the main complaint, which is a valid one, about production cards is the time it takes to do them. It comes down to if taking some extra time to do the production cards and get a stronger initial association is more efficient than taking less time and slowly building up the association.

The main reason I stopped using production cards is because I had to diagram them all to make it go smoother which got tiring.

Also about recognition cards, I've never got the big deal about J-E or J-J. Fact of the matter for me is, it doesn't matter at all what is on the other side of the card. I never even look at the other side. I read it and if I understand mark it right and if I don't look up the words I don't remember(in kenkyuusha and a monolingual dictionary).

isharabash Wrote:What about picture-Japanese? (For the nouns)

In depends case by case. Picture associations, I think, are a good thing from time to time. In fact, I can think of how this has helped me (although I did not SRS it) in that I know some plants and animals by their Japanese names only. If I had looked up definitions in Japanese of those things, I would have come across weighty ones that only gave me a vague idea. If I had looked at the English translations, it would not help and probably confuse me since I would not know them in English in the first place. However, I know what they look like and thus can identify them by their Japanese names.

When I started SRSing Korean sentence I experimented a bit with E>K. The sentences were really simple, and for the most part this worked well. But after a while, I started flipping them to K>E because some problems arouse. For example, I'd have a sentence like:

Where is the nearest bank?

But I wasn't sure if the answer was(in Japanese for your understanding)

一番近い銀行はどこですか
一番近い銀行はどこにありますか
一番近い銀行わどこ？

And cards of similar structure varied in whether they used です　います/あります　or no verb. Or even the problem of whether they used particles or not. And these were just really simple sentences.

isharabash Wrote:What about picture-Japanese? (For the nouns)

I go sentence for everything, be it adjectives, verbs or nouns. However, I have though about it and there are some situations where I think picture->Japanese would be optimal: Learning lists of items.

Say you want to learn some animals. You could go with a ton of boring sentences like
ネズミがチーズを食べる
庭に猫がいる
etc. It works, but it's really just very basic exposure, especially since most animal names are usually written with katakana, giving no real "test" when you review them this way.

In those cases, I would think it's a good idea to have a picture of an animal and the test is simply to name it in Japanese and write it in kanji, if needed.

This could work for other things as well such as household appliances, items one has in a room etc.. but I would only use it for those kinds of things. In general, I'd say sentences are the way to go.

I did a very controlled version of E-J using Tae Kim's sentences. The notes were detailed so I knew what type of Japanese sentence was being asked about. It was still a very time intensive method. I dropped it recently in favor of something similar to what Tobberoth mentioned: very, very strict recognition cards while reproducing it with typing (help my typing in japanese skills).

To add on to Tobberoth's mention about lists: prefectures, animals, trees, fruits, vegetables, etc. are great examples where pictures to words is good. I would also add on Famous people (historical, fictional, actors/actresses, politicians, etc.) to help with name kanji's and general knowledge of Japanese culture. I see Smart.FM being used for this purpose given the recent update there.