Christine_Tham Wrote:1. My original post was pointing out that Japanese schoolchildren do not appear to learn kanji purely by repetitition/rote learning, that techniques similar to Heisig are in fact taught in textbooks. No criticism of Heisig here.

Yet again we come to this. It is just misinformation. I am sorry but they don't use anything but rote. The texts you have must exist outside of the standard education. I am sure that even your Japanese teacher will back me up on this.

cracky Wrote:Well even if you didn't intend to, through the course of the thread you have both criticized and compared RTK to other things. You have criticized the number of kanji, and the use of english keywords. You have also said a share of comparative statements here's an example of the most recent one:

Christine_Tham Wrote:Heisig is good for self study, but not a substitute for a really good sensei who can truly bring the characters alive.

Maybe you are right and it is just my understanding that is at fault.

Well, as i've said repeatedly, my observations are personal observations regarding the appropriateness of Heisig's method in reference to my personal goals. If I say "A is better than B for my needs" that says nothing about whether I think "B" is good or bad. In fact, I have repeatedly said that "B" [ie. Heisig] is "good", so how is that a criticism of B?

If you just go back and reread your quotation of what I have said, and just add " for me" at the end of that sentence, then you will understand that what I said is not criticism of Heisig at all.

I think you think I am contradicting myself because you are not really seeing things from my perspective. You are interpreting every sentence as me saying "Heisig is bad ..." whereas all I am saying is "Heisig is not suitable for me ..." If you would reread my posts and just add "... for me" at the end of every single sentence everything should hopefully be clearer. We all learn differently, no single method works for everyone. And as you pointed out, I am in fact using the core principles of Heisig, and I do recognise that. But I'm doing other things as well.

Christine_Tham Wrote:All I am saying is I don't want to chunk my learning into bite size pieces. That doesn't work for me. It may work for other people, and that's fine.

　Well, actually you ARE chunking your study. Otherwise, you would be studying your 100 kanjis at once every week, or something like that.

I think that more than chunking or not chunking, the difference between Heisig's approach and yours is the way you chunk the info.

I mean, you have a huge amount of kanji, each of them having a shape and a set of meanings and readings. What Heisig does, is to take a large amount of kanjis and cover a bit of each one. On the contrary, you cover every aspect of each kanji, but study just a bit of kanjis at once. One way or the other, both of you go with the "divide and conquer" approach, just that make different divisions.

JimmySeal Wrote:You probably wouldn't use those words because you don't live in Japan, but I'll bet you readily know the names of trees that are prevalent in your own country (maple, palm, birch, oak, cedar, willow, walnut, apple, cherry). That's nine right there. Tell me which of those an English learner shouldn't bother knowing.

Uhmm, actually I don't. I have no idea how all those trees you have mentioned even look like, and if you asked me to "name some trees" I wouldn't be able to rattle it off the way you did. And I bet you if you ask a Japanese person to name some trees, many would struggle beyond sakura and ume, especially those born and bred in a city. So if you were to ask me which ones are worth knowing, I would say none of them, unless I was interested in botany.

Quote:I already explained that Heisig threw in a few trees as bonus kanji because they can be learned effortlessly and help to strengthen other memory associations.

And I've said before my point wasn't about trees at all.

Quote:I would say I have a solid grasp of 1200 characters (pronunciation, writing, meaning) and still frequently come across characters I cannot pronounce. To that end, I'm glad I know 2000 characters, so I can pick up new ones with very little effort, as I see them all to be necessary.

I don't understand your point at all. So do you know 1200, or 2000? And if you do know 2000, why is it that you can't pronounce them? If it's because you don't know them, then why say you know 2000 characters?

Why does knowing 2000 characters allow you to "pick up new ones with very little effort"? Surely this is the case whether or not you know 1000, 2000 or 3000? Why is that different from someone who only knows 1000?

Quote:Does your teacher intend to teach you 1000 characters that way? If so, you are fortunate, but most people don't have that luxury.

If I wanted him to, yes. Some people have been attending his classes for years. Personally, I think he should write a book, and he wants to, but I think he's too busy.

Christine_Tham Wrote:If you just go back and reread your quotation of what I have said, and just add " for me" at the end of that sentence, then you will understand that what I said is not criticism of Heisig at all.

True, however you could add words to any sentence and get a different meaning. While I understand your "intention" now, the sentence still comes off as a general statement. Even though you have said that your observations are based only on personal preference, a general statement is still going to come off as criticism\comparing. I do understand your intentions now though, so I'm dropping it.

dingomick Wrote:Christine, the reason people are so riled up is because you have consistently contradicted yourself. You claim not to criticize Heisig, and then do, and then prattle on about how amazing your classes and learning method are in comparison. And you claim that the Heisig method is pointless, but you employ exactly the same method!

Refer to my other posts. I don't think I am contradicting myself, but to see that you need to see things from my perspective, not yours. I've already said I am using the Heisig approach of decomposition, just not his specific techniques. It's the techniques that don't apply to me (and hence "pointless" - to me), not the approach.

Quote:As he clearly explains, and is clear within even the first 50 kanji, his sequence builds upon itself in a consistently logical progression. That's the point. However, if you only want to learn 1000 kanji, in JLPT order, and don't intend to learn all the jouyou, then it is not pointless, it just doesn't conform to your own goals.

Precisely. That's all I am saying. When I say "pointless" I mean pointless "to me." Who else am I talking about? Not you, not anyone else.

Quote:Uh, because it's how people learn? Ever heard, "You have to learn to walk before you can run"? Everything is structured on this principle. Even your own Japanese learning. You learned basic sentence structure before moving on to complex compulsion and situational structure, right? Why not do the same with kanji?

No, as I mentioned before, I don't learn things this way. I prefer the "learn everything at once" approach. I started learning Japanese about a year ago by picking up 3 textbooks and reading all three simultaneously. This is exactly the same approach I am taking in kanji, which is take multiple textbooks and learn from them simultaneously.

Currently, I am taking a mixture of beginner and intermediate classes simultaneously. So in effect, I am learning to walk and run at the same time. Of course, I struggle a lot in the intermediate classes, especially since they are taught in Japanese. But amazingly, I learn a lot from them. I do stop and ask the teacher a lot of questions though, and I am forever asking him to repeat what he has just said in English. But sometimes learning advanced concepts can actually help me understand the basics better. In the intermediate classes, we are currently learning how to express a complaint (with lots of ?んですが, のに and causative-passive), and it's helping me a lot how to frame even simple sentences correctly.

The Kanji class I am taking is intended for JLPT2, and when I started, I haven't even mastered JLPT4 kanji. But I like it like that.

You may wonder why I take such a weird approach. I don't know, but I've always done it this way. I was reading university level physics books in junior high school to help me with my science classes. I guess I am always overreaching and trying shoes too big for me.

Quote:I truly admire your approach, and am honestly jealous you have such qualified teachers who infuse your learning so dramtically. I also understand that everyone learns in different ways and that not even everyone here learns the same way. But please recognize the contradictions your making since they unintentionally attack others.

I apologise if they come across as unintentional attacks, but if you were to attach "for me" at the end of every single one of my sentences you will realise I am simply describing my situation, how I learn. And only because someone asked why I abandoned RTK1.

Christine, you can't backpedal out of all the contradictions you've repeatedly made, recorded in the previous posts, specifically your 'clarification' I broke replied by point in post #46. You clearly think you haven't made them, so I would honestly encourage you to work on your English composition skills when making statements.

I too am done with this thread.

P.S.- if anyone in the world were not able to rattle off the names of a variety of local trees and flowers, I'd think them quite uneducated. Even the most informal survey in my office had several people not struggle in the least with many more tree names than "ume and sakura"...

Calm down people...

Christine_Tham Wrote:Why does knowing 2000 characters allow you to "pick up new ones with very little effort"? Surely this is the case whether or not you know 1000, 2000 or 3000? Why is that different from someone who only knows 1000?

If you learn 1000 in joyo order, you might not have learned all the elements used in the kanji you'll come across after. If you're planning to read novels, you'll probably have to learn a lot more than 1200. I've learned the meaning for about 2000 kanji now, but I still see unfamiliar kanji a lot. Also, learning 2000 kanji gives you twice as much practice as 1000. Myself, I didn't closely follow Heisig; I didn't like most of the primitive names and keywords. I still use mnemonics, though. Making my own stories...it makes the kanji make sense to me. Etymologies are cool, but sometimes they don't really make sense. They aren't necessary to learn, but if they help you, that's great. I have the Henshall book myself, but often the etymologies are more confusing than anything, especially with elements that look the same but don't have the same origin.

At 200-300 kanji, it's a bit early to know how well your method is working for you. Sounds like a good method, though, if it's working for you so far. I just found that when I had learned about 200-300 kanji traditionally, I stagnated shortly after.

Transtic Wrote:Mmm... I think you aren't taking into account the fact that RK is a tool, it is up to you whether you make use of it or not, and how you make use of it. And, there is another factor that ussually makes formal classes less productive: you have to follow the rhythm
of your classmates, which can be good if they are as eager to learn as you, but if they aren't, they can become a real barrier between you and the kanjis. RK provides us with the freedom of choosing our own pace, what you can't do いn a classroom.

I fully realise that RTK is a tool, and a pretty useful tool. But I see nothing wrong with switching across a mixture of tools, and picking and choosing what I want and what works for me.

You are right about classroom pace. I attended a JLPT4 class, and found it too boring, even though strictly speaking I'm not really at max JLPT4 level yet. But the classes I am attending are a mixture of upper beginner and intermediate classes. And I find the intermediate classes really challenging and refreshing, even though I really struggle to catch up with my classmates, who seem to be able to speak fluent Japanese. The Kanji class I am attending is intended for JLPT2, which is why the teacher is teaching about semantic/phonetic decomposition, but I really enjoy it. Most of my comments on this thread are based on things I have learnt from this class. So when people on this forum say "I am wrong" or "That is not the case" I find it a bit amusing, because everytime I go to class there are people who are successfully applying the principles taught in that class.

Quote:Everybody, please stop arguing, this is not about "who is right, and who is wrong", but about "show me something new that can help me on my learning", or at least I think so.

Thank you so much! I am glad at least one person understands!

Quote:By the way, here I have read a couple of times about Henshall, De Roo and "Kanji in context", are they really that useful? which other resources do you think to be a "must" for -almost- every japanese learner?

I think they are all useful, in fact, I bought all of them. Each of them is different - see my mini review of each in the other thread that I linked to.

I've just bought several other books recently. One is "Kanji Isn't That Hard" and this is somewhat similar to Heisig, but the stories are in Japanese. I found it good, even though the stories are just a bit dull, but I can practice my Japanese by reading them. And now I can start describing the shape of Kanji characters in Japanese! この漢字の形は、部分がありますね。左は、牛へんです。右は、?

I did that in class the other day and my teacher was impressed!

I'm also learning from a Grade 1-6 Kanji reference book, again all in Japanese. Even though I can't understand most of it, it's fun reading the bits I can understand. Especially when it draws pictures grouping a set of related kanji together (with similar primitives). Then you see pictorially how one primitive influences the meaning of multiple characters.

I'm also going through several Kanji workbooks, simultaneously. I tend to skip the copying bit and just focus on the comprehension, reading and writing of sentences. I could give you the names of those if you want. I have just completed the "Minna no nihongo" Kanji workbook. That's not too bad.

I am also going through several graded readers. One of them doesn't have furigana, so it's forcing me to read the Kanji.

If you were to ask me which one is a "must", I wouldn't be able to choose. Strictly speaking, none of them. But I like all of them, and I more of less use them simultaneously, so when I am studying I have a whole pile of books in front of me ...

yukamina Wrote:Calm down people...

Thanks.

Quote:If you learn 1000 in joyo order, you might not have learned all the elements used in the kanji you'll come across after.

I was worried about this too, because I believed what Heisig said about learning the primitive before learning characters based on the primitive.

But actually, this is not required, as I've been told by my teacher. If you have a good grasp of the Bushu radicals, plus some common words that appear as components in other Kanji, you already have what you need.

So guess what, we spent one class learning all (most?) of them. So we're prepared now.

So basically, once you have a foundation, you can pretty much learn any character in any order. My teacher has drawn a chart linking all the JLPT3 kanji by common components, which I am trying to get a copy of.

Quote:If you're planning to read novels, you'll probably have to learn a lot more than 1200.

I don't think anyone, least of all myself, is saying all you need is 1200, and once you get there, stop. The point is get a good foundation, and then learn new characters as they come along, rather than progressing down a list systematically.

Quote:Etymologies are cool, but sometimes they don't really make sense. They aren't necessary to learn, but if they help you, that's great. I have the Henshall book myself, but often the etymologies are more confusing than anything, especially with elements that look the same but don't have the same origin.

I used to think this too. I think the secret is to get someone to explain it in front of you. Then everything comes alive. I still find Henshall unnecessarily confusing, he sometimes chases down holes and never quite emerge from them.

Elements that look the same but don't have the same origin is where the danger is, because often Heisig classifies them using the same primitive. That's okay for remembering how to write the character, but can come back to bite when you are trying to learn the subtle meanings behind the character.

Quote:At 200-300 kanji, it's a bit early to know how well your method is working for you. Sounds like a good method, though, if it's working for you so far. I just found that when I had learned about 200-300 kanji traditionally, I stagnated shortly after.

Yeah, I hope this doesn't happen to me. If by "traditionally" you mean "without a system", I agree. But the whole point is that: there is a system - it's not just about learning 1000 random characters and hoping that they stick.

dingomick Wrote:Christine, you can't backpedal out of all the contradictions you've repeatedly made, recorded in the previous posts, specifically your 'clarification' I broke replied by point in post #46.

Can you help me, I can't parse what you are saying? What does "specifically your 'clarification' I broke replied by point in post #46" mean? It doesn't sound grammatical.

In any case, as I've explained before, if you mentally add "... for me" at the end of every sentence I have written, you will find I have made no "contradictions", therefore there is nothing "backpedal" out of. Transtic and yukamina seems to "get it", so perhaps if you try harder you could too?

If you have just done an "informal survey" of the people in your office, can you share with us the results? Specifically, how many people could name how many trees? How many hesitated? How many thought it was an odd question? :-)

I'm sorry you think I am uneducated. But the truth is, I am not interested in tree names. Sorry.

Transtic Wrote:　Well, actually you ARE chunking your study. Otherwise, you would be studying your 100 kanjis at once every week, or something like that.

I think that more than chunking or not chunking, the difference between Heisig's approach and yours is the way you chunk the info.

I mean, you have a huge amount of kanji, each of them having a shape and a set of meanings and readings. What Heisig does, is to take a large amount of kanjis and cover a bit of each one. On the contrary, you cover every aspect of each kanji, but study just a bit of kanjis at once. One way or the other, both of you go with the "divide and conquer" approach, just that make different divisions.

This is a very insightful post. Yes, you are right. I am chunking, but in a different way.

I guess I was referring to not wanting to "chunk" learning each character. But of course one can't learn all 2000 characters simultaneously. :-) Well, one could, but it will be a very long night! :-)

That would be an interesting experiment, actually, picking up a kanji reference book and trying to read it from cover to cover in one sitting. I wonder if it's possible, and how much one would remember.

JimmySeal Wrote:I would say I have a solid grasp of 1200 characters (pronunciation, writing, meaning) and still frequently come across characters I cannot pronounce. To that end, I'm glad I know 2000 characters, so I can pick up new ones with very little effort, as I see them all to be necessary.

though i know what you mean, unfortunately it is just this kind of loose talk on the part of heisig method users that leads very quickly to any heisig method detractor saying, "what do you mean you 'know' 2000 kanji, you can't even read them out loud!" we really do have to differentiate better between post-heisig familiarity with and fully developed knowledge of a given kanji.

dilandau23 Wrote:Yet again we come to this. It is just misinformation. I am sorry but they don't use anything but rote. The texts you have must exist outside of the standard education. I am sure that even your Japanese teacher will back me up on this.

On what basis are you saying this? Are you saying you have attended every Japanese class taught by every teacher in all of Japan? Do you personally track the progress of every schoolchild and their learning methods inside and outside the classroom? If not, how do you know "they don't use anything but rote"?

And why is this point so important anyway? I mentioned I had picked up some textbooks and they contain interesting teaching techniques. Clearly these textbooks exist. Where is the "misinformation" here?

cracky Wrote:True, however you could add words to any sentence and get a different meaning. While I understand your "intention" now, the sentence still comes off as a general statement.

Context is very important. Of course, if you take individual sentences out of context, they can be interpreted in many ways.

But if you actually follow the progress of the thread. I was asked, by a number of people, why I had abandoned Heisig. My responses are clearly in that context.

In fact, in the very paragraph that you quoted from, if you had quoted the entire paragraph, the context is clear:

Christine Tham Wrote:To me this is much more fun than trudging through some convoluted imaginary story involving weird groupings of primitives. Heisig is good for self study, but not a substitute for a really good sensei who can truly bring the characters alive.

Note: the first two words in the paragraph says "To me ..." Clearly, this applies to the second sentence as well. I really don't know how I can possibly put this any clearer.

Christine_Tham Wrote:I guess I was referring to not wanting to "chunk" learning each character. But of course one can't learn all 2000 characters simultaneously. :-) Well, one could, but it will be a very long night! :-)

That would be like trying to eat 1 year's ration of food on 1 day to avoid spending time on eating the rest of the year.

Quote:That would be an interesting experiment, actually, picking up a kanji reference book and trying to read it from cover to cover in one sitting. I wonder if it's possible, and how much one would remember.

Well, actually I could said that tried to do something like that. Using a software that made me study each character's meanings, readings and the kanjis themselves, I went through about 1.000 or more. It took me a lot more of time than 1 sitting though. That was on march, and now... I have forgotten almost all of them, I wish I had spent that very same time on RK, and now I could be able to recognise 2.000 kanjis... Well, life goes on, I won't make the same mistake again, maybe new mistakes, but not that very same one.

Transtic Wrote:Well, actually I could said that tried to do something like that. Using a software that made me study each character's meanings, readings and the kanjis themselves, I went through about 1.000 or more. It took me a lot more of time than 1 sitting though. That was on march, and now... I have forgotten almost all of them, I wish I had spent that very same time on RK, and now I could be able to recognise 2.000 kanjis... Well, life goes on, I won't make the same mistake again, maybe new mistakes, but not that very same one.

I find it very hard to learn anything on the screen. That was a mistake I made as well. I had assumed that I can learn kanji by osmosis. Having seen kanji X Y times on the screen, eventually I will remember X. Wrong.

Then I thought: what if I copied every new kanji I find into JWPce and build a flash card file for JFC? That didn't work too.

There's been some interesting research that explains why our brain finds reading off a computer screen less effective than paper. Something to do with resolution, and pixelation. Not sure about that, but I do know I couldn't remember any kanji until I started using a system, which included writing things on paper.

[Subsequent addition: I think you were also learning the 1000 "out of context." That's the hardest and least effective way of learning Kanji. If you had read and *copied* 1000 sentences containing 1000 kanji, I think you may remember some of them. Just the act of copying them, and some context around each kanji, should be sufficient to trigger some memorization.

Heisig's method is actually quite brilliant: finding a way of attaching "context" to the character when the student has no knowledge of Japanese. Using imaginative story telling is a stroke of genius.]

Christine_Tham Wrote:How many of us remember Heisig's reference to Japanese school children learning kanji by "constant repetition"? How many of us really believe this to be the case and accept this without questioning?

Till recently, I have been one of those people but am now not so sure. I am currently holding in my hands a few Japanese kanji books - one is a Grade 2 kanji text book (borrowed from a library), the other is a Japanese kanji reference book covering all the kanji from Grades 1 to 6 (also from the library), and finally a set of kanji practice workbooks (Grades 1-6, that I bought from our supermarket!).

I would assert that these are typical Japanese textbooks meant for Japanese schoolchildren studying kanji, dating from the mid 80s to newly published.

And none of them rely on "constant repetition" as a learning process. The two textbooks took a very mature approach - for each kanji, the on- and kun-yomi readings are presented, as well as a picture representing the meaning. Then there is a "story" that describes the shape of the kanji in relation to the meaning(s), a set of common compounds, and example sentences using the kanji. Finally, there is a brief history of the etymology of the character.

Now the interesting thing is that both textbooks clearly encourage breaking the character into "primitives" and assigning meaning to primitives. There's even a listing of "primitives" at the beginning of one of the books and the meaning of each primitive. Lastly, both books go into the trouble of grouping characters with the same primitives and showing how the meaning changes. One of the books even shows how some primitives act as semantic markers, and others act as phonetic markers.

So clearly these textbooks are expecting Japanese schoolchildren as young as Grade 2 to be learning kanji through an analytical method, not just by constant repetition.

The kanji practice workbooks for Grades 1 and 2 were the only places where they ask the reader to copy the characters. But even then, there are exercises based on primitives (including "chaining games" where you join strings of kanji together based on the fact that they share primitives). From Grade 3 onwards, the workbooks focus on applying kanji in context, in actual sentences.

Anyway, thought you guys might be interested to know that whilst Japanese schoolchildren may have been taught using constant repetition in the 70s when Heisig first wrote RTK1, that doesn't seem to be the case today.

I like one of the textbooks so much I have ordered it from Amazon.

I think you said something along those lines. That was followed a little later by:

Quote:Yeah, I recently ordered these two books from Amazon Japan:
小学生のための漢字をおぼえる (this is the one that summarises Kanji Grades 1-6 in a single reference book)
漢字はむずかしくない？24の法 (this is intended for foreign students learning Japanese - contains "stories" and pictures for 192 kanji)

The other one I mentioned is a Grade 2 textbook - I don't have the title handy but it essentially says "Grade 2 Kanji" in Japanese. I found this in the children's section of our local library.

It would seem to me that calling the "books" in question "typical Japanese textbooks meant for Japanese schoolchildren studying kanji", then saying one of them "is intended for foreign students learning Japanese" would be a minor contradiction. I find this odd because after many, many, many other posts you then said, "I don't think I am contradicting myself."

Then you go on and on some more and we come to the little gem that you left for me.

Quote:I mentioned I had picked up some textbooks and they contain interesting teaching techniques. Clearly these textbooks exist. Where is the "misinformation" here?

Well in fact you are correct there is no misinformation in that statement but there is in this:
1

Quote:Anyway, thought you guys might be interested to know that whilst Japanese schoolchildren may have been taught using constant repetition in the 70s when Heisig first wrote RTK1, that doesn't seem to be the case today.

this:
2

Quote:My original post was pointing out that Japanese schoolchildren do not learn Kanji by rote memorisation either.

and again in this:
3

Quote:1. My original post was pointing out that Japanese schoolchildren do not appear to learn kanji purely by repetitition/rote learning, that techniques similar to Heisig are in fact taught in textbooks.

Spelling errors aside, I would like to point out the fact that the first two are all encompassing statements, and in the third you add the word "purely". While I would not call this a "contradiction" it is "backpedaling". This is unfortunate because you have also said

Quote:there is nothing "backpedal" out of

. It follows that this would indeed be another contradiction as well as a grammar mistake.

So lets assume that the first two are what you were saying, then because they are all encompassing all I have to do is prove one case where they are not true to invalidate the statement. I can easily do this for you by scanning pages from any one of the official text books used at the two elementary schools where I teach. All that dribble about being in every classroom is pointless. Just takes one example to prove the statements wrong. I didn't make up these rules someone much smarter than me did.

So now lets assume that you meant what you said exactly as it is written in statement 3. I will start at this point by saying I was wrong to say "don't use anything but rote". Some teacher somewhere (perhaps in some affluent private school) may in fact encourage mnemonic techniques. I should have said "the official textbooks approved by MEXT for grades 1-6 do not explicitly encourage the use of deconstruction and or story generation". That was my mistake and it was made in haste, forgive me. What is not wrong is that the books you have are extracurricular in nature and not official. They are not standardized. What is wrong is saying that students are not taught using rote techniques, they are.

dilandau23 Wrote:It would seem to me that calling the "books" in question "typical Japanese textbooks meant for Japanese schoolchildren studying kanji", then saying one of them "is intended for foreign students learning Japanese" would be a minor contradiction.

Well, since you have taken the trouble to quote from me extensively, you may have noticed that my earlier posts refered to "two textbooks" that I have found in a library.

My later statements referred to "two books I have ordered from Amazon". Clearly, these are not the same two books that I referred to earlier. No contradiction here.

In fact, one of the books I ordered from Amazon is one of the books that I borrowed. The other wasn't. The second book that I borrowed was mentioned in the following paragraph. Hence, a total of three books, when earlier I mentioned two. Clearly, one of the three is not part of the earlier two I mentioned. Can you guess which one? :-)

Quote:Spelling errors aside, I would like to point out the fact that the first two are all encompassing statements, and in the third you add the word "purely".

And again, if you read my statements carefully, none of them specifically refer to or limit themselves to "Japanese schoolchildren learning in a formal classroom using prescribed texts" I also never said what I picked up *were* prescribed textbooks. They were simply textbooks.

So, the mere existence of these textbooks would lead one to conclude that: there exists at least one Japanese schoolchild who may have learnt from these textbooks, whether or not in a formal class. We all know that Japanese parents love sending their kids to extra tuition and cram schools, you yourself alluded to this.

*You* arbitrarily interpreted I was referring to standard textbooks in a classroom. I have never said this, and you won't find a single quote where I have said this.

Quote:While I would not call this a "contradiction" it is "backpedaling".

Again, no backpedalling, nor contradiction. You misinterpreted what I said, and if you look carefully I never said what you thought I said.

Quote:I can easily do this for you by scanning pages from any one of the official text books used at the two elementary schools where I teach.

But even if you did that, it doesn't negate my point. Again, you are confusing between what you teach and the textbooks you use vs what a Japanese schoolchild may or may not learn.

Quote:I will start at this point by saying I was wrong to say "don't use anything but rote".

Good. Now I'm hoping you will also realise you interpreted what I have said wrongly as well.

Quote:What is wrong is saying that students are not taught using rote techniques, they are.

Not all teaching happens in a classroom or per official syllabi, and not all teachers are like you (I am of course assuming that you are the one teaching. If not, then not all teachers are like the ones in your school). I think we both agree on this. Therefore, my statements stand. The only way my statements would be wrong would be if you could somehow prove these textbooks either did not exist (which will be difficult, since I can give you ISBN numbers if you want), or that no-one has ever bought or seen or used them (unlikely, since I found them in a library and they both have a long borrowing history).

Quote:

Quote:I would say I have a solid grasp of 1200 characters (pronunciation, writing, meaning) and still frequently come across characters I cannot pronounce. To that end, I'm glad I know 2000 characters, so I can pick up new ones with very little effort, as I see them all to be necessary.

I don't understand your point at all. So do you know 1200, or 2000? And if you do know 2000, why is it that you can't pronounce them? If it's because you don't know them, then why say you know 2000 characters?

Why does knowing 2000 characters allow you to "pick up new ones with very little effort"? Surely this is the case whether or not you know 1000, 2000 or 3000? Why is that different from someone who only knows 1000?

I thought it was pretty clear, but I did make a small blunder with "so I can pick up new ones with very little effort." So let me clarify
I know the main readings (that is, non-obscure ones) for about 1200 characters, along with compounds for them.
I know some readings and occasional compounds for about another 500.
I "know" the remainder of Heisig's 2000 in the sense that I can recognize them when I see them, and can write them from memory, but I don't readily know how to pronounce them.

Even for the ones I can't pronounce yet, knowing their meanings via Heisig often allows me to discern the meanings of compounds with the help of context. Also, being familiar with them allows me to learn their readings much more easily. (That's what I meant by, "so I can pick up new ones with very little effort;" sorry it was a little unclear).

What I'm saying is that even with a strong grasp of 1200, there really are another 800 (or more) lurking around, that would be a huge obstacle if I didn't know anything about them at all.


Teachers and doubtful learners saying that this method is a waste of time are nothing new. It's the norm rather than the exception. Heisig experienced it himself a lot, and he mentioned, "Of course, the claim raised more eyebrows than hopes among teachers with far more experience than I had." I'm sure we've all experienced this. But such naysayers are either people who (a) don't really understand the purpose of the book and don't care to know and (b) who have simply convinced themselves that it wouldn't work for no real reason other than disbelief. So no matter how much an experience a teacher has, that doesn't mean they are in any position to say some other approach is "better than Heisig" and certainly not to use superlatives and say something is "the best" or "the most efficient." Show me someone who completed the book and says it wasn't worth their time and you'll have someone with a valid opinion. You have a roomful of people here saying the reverse.

Holy smoking macaroni. I go away for a day or two and come back and this thread has exploded! Nice work. I think synewave hit the nail on the head but it's good to debate this stuff.

OK then please tell me what in the quotes I numbered #1 and #2 is not all encompassing? In those two posts, and in the title of the thread, you seem to be implying that it is wrong to say students learn by rote. If the title were "How some Japanese MIGHT "really" learn kanji at juku or somewhere other than public school", or if you said "it would seem that in recent years there has been an increased interest in alternative methods." Then yes I could agree with you. Is that what you are saying? Do you agree with the statement "in the public education system rote methods prevail." If so then we are on the same page and Hesig's statement stands. I never doubted the existence of the books, I just doubted that they are the norm rather than the exception. On a side note, I would like the ISBN number of any books intended for Japanese children that you have that teach deconstruction and story building methods. If they are good I will show them to my elementary school teachers. Maybe together we can make a difference.

Instead of completing my reading of this thread I started to study kanji. It is a bit like sex: talking about it is not as good as doing it.
However, I'd like to make one comment.

Christine_Tham Wrote:Perhaps you and Jimmy are the sort of people who would interject "Japanese Judas tree" and "Pawlonia" into a casual conversation (and hundreds of other obscure characters relating to nature, manufacturing, literature), but not me! I would not be reading the sort of books where these characters are likely to appear. I don't even use these terms in English!

Christine, bear in mind the following comment made on schultz's terrible kanji help page:

"WHY-BOTHER KANJI -- so-called because you look at the bastard and think, "Jesus, i got 100 things to do today plus i can barely write "car", and you want me to learn some shit like "high plain"原？ what the hell?? how often do i say "high plane?" but actually you DO need it, to say common words like cause 原因 and please お願い。　likewise, the kanji for the ancient Wu Dynasty (呉) is necessary for such useful words as "apologize" (誤) and "entertainment" (娯)"

Ok, here's my full opinion on the matter:

1. Heisig picked the Joyo list as it was the easiest reference in his thinking. Personally, if you wrote me a book teaching the top 2000 Kanji based of top Newspapers, Books, and Mangas (and other relevant/popular sources) from last 10 years, I'll go for that one instead.

2. If that same book utilized radicals and pseudo radicals with English names more close to Japanese equivalents, yet unique enough to be of use in stories, I'll go for that one instead.

3. If you organized the order of the Kanji better, I'll go for that one instead. Still, keep the concept that the radicals and pseudo radicals get taught first if they appear in a Kanji.

4. If your book offered some historical reference, all the better. Granted, it would be a HUGE book. Hell, throw in the pronunciations and

Heisig was just a student. He presents to us what he found worked for him. The reaction to it shows that it works for many people, so stop poo pooing it entirely. Get a more developed approached based off what Heisig started and you could have a big winner. I would definately go for a list that organized by popularity (still teaching base symbols first though), but I'm sure a little grouping will occur. Any other opinions on how to improve on the Heisig book?

JimmySeal Wrote:I thought it was pretty clear, but I did make a small blunder with "so I can pick up new ones with very little effort." So let me clarify
I know the main readings (that is, non-obscure ones) for about 1200 characters, along with compounds for them.
I know some readings and occasional compounds for about another 500.
I "know" the remainder of Heisig's 2000 in the sense that I can recognize them when I see them, and can write them from memory, but I don't readily know how to pronounce them.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification. But then, you did say you passed JLPT1, didn't you? So, doesn't that make you a living proof that it is possible to pass JLPT1 knowing only 1200 characters? In which case, why are the other characters "necessary"? They would be necessary if you had *failed* JLPT1.

Quote:Even for the ones I can't pronounce yet, knowing their meanings via Heisig often allows me to discern the meanings of compounds with the help of context. Also, being familiar with them allows me to learn their readings much more easily. (That's what I meant by, "so I can pick up new ones with very little effort;" sorry it was a little unclear).

Yes, I am sure having done RTK1 helps. But then, other people who have not done RTK1 say they have no problems either. So whilst I can see knowing RTK1 gives someone a bit of an edge, I'm not sure it amounts to much.

There are a few Chinese students in my class. They already know all the kanji shapes and meanings (in Chinese), so in a sense they have kind of done the equivalent of RTK1. They tell me it's not much of an edge, because they don't know the onyomi and kunyomi readings. They are actually surprised by how much I've managed to learn in a short time.

Quote:What I'm saying is that even with a strong grasp of 1200, there really are another 800 (or more) lurking around, that would be a huge obstacle if I didn't know anything about them at all.

The students in my class who have mastered over 1000 don't think it's a huge obstacle learning new kanji, even though they haven't done RTK1. They say getting to 1000 was a challenge, but after that it was clear sailing.

Quote:Teachers and doubtful learners saying that this method is a waste of time are nothing new.

Are you implying by this statement that *I* am saying that? Because I am not, as I have repeated many times. So you don't need to justify Heisig to me. I am already convinced. However, I don't think RTK1 is suitable for my needs, for various reasons already cited. That doesn't mean I think it's a "waste of time." For the record, I have never heard anyone actually criticizing Heisig. The other students in my class are not even aware of Heisig. I know this because the other day our teacher was asking us how we are studying kanji. I kind of showed everyone my method, and they were impressed, although probably a bit worried at how much effort it needs. Someone else was using Heisig, and he's one of the ones who have mastered over 1000: he says he has no problems learning new ones. No one mentioned Heisig.