According to the official (bullshit) recommendation of the JLPT only 900 hours of study is required to reach level 1. Assuming fulltime study of 8 hours a day this could be achieved in 6 months and that ain't even including weekends.

Or is it cos they've never had to really try and learn Japanese that they're just taking a wild stab in the dark?

On the flipside I've come to find that if you did Rtk in a month (possible) and KO2001 the following month (also possible) you could pick up 50% of the language in 2 months. In reality it would probably take you 3 but still that'd be around 500 hours study.

I don't think there's such a thing as 50% of the language. Perhaps percentages of how we conceive of the fundamental structures of the language, which is kind of meaningless in the bigger picture of high-level proficiency.......

I always assumed those JLPT 'hours of study' referred to dated conceptions of classroom hours + 'outside the class hours' where they have some antiquated ratios in mind of 'homework' to 'classwork'. (1 hour of class, 2 of homework? ;p)

Bonus: I like Nukemarine's repeated emphasis on chunks of time better as a kind of evolution to that (which I think is what you were detailing in the latter part of your comment?), because it fits well with timeboxing and getting away from conflating the map with the territory with regards to percentages and materials. However, I think some other influence on this hourly conception is those pseudoscientific Gladwellian ideas about talent, and his conceptions of 'hours needed' was not only imprecise but based on dated/revised work by folks like Ericsson, whose work emphasizes not subjective measurements of time that vary across the board, but the constant factor is the benefits/need for finding ways to maintain intensity/motivation and having proper feedback in order to have 'deliberate practice'; getting away from overemphasis on #s, using them as structure/guidelines for Csikszentmihalyi's 'flow' would work better for this (and is where timeboxing excels). Ah damn, rambling again this morning.....

http://bit.ly/u8FZv - Ericcson, one of his articles on deliberate practice...
http://www.hkin.educ.ubc.ca/faculty/hodg...d_chap.pdf - p. 33 summarizes conclusion as regards the '10,000' hours and individuals, miscalculations of time versus balancing out effortful practice...

The 900 hours of study in all probability refers to time spent in classrooms. Which means, you're supposed to add a SHIT ton of hours of homework, exposure etc.

And like nest0r said, there's really no such thing as 50%. Learning a language is easier and faster progressing in the start. If you know 5 words, learning 5 more just doubled your ability. If you know 10 000 words, another 5 words is nothing. Those "50%" make up the basics, the ones which are the easiest to learn. And even with that, remember that knowing 50% of the words in every sentence generally means you understand 0% of the whole text

I guess 50% could be interpreted several ways. One being in terms of understanding, the other in terms of frequency and numbers. In practice it's a bit of both and in reality wherever you're at in you're language learning you do technically know or understand x% of a language. I say that because logically it's impossible for it to be all or nothing. But I just love stats as a way to measure or quantify what you know.

Hours vs time chunks? Yeah, pretty much fits the time boxing bill. The way I work it, depending on what study I am doing, reviews take x time per card and so do new cards. I can almost always accurately forecast how long until I finish my study for the day.

I believe time boxing on a larger scale is a powerful motivator. I could watch 160 hours of raw anime next month and pick up circa 300 - 400 new words. Or I could knock out KO2001 in the same amount of time and pick up circa 3000 - 4000.

What you do in those hours counts. Big time.

To further the discussion; based on my personal experience this far, input is as follows:

Comprehensible input - useless. You can't learn anything new from something you understand completely. Not strictly true because it can be used to explain things you don't know but that's not what I'm reffering to.

Incomprehensible Input - only mildy useful. It helps to create known unknowns which can then be looked up, understood and turned into knowledge but this actually takes a long time.

Almost comprehensible input - 10x more effective than the previous. When you've got a comprehensible sentence with 1 word getting in the way of complete understanding, you've got yourself a good ol fashioned I+1 sentence folks.

Now that's all well and good all the way up to roughly 2kyuu for pre-made materials. After that I'm guessing this is the stage where native sources are just full of those I+1's.

I tried mining from native sources straight after rtk. A calculated 1000 words a month made 3x slower than doing KO2001. I'm going to get right back to it once I'm done...

Or who can recommend the next "crusade" as someone once put it.

Efficiency crusaders ftw.

Comprehensible input isn't supposed to teach you anything new, it's supposed to teach you how to actually use what you know. Having a word on a card in an SRS isn't going to teach you anything but the basics. To internalize it, you need to be exposed to it.

Besides, there's no such thing as "almost comprehensible input". Either you understand enough to find it comprehensible (useful) or you don't (useless).

65% of the exam takers are Chinese and other 15% are Korean, so I assume they came up with the hours based mainly on the experience with Chinese and Korean people. Now it takes 3 times more for English natives to learn Japanese than German, so you get the idea.

Tobberoth Wrote:Besides, there's no such thing as "almost comprehensible input". Either you understand enough to find it comprehensible (useful) or you don't (useless).

I think what he means is input where you understand almost everything, just enough to be able to pick up the meanings of words you don't know through context. In that case, it would sort of fall under comprehensible input, but it's different than input in which nothing new is introduced in that you have to actually do some thinking/inferring in the language.

Also, I find that the opposite is true about progression in language getting slower the further you get along, to an extent. The more of a language the know, and the more familiar with it you get, the easier it becomes to internalize and learn new things, at least in my experience. I don't "study" french anymore, vocab just sticks with me sort of like it does in english. Although I can't double my vocab in a week like I can do in japanese, the words are infinitely easier to remember and get used to. So yeah, I guess progression is technically slower, but it's a lot different than the progression you make in the beginning.

nest0r Wrote:(snipped nest0r's rant)
Ah damn, rambling again this morning.....

Put some effort into writing succinctly, please.
Between "Bonus: I like Nukemarine" and "Ah damn, rambling again this morning" there are 12 lines and only two sentence finishing dots. TWO.

You may have had a point, but I ignored it because your text looked like proof by verbosity. I like the fact that you source your claims, very cool.

Tobberoth Wrote:Comprehensible input isn't supposed to teach you anything new, it's supposed to teach you how to actually use what you know. Having a word on a card in an SRS isn't going to teach you anything but the basics. To internalize it, you need to be exposed to it.

Besides, there's no such thing as "almost comprehensible input". Either you understand enough to find it comprehensible (useful) or you don't (useless).

Good point. Exposure to comprehinsible input does help to internalize it. You're right. It has it's place.

There is too such a thing as almost comprehensible input. It happens to me all the time. I hear or read something and go "ugh damn I'd be able to understand exactly what all of that meant if only I knew what that one goddamn word was"

The boy ***** to the shops. - you get the gist of it. Almost comprehensible.

The boy walked to the shops. - now you know what's going on. Comprehensible.

mezbup Wrote:

Tobberoth Wrote:Comprehensible input isn't supposed to teach you anything new, it's supposed to teach you how to actually use what you know. Having a word on a card in an SRS isn't going to teach you anything but the basics. To internalize it, you need to be exposed to it.

Besides, there's no such thing as "almost comprehensible input". Either you understand enough to find it comprehensible (useful) or you don't (useless).

Good point. Exposure to comprehinsible input does help to internalize it. You're right. It has it's place.

There is too such a thing as almost comprehensible input. It happens to me all the time. I hear or read something and go "ugh damn I'd be able to understand exactly what all of that meant if only I knew what that one goddamn word was"

The boy ***** to the shops. - you get the gist of it. Almost comprehensible.

The boy walked to the shops. - now you know what's going on. Comprehensible.

IMO, both of those sentences are comprehensible. You don't have to understand something 100% for it to be comprehensible, getting the gist of it is more than enough.

I mean, the thing is, when people talk about "comprehensible input theory", they talk about what you call almost comprehensible. I don't think anyone is really recommending people to listen over and over to things they already fully understand. The challenge is the goal, which is why i + 1 is such a good term.

i+1 it is

Isn't the ILR estimate for learning fluent japanese about 2200 hours? So I guess that's the figure aimed at English speakers. That would include being good at output in real-time not just passing the JLPT and calling yourself fluent.

40 hours study a week, would take 55 weeks. So 1 year.

I know virtually no one can do 40 hours study a week but i'm basing this off what I can do atm. luckily my KO2001 mission is currently only taking 3 -5 hours a day. Soon when the reviews hit a steady number it'll be 8 hours a day. 300 reviews today plus 200 new cards. Hooray for study.

nonpoint Wrote:

nest0r Wrote:(snipped nest0r's rant)
Ah damn, rambling again this morning.....

Put some effort into writing succinctly, please.
Between "Bonus: I like Nukemarine" and "Ah damn, rambling again this morning" there are 12 lines and only two sentence finishing dots. TWO.

You may have had a point, but I ignored it because your text looked like proof by verbosity. I like the fact that you source your claims, very cool.

I think 'proof by verbosity' is a specious accusation (however offhand you intended it). If my tone were less equivocal and we were amidst a debate or argument, it would be more appropriate in encouraging more clarity. Even then, that sort of assertion would be best left to forums with more concrete requirements for the level of accessibility a post is expected to have, else it might come across as a lazy attempt to discredit.

At any rate, I only invest effort in clarity when I write for readers more for myself. My forum posts are a mixture of the two, but lean heavily towards the latter, as periodically I use the 'publicness' of the forum to arbitrarily add pressure to my brainstorming. The extemporaneous nature of my posts here--having no forethought and only cursory revisions within this white box--also discourages attempts at clarity.

I suppose what I'm saying is: hehe, good points, but too bad. Ignore what requires too much time and effort to read, read what you find useful. Frankly, I tend to read online text very quickly (and in otherwise strange ways--starting in the middle and moving upwards, for example), and find it easier when people write the way I do than blunter, more minimalist styles.

Something ironic: When people use phrases like 'proof by verbosity', I mentally roll my eyes the way others perhaps do when they come across the various words I use. I still use some phrases like 'ad hominem', though rarely, as I end up having flashbacks of my passionate forum arguments in my political days where those were overused rhetorical weapons. I'm a cynic.

@nestor

Your wall of text would makes sense... if you had intelligence. You don't! Therefore, all points you make are moot. I'd counter with my own wall of text, but I fear you're not intelligent enough to offer a decent rebuttal.

PS extemporaneous is not even a word

@_@

kazelee Wrote:@nestor

Your wall of text would makes sense... if you had intelligence. You don't! Therefore, all points you make are moot. I'd counter with my own wall of text, but I fear you're not intelligent enough to offer a decent rebuttal.

PS extemporaneous is not even a word

@_@

Ad hominem invective!!

Also: "wall of text" -- I just rolled my eyes with world-weary annoyance.

What's i+1?

The search didn't like it, and I'm new to these boards. Sorry.

kyeenak Wrote:What's i+1?

The search didn't like it, and I'm new to these boards. Sorry.

A sentence where there is only 1 new peice of information. That is to say, you know everything else in the sentence and upon looking up that 1 word or grammar point you didn't know, you now have complete understanding of it.

Is there any set curriculum that sort of has an i+1 structure? Not that I'm incredibly interested in using a curriculum, but it could be nice to glance over...

If you already know about 1000 - 1500 words KO2001 is pretty I+1

If you don't, you will encounter is steep "learning curve" that it has at the beginning. I haven't had that trouble because I already knew enough that pretty much every sentence is I+1. Although there is a decent percentage which is I+2 but it's not like I don't know 5 or 6 words or something like that.

... 900hours? But if JLPT1 has...

billyclyde Wrote:It has 7815 words.

7815 words, then for every hour you have to memorize at least ...
78.15/9 = 9-10 words an hour. So if I study all day (8 hours) I should know at least 70 words a day? And I would have to maintain this for 900/8 = +3 months? :| wait wait, so acording t this math, if I had no job, no school, and I just studied JLPT1 every day for about 4 months I can pass this test, no problem.


...actually, it sounds almost feasable... but I know my limit is memorizing about 50 words a day, and even with that I always forget 4-5 vocab words everyday.

ocircle Wrote:... 900hours? But if JLPT1 has...

billyclyde Wrote:It has 7815 words.

7815 words, then for every hour you have to memorize at least ...
78.15/9 = 9-10 words an hour. So if I study all day (8 hours) I should know at least 70 words a day? And I would have to maintain this for 900/8 = +3 months? :| wait wait, so acording t this math, if I had no job, no school, and I just studied JLPT1 every day for about 4 months I can pass this test, no problem.


...actually, it sounds almost feasable... but I know my limit is memorizing about 50 words a day, and even with that I always forget 4-5 vocab words everyday.

I don't know where billyclyde got that number. The official word list for JLPT1 has 10 000 words, and 20% of the words on the test can come from other sources, so even if you know those 10 000 words, you're only guaranteed 80%. And that's just the words, JLPT is about a lot more than just knowing the words on the test.

Tobberoth Wrote:

ocircle Wrote:... 900hours? But if JLPT1 has...

billyclyde Wrote:It has 7815 words.

7815 words, then for every hour you have to memorize at least ...
78.15/9 = 9-10 words an hour. So if I study all day (8 hours) I should know at least 70 words a day? And I would have to maintain this for 900/8 = +3 months? :| wait wait, so acording t this math, if I had no job, no school, and I just studied JLPT1 every day for about 4 months I can pass this test, no problem.


...actually, it sounds almost feasable... but I know my limit is memorizing about 50 words a day, and even with that I always forget 4-5 vocab words everyday.

I don't know where billyclyde got that number. The official word list for JLPT1 has 10 000 words, and 20% of the words on the test can come from other sources, so even if you know those 10 000 words, you're only guaranteed 80%. And that's just the words, JLPT is about a lot more than just knowing the words on the test.

Probably from the Wikipedia which says 8009 words. Add 20% and you'd get approximately 10000 words. The Wikipedia reference is from Japanese Language Proficiency Test: Test Content Specifications. Incidentally the book has the vocabulary which is listed here, so perhaps this is a useful list for JLPT 1 takers.

EDIT: The book is the official guide that is used for setting the JLPT exams, but obviously may not necessarily include the extra 20% vocabulary for levels 4-2, and probably nothing for level 1.

mezbup Wrote:If you already know about 1000 - 1500 words KO2001 is pretty I+1

If you don't, you will encounter is steep "learning curve" that it has at the beginning. I haven't had that trouble because I already knew enough that pretty much every sentence is I+1. Although there is a decent percentage which is I+2 but it's not like I don't know 5 or 6 words or something like that.

So then what do you suggest for people that don't know 1000-1500 words already and do not want to go over a steep learning curve...just brute force memorize common words from a list?

I just started..like litterally just started, but you guys keep mentioning that one could study x hous in x weeks by doing x hours a day. I think there is a big difference in studying 8 hours a day and studying for just a few (say 1-4). I don't think our brains are made to soak up 8 hours of intense learning through SRS or reading, and keep it any type of long term memory.

ocircle Wrote:... 900hours? But if JLPT1 has...

billyclyde Wrote:It has 7815 words.

...actually, it sounds almost feasable... but I know my limit is memorizing about 50 words a day, and even with that I always forget 4-5 vocab words everyday.

I'd actually say 9-10 words an hour is a fairly lowball estimate. A number of people on this board (including myself) have learnt upwards of 200 words/sentences a day, which is closer to 25 words/hour.

WontStop Wrote:So then what do you suggest for people that don't know 1000-1500 words already and do not want to go over a steep learning curve...just brute force memorize common words from a list?

Brute force memorisation from a list is just a steep a learning curve as just learning those words from KO2001...its worse in fact, because it will be harder than just doing KO, which at least gives you sentences. The learning curve is steep in the beginning, but not undoable.

Quote:I don't think our brains are made to soak up 8 hours of intense learning through SRS or reading, and keep it any type of long term memory.

I must respectfully disagree.

blackmacros Wrote:

ocircle Wrote:... 900hours? But if JLPT1 has...

billyclyde Wrote:It has 7815 words.

...actually, it sounds almost feasable... but I know my limit is memorizing about 50 words a day, and even with that I always forget 4-5 vocab words everyday.

I'd actually say 9-10 words an hour is a fairly lowball estimate. A number of people on this board (including myself) have learnt upwards of 200 words/sentences a day, which is closer to 25 words/hour.

WontStop Wrote:So then what do you suggest for people that don't know 1000-1500 words already and do not want to go over a steep learning curve...just brute force memorize common words from a list?

Brute force memorisation from a list is just a steep a learning curve as just learning those words from KO2001...its worse in fact, because it will be harder than just doing KO, which at least gives you sentences. The learning curve is steep in the beginning, but not undoable.

Quote:I don't think our brains are made to soak up 8 hours of intense learning through SRS or reading, and keep it any type of long term memory.

I must respectfully disagree.

I do not see how it is possible to learn 25 words an hour and actually remember them all the next hour. This just seems beyond me. Is everyone on this board masters of studying? What do you all take in college/do in real life?

WontStop Wrote:I do not see how it is possible to learn 25 words an hour and actually remember them all the next hour. This just seems beyond me. Is everyone on this board masters of studying? What do you all take in college/do in real life?

Remembering them the next hour is easy. Remembering them each hour after that, while adding new words at the same rate is the hard part. I can remember that much in a hour. Just don't quiz me on it 3 days later