Quote:whenever I see (黒い) I don't think "oh, that's a computer on top of flames", or some convoluted story involving rice field, ground and cooking flames, I find it far easier to remember the character by the etymology: "soot (which of course is black) on top of a modified 赤, which is the red from a fire"

Actually the bottom of 黒 is a modified 炎, which is unrelated to 赤, so right off the bat you're straying from the true etymology. And this is a relatively simple character, but as you continue studying and find more obscure and irrelevant elements like the soot and modified 炎 here, it will become increasingly difficult to keep track of it all without a unifying system.

Every method has its failings. Heisig's are the smallest I've encountered yet for learning kanji. As many members here can attest (including several I introduced to RTK myself who had been struggling though Japanese for years with other methods), the method revolutionized their kanji study. For most people, a structed and divided approach to learning is the best. And indirect initial learning, especially for something so massive as kanji, is a proven method in innumerable other studies. But everyone likes to "wear white socks with Birkenstocks" for some facet of their life.

Christine_Tham Wrote:I think my point is: Are you absolutely sure the purpose of the worksheets is to learn kanji by repetition, or is it for another purpose (ie. to improve calligraphy)? It's easy to misunderstand the context of a learning aid.

If you were a Japanese person and you see children in an English class repeatedly copying the same sentence over and over again, would you conclude the purpose was to memorise the sentence?

Children don't copy sentences over and over; they copy spelling lists. English spelling and kanji writing are closely related. Through indirect repetition (both in other classwork, outside school, etc) students are able to reproduce correctly formed kanji and correctly spelled words. I'm did not mean to intend again that students repeatedly write kanji as their main form of learning. I know it is for brushwork. Though that practice helps imbed the form through reptition. It is the lack of daily repetition in daily life (computers and keitai) that has led to the drastic drop in kanji ability in Japanese. Yeah, they know the kanji, but their ability to reproduce it sucks because the repetition of writing the form correctly is gone.

Christine_Tham Wrote:Or at least that's how my Japanese teacher explained to me. He said Kanji handwriting legibility is a real problem because a lot of people have sloppy handwriting.

Lol, it seems all that repetition isn't enough, have you seen a japanese resume? XD

Quote:Remember, just knowing the shapes of the characters are not enough (despite what Heisig says). It's the readings and the (multiple) meanings that are the key to mastering a specific kanji character.

Heisig DOES cover readings -on RKII.

Of course, knowing only the shape is not enough, but I think it's a lot easier to learn the shape of a kanji first, so you can recognise it every time you see it in a japanese text and think "oh, so THAT kanji had THAT meaning", and then add new meanings to each kanji as they appear, as opposite to learn a lot of meanings for each kanji and learn less kanji's shapes. And of course, if you want to MASTER kanji, just 1 book -whichever it be- won't be enough by itself.

Quote:But I do appreciate that ultimately etymology is the best way to truly appreciate a kanji character in all it's richness.

I agree on that, but paradoxically, I think it will be a lot easier to learn etymology after knowing Japanese. And it would take too much time to do both at the same time.

Quote:As you may have guessed, I have pretty much given up learning using Heisig, and I'm learning the "traditional way" (well not really traditional, I found the Heisig primitives that I've picked up useful every now and then). It's much slower, I would say 5-10 times slower than Heisig, but the recall rate is higher than Heisig, and the bonus is you really know the character, including multiple meanings (such as when the character is used as noun, vs a verb - and transitive vs intransitive usage) and readings.

I think you are mixing two separate things. One thing is writing, and other thing is grammar, I don't see any reason why Heisig should include aspects like transitive/intransitive on his book, since they don't depend on the kanji, but on the sentence structure.

Quote:My teacher says there is no need to learn 2000 - many characters are botanical, archaic or specialist terms that are extremely rarely used. He says most Japanese probably only know about 1000-1200 characters well, so that's what I'm aiming for. Advanced students I have spoken to say that when you get to that level, you can pretty much guess the meanings (and sometimes even the readings) of characters you don't know - there's apparently some redundancy in compound words.

That's nothing new. In western languages, we dont eevn need to know a lot of spellyng or puntuation sins u can infer a lot of thing frm the contecst. Besides, it is scientifically proven that you olny need the frsit and the lsat ltteer of ecah wrod to be in its orerct pcale in oredr to ueatndrnsd waht you raed . But It's no reason to give up correct spelling and punctuation. I think that if you want to learn a new language, you should aim to the top, or at least above the least level of fluency needed to get what you want to say across to people.

Quote:At the end of the day, Heisig's system is just a memorization technique to get you familiar with the shapes of the 2000 characters, and keywords associated with them.

And that's great for me.

Quote:When you complete RTK1, you actually haven't learned any kanji at all, at least not in the sense that a Japanese literate person would consider learning. You don't know the readings, you can't differentiate between noun/verb usage, you will not be able to understand compounds (I know, because I have tried).

That's assuming you have done nothing else related to Japanese, maybe you should have tried going through RK WHILE doing something else.


Well, my experience with learning kanji is like this: I have "studied" "kanji" for a couple of years from formal classes and native teachers, but even though the first 1 or 2 classes were sort of didactical -like, "this kanji is the picture of a mountain, this one is a rice field...", most of the rest has being like:

"konnnichiha, kyou no kotoba ha vksjdfngvkjfnskvjnfd, ivjsdfkjvnfg, vjhtsbvmgnbjfg, ljadnfkjfndskjv to cvlsdjfbvkfnvkfdjvbjksfgjsndkvmndrtkjfvnfmsntn. Issho ni kurikaeshite kudasai"

"Good morning, today's words are vksjdfngvkjfnskvjnfd, ivjsdfkjvnfg, vjhtsbvmgnbjfg, ljadnfkjfndskjv to cvlsdjfbvkfnvkfdjvbjksfgjsndkvmndrtkjfvnfmsntn. Let's repeat them together"

Results: most of my classmates (including me, unfortunately) end up forgetting almost every word we "study" this way. Furthermore, our japanese teachers haven't actually tought us KANJI, but only compounds, so we aren't given any tool to learn the usage of the kanjis we supposedly "study" when used on new words. Last, but not least, that method plain f***ing boring -well, it can vary depending of the teacher, of course, but good teachers are in short supply, and even they tend to take brute force repetition as the basis.

In a desperate intent of learning KANJI for real and for good, I started studying with RK and spaced repetition a couple of weeks ago -thanks Heisig, Leitner, Fabrice and Resolve. Since I don't have much time, my progress has been pretty slow, but I feel a lot more confident with the kanjis I see on RK, and the most important... now I ENJOY kanji! Sometimes I even found myself almost laughing while remembering kanji - not as study, but just because now I feel like thinking on kanji. I just hope that enjoyment not to disappear in the long run.


Well, I disagree with you on some points, but if your own ideas and way of studying kanji works for you, that's ok.

By the way, what about following RK kanji order, but replacing the keywords with actual meanings, and stories with the etymology of the kanji? I think that approach would fit the best with your thinking.

To end this post, I think RK is a GREAT aid for learning kanji, but it isn't the bible,
so there is no reason to take it as the only one and final truth. The other way around, you shouldn't blame RK because of its deficits and give it up, but solve that deficits by complementing RK with other books and methods.

Sorry if I write too much, it's just that reading this forum motivates me sooo much - that's why I love this site

Transtic Wrote:Sorry if I write too much, it's just that reading this forum motivates me sooo much - that's why I love this site :d

Amen!

JimmySeal Wrote:You say these things like they are absolute facts, when actually they are highly subjective statements. After learning 250 characters, you are not in a position to draw such conclusions about learning kanji, so anything you say is either hearsay (and some of it, I believe, from native speakers who were indoctrinated to think that way), or the hastily drawn conclusions based on a partial knowledge of the characters.

I think I have made it clear from the start that my statements are in the context of my personal experience, based on starting with Heisig and then changing to a different method. Of course they are highly subjective. I don't claim to be the world expert on Kanji and Kanji learning methods, otherwise I wouldn't be posting on this forum. And of course I am relying on my teachers, and on students more advanced than me. And also on people in this forum. Am I drawing hasty conclusions, simply because I am listening to advice given to me by others, and I find they corroborate with my own personal observations? Perhaps. But at least I've made some progress, and that's what really matters, isn't it?

Quote:I can say from experience that Heisig works, and got me to upper proficiency, after seven years of struggling with other methods.

Can I ask what you mean by upper proficiency? How proficient were you before, and after using Heisig? How proficient are you now?

I will admit up front: I am a beginner. I have studied Japanese for less than a year, and much of it on my own. My grammar is only slightly better than JLPT4, and up until a month ago barely knew more than say 30-40 characters, and even then did not know how to write them. To have progressed from that to a situation where I am comfortable with 200 characters and being able read kanji at "real time speed" (ie. read whilst talking) in one month is satisfying for me. If you can progress faster than that, I will certainly be interested in learning how you have achieved it.

Quote:I hear a lot of people saying "Heisig fails to teach you the correct etymologies for the characters." Since when does everyone learning Japanese need to be an orthographic historian, and why to they need to learn the etymologies from the beginning?

That's not the point. I've found that even a rudimentary knowledge of etymology helps enormously to understand how to write the character, and perhaps subtleties and shades of meaning. It's certainly helped clarify my studies immensely. Again, I'm only speaking from personal experience, and I have no intention of becoming a Kanji expert or scholar.

dingomick Wrote:

Transtic Wrote:Sorry if I write too much, it's just that reading this forum motivates me sooo much - that's why I love this site :d

Amen!

BTW, please stop writing for a while, I'm getting addicted to this! XD

JimmySeal Wrote:

Quote:whenever I see (黒い) I don't think "oh, that's a computer on top of flames", or some convoluted story involving rice field, ground and cooking flames, I find it far easier to remember the character by the etymology: "soot (which of course is black) on top of a modified 赤, which is the red from a fire"

Actually the bottom of 黒 is a modified 炎, which is unrelated to 赤, so right off the bat you're straying from the true etymology. And this is a relatively simple character, but as you continue studying and find more obscure and irrelevant elements like the soot and modified 炎 here, it will become increasingly difficult to keep track of it all without a unifying system.

Actually, there's dispute over this (and if you read Henshall you will find there are disputes over just about every character!). For example, my teacher doesn't agree with Henshall on a lot of matters - he claims Henshall's research is sometimes a bit superficial. Anyway, the story that I quoted was his. The question is: how do you know your story is correct and his story isn't? What research have you done? On what basis are you saying yours is the "true" etymology? :-)

But in any case you are missing the point I made: which is that etymology is useful as a memorizing aid. Whether it's correct or not is beside the point. The real point is that I found it easier to remember than some story involving computers and flames, or whatever.

Transtic Wrote:Heisig DOES cover readings -on RKII.

Yes, I know that. I have a copy of RTK2. I am interested to know if anyone has *successfully* mastered the readings for all Jouyou using RTK2.

Quote:And of course, if you want to MASTER kanji, just 1 book -whichever it be- won't be enough by itself.

Completely agree. Which is why I like the approach of using multiple books, as detailed in my explanation of the method I am using.

Quote:I agree on that, but paradoxically, I think it will be a lot easier to learn etymology after knowing Japanese. And it would take too much time to do both at the same time.

Well, actually, it would be a lot easier learning Japanese if I already knew Japanese! :-)

Quote:I think you are mixing two separate things. One thing is writing, and other thing is grammar, I don't see any reason why Heisig should include aspects like transitive/intransitive on his book, since they don't depend on the kanji, but on the sentence structure.

I was referring to the fact that a typical kanji has multiple kunyomi readings corresponding to transitive vs intransitive, and sometimes different verbs with different shades of meaning, plus a completely different meaning yet again as a noun. You can't get that just from one keyword.

Quote:But It's no reason to give up correct spelling and punctuation. I think that if you want to learn a new language, you should aim to the top, or at least above the least level of fluency needed to get what you want to say across to people.

You are mixing metaphors here. Learning kanji isn't like learning spelling and punctuation. And even if it is, why would you bother learning the spelling of botanical terms that you have no intention of ever using and will never encounter? Isn't it better to focus on learning the spelling for words you would use?

The Jouyou list is interesting in that whilst it contains the character for "Japanese Judas Tree" (I still have *no* idea what this is!) common words like "apple" and "chopsticks" are based on characters outside the Jouyou list.

Once you accept the notion that the list is not perfect or related to words that are in use, then why bother learning the list at all? Why not just pick and choose the words you do want to learn?

Quote:That's assuming you have done nothing else related to Japanese, maybe you should have tried going through RK WHILE doing something else.

Ahh, but then Heisig specifically says you shouldn't be doing that. I guess that's the real issue - I do agree with his point that learning kanji using his method as well as the traditional method is counter productive and will interfere with each other. I can certainly attest to that from personal experience. So at the end of the day, it's one or the other, I decided for various reasons I don't have the time to learn it the Heisig way, and it would interfere with my Japanese classes.

Quote:Results: most of my classmates (including me, unfortunately) end up forgetting almost every word we "study" this way. Furthermore, our japanese teachers haven't actually tought us KANJI, but only compounds, so we aren't given any tool to learn the usage of the kanjis we supposedly "study" when used on new words. Last, but not least, that method plain f***ing boring -well, it can vary depending of the teacher, of course, but good teachers are in short supply, and even they tend to take brute force repetition as the basis.

Sounds like your teachers weren't very good. I'm sorry to hear that. Fortunately, I'm lucky enough to have very good teachers, I'm studying directly with the Japan Foundation, with teachers who are not only fully qualified but act as language consultants to other Japanese teachers. Man their placement test was tough! I guess they only want to accept "good" students.

I'm also doing some lessons in the Japan Seminar House, which is also partly funded by both the Australian and Japanese governments. I would agree that it's preferable to self study via Heisig than to go through a bad teacher.

Quote:I ENJOY kanji! Sometimes I even found myself almost laughing while remembering kanji - not as study, but just because now I feel like thinking on kanji. I just hope that enjoyment not to disappear in the long run.

That's very important.

Quote:By the way, what about following RK kanji order, but replacing the keywords with actual meanings, and stories with the etymology of the kanji? I think that approach would fit the best with your thinking.

I thought about it, and in fact I am still writing down the Heisig index for every character I study. But unfortunately too impractical - a lot of JLPT3 and JLPT4 words are right at the end of the book, which goes back to the point that if I really wanted to do Heisig, I should have done it BEFORE starting Japanese classes and not during.

Quote:Sorry if I write too much, it's just that reading this forum motivates me sooo much - that's why I love this site

I like your post - keep on writing!

Quote:Can I ask what you mean by upper proficiency? How proficient were you before, and after using Heisig? How proficient are you now?

I studied Japanese for 7 years on-and-off before doing the Heisig book and moving to Japan soon after. Those 7 years would roughly equate to 3 years of classroom study. At that point I had a shaky grasp of about 700 characters and I was quite literally forgetting them faster than I could learn them. I would learn a character's reading and forget one of its others, or see one that I was supposed to know but draw a blank in my head.
I finished Heisig in less than 4 months. 4 months after that I passed JLPT 2, and a year later JLPT 1. I intend to pass Kanji Kentei level 3 2 months from now, and level 2 a year after that. I can read novels and other books without the aid of a dictionary (there are of course words I don't know, but they are few and far between). And I can have prolonged conversations without often asking the other person to clarify themself, and can express my own thoughts without much trouble.

Quote:Of course, most of Heisig's keywords are in fact pretty good so we are talking about exceptions. But I don't really want to learn the English keywords at all, if possible. Otherwise I will forever be translating from Japanese to English, and that's a no no when learning a foreign language.

Not true. Once you become more familiar with the characters, the keywords fade away, as do the mnemonic stories. But they are there if you need them.

Quote:The Jouyou list is interesting in that whilst it contains the character for "Japanese Judas Tree" (I still have *no* idea what this is!) common words like "apple" and "chopsticks" are based on characters outside the Jouyou list.

"Japanese Judas Tree" is not on the joyo list. Heisig threw in that and a few other simple characters relating to plants because they could be learned as a bonus with almost no effort and served to strengthen the primitives. Not the case with the second character in apple (林檎).
Japanese Judas tree (katsura) is actually a pretty common tree. I own a shogi board made from katsura. And the novel I'm reading has used the character for "Pawlonia Tree" (桐) quite a few times without furigana.
Your acquaintances' claims of the joyo list being full of botanical terms are grossly exaggerated. I think it has kanji for less than 5 plant species, and RTK1 probably has less than 10.

Quote:Once you accept the notion that the list is not perfect or related to words that are in use, then why bother learning the list at all?

Not perfect (is anything ever perfect?), but pretty darn close to representing the characters used and encountered in daily life, and with the exception of about 15, all 1945 of them are worth knowing. That's why I would bother.

Quote:Why not just pick and choose the words you do want to learn?

Because learning characters at random as you encounter them, instead of in a unified system like Heisig's, actually creates more work and effort than it saves, even if your goal is to learn only 1000 and not all the joyo kanji.

JimmySeal Wrote:I finished Heisig in less than 4 months. 4 months after that I passed JLPT 2, and a year later JLPT 1. I intend to pass Kanji Kentei level 3 2 months from now, and level 2 a year after that.

Thanks for sharing your experience. It's good to hear from people such as yourself and your thoughts on what works and what doesn't.

Quote:Once you become more familiar with the characters, the keywords fade away, as do the mnemonic stories. But they are there if you need them.

In which case why learn them in the first place? I understand their value as mnemonic aids, but other things can be substituted (for example, etymology). The point I was trying to make was that one does not need to strictly follow Heisig's system to reap the benefits - as long has one has a viable alternative and sticks to it, that's fine too (particular if it seems to be working).

I appreciate your struggles prior to Heisig. I found the Heisig approach a great boost for me as well, previously I was not remembering *any* characters. But I'm adapting as I go along, and unfortunately following Heisig's system strictly is not really beneficial anymore.

Quote:Your acquaintances' claims of the joyo list being full of botanical terms are grossly exaggerated. I think it has kanji for less than 5 plant species, and RTK1 probably has less than 10.

Actually, first of all I never said that the Jouyou list was full of botanical terms, I simply said that it has a large number of specialised or rarely used characters, which may include botanical terms. And the claim was not made by an "acquaintance", it was made by my Japanese teacher, as well as in the preface to "Kanji In Context". In fact Kanji in Context groups the Jouyou into 5 levels (I think, or is it 6?), with the last level corresponding to obscure characters which they discourage from learning (systematically).

And yes, whilst it's useful to know a few botanical terms, and I'm sure they will crop up in a novel or two, is it really necessary learning them? If I'm reading a novel and I encounter a Pawlonia tree (!), I'm sure a single lookup to a dictionary will be sufficient, and then I can move on. And afterwards, I wouldn't care if I remembered the character or not. If I start encountering it regularly, then of course I would care and start learning it.

Quote:Not perfect (is anything ever perfect?), but pretty darn close to representing the characters used and encountered in daily life, and with the exception of about 15, all 1945 of them are worth knowing. That's why I would bother.

Again, suggest "Kanji in Context" disagrees with with your statement, and so does my Japanese teacher. I'm not saying they are right and you are wrong, but I am weighing which advice is more relevant to my situation.

Quote:Because learning characters at random as you encounter them, instead of in a unified system like Heisig's, actually creates more work and effort than it saves, even if your goal is to learn only 1000 and not all the joyo kanji.

Again, there are different opinions, such as the sources I cite, and I need to weigh which advice is more applicable to me.

Anyway, my goal is not necessarily to stop once I have reached 1000 and then refuse to learn any more. That would be silly. What I was suggesting was learn 1000 exhaustively (NOT by random, but essentially by frequency or perhaps JLPT or grade school order) and that will build up a core foundation to allow me to then learn additional characters by random. Eventually I may reach 2000, or even 3000, but that's not an explicit goal, and not necessarily aligned to the Jouyou list.

Christine_Tham Wrote:Once you accept the notion that the list is not perfect or related to words that are in use, then why bother learning the list at all? Why not just pick and choose the words you do want to learn?

No, the list is not perfect, but it's darn close. Do you know the definition of 常用? It's "daily use." The jouyou kanji, and the other common name kanji Heisig includes in the book (which he clearly explains) were determined by the government to be the most common kanji needed for daily use. With the exception of a handful, both included and not included in RTK1, I find this to be true.

Why pick and choose the words you need to know when many people far more informed have already done it for you? Besides, you shouldn't pick and choose the words you need to know because you don't know which you need.

Again, on top of all this, the strength of Heisig is that it presents a simple, unified approach to covering a massive amount of data quickly in a clear and logical progression. This is especially true of stroke order. 2 years ago something as common as 勉強 eluded me just days after "learning" it because it was just a random jumble of lines. Now, nothing phases me, even 23 stroke monsters like 襲 and 驚. My mind is free and secure to concentrate on readings and other aspects of learning because the meanings and writing are embedded in my mind.

It's fair to downplay the effectiveness of Heisig's book. However, how many other books are available to the English (or French, or Spanish) audience to teach recognizing Kanji as one would recognize the picture of a car, or a dog, or a girl? He wants you to learn Kanji in your native language so that when you begin reading, it's like a picture book. Every sentence in Japanese can be akin to a book for kindergardners.

Yes, we're adults, we can handle a deeper look at the Kanji. Hell, find someone willing to do the heavy work, produce a book that teaches as effectively using the etymology and radical meanings closer to Japanese and Chinese roots, then it's likely we'll get it and use it. But here we have a book any of us can access. That's a big selling point. I don't have a Japanese teacher, I have myself and what I gleen from the internet. Plus, I know I can add in etymology in time. I'll finish RTK in a month or two, move onto reading in context and will review RTK II to get more organized knowledge on the pronunciations. I know Kuroi is black, I don't even think (computer on fire). I know Neko is cat, I don't think (dogs chasing the cat through the flowers catching it in the rice field). In fact, it's not even attached to the words black or cat, but more the concepts of what they are.

That's why it can work, as Heisig wants you to visualize the stories. The keyword fades and becomes the key concept which translates easily to any language as you gain fluency. That you'll also gain and hold that knowledge faster is a big help.

Summarize: Heisig is available and it works.

Heresy!

Quote:Once you become more familiar with the characters, the keywords fade away, as do the mnemonic stories. But they are there if you need them.

Christine_Tham Wrote:In which case why learn them in the first place?

Because anything is better than rote memorisation?

For myself, the story is what reminds me of the compents of a kanji, what their correct order of writing is, and how it ties in with the keyword. And whilst it is still a lot of work, I know I had more fun imagining some cracked up stories than I would have researching the primitive roots of over 2000 kanji.

I like the idea of half the work being done for me and just mindlessly trudging through the kanji as they were given to me in RTK.

dingomick Wrote:No, the list is not perfect, but it's darn close. Do you know the definition of 常用? It's "daily use." The jouyou kanji, and the other common name kanji Heisig includes in the book (which he clearly explains) were determined by the government to be the most common kanji needed for daily use. With the exception of a handful, both included and not included in RTK1, I find this to be true.

I think the point that "Kanji in Context" and my Japanese teacher were trying to make (which I agree with) is that many words in the list are *not* in daily use, and therefore should only be learnt if necessary, not systematically. Kanji in Context, for example, *strongly* recommends that you learn 1200 systematically, and the rest by exception.

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!

The Jouyou list is important in that it has consciously and unconsciously helped shaped Japanese culture and society, similar to "doubleplusgood" in George Orwell's "1984", but that's a different discussion for another day!

You will find that newspapers and book publishers maintain their own lists of words that they will print, which are not necessarily aligned to Jouyou. If you go to an antiques store, you will find Japanese typewriters (made after the Jouyou list was published) that are not aligned to Jouyou.

I guess my motivation for studying Japanese is probably very different from yours and JimmySeal's. I understand that if someone wants to pass JLPT1 and Kanji kentei, then studying the Jouyou list is important.

But I have no intention to sit for any JLPT test - now or in the forseeable future. Therefore I couldn't care less whether I know the whole list or not. I want to study Japanese because I would like to chat with friends & associates in Japanese, I want to watch a movie in Japanese without subtitles, and I want to be able to read newspapers and only look up words occasionally. I want to be able to read manga, and maybe even a Japanese novel, without too much difficulty.

To do all the above, I have been told by many people (as well as several books), only requires somewhere between 800-1200 kanji. I am kind of hoping it's 800, but I suspect it's probably closer to 1200. So 1000 as a target seems realistic.

As for chatting with friends/etc., I can do that today (even though I am only a beginner). That's what the Japan Foundation classes stress - they kind of force you very early on to have conversations rather than scripted dialogue with classmates, and I have to maintain a blog in Japanese. I think it's a really cool teaching method. At first, we were all very self conscious, but then we discover that it was possible to have extended conversations on various things like hobbies, food, movies, favourite actors and actresses, with only a very limited vocabulary and beginner level grammar. We even found amazing things about each other, because we were all required to give a mini speech on our background in Japanese.

That's what I really enjoy about language - the social interaction. The idea of locking myself for a few months doing nothing but Heisig, and emerging at the end of it knowing how to write 2000+ characters, just seems weird.

aircawn Wrote:Because anything is better than rote memorisation?

Not quite sure I understand your point. The method I am using is not based on rote memorisation. In fact, it's much more analytical than Heisig. My original post was pointing out that Japanese schoolchildren do not learn Kanji by rote memorisation either. They learn by shape decomposition (similar to Heisig), etymology, stories and semantic/phonetic inference.

aircawn Wrote:For myself, the story is what reminds me of the compents of a kanji, what their correct order of writing is, and how it ties in with the keyword. And whilst it is still a lot of work, I know I had more fun imagining some cracked up stories than I would have researching the primitive roots of over 2000 kanji.

I like the idea of half the work being done for me and just mindlessly trudging through the kanji as they were given to me in RTK.

Well, I like the idea of *all* the work being done for me and having someone who has already done the research describe how each kanji was formed and has evolved. There's an entertaining tale behind each character that is sometimes weird, and at times rather ribald (or maybe this is just my teacher, who has a wicked sense of humour). You should hear his explanation for 北 (north) - the whole class roared in laughter. After that, everyone had no difficulty remembering how to write it. The explanation for the character 旅 (travel) became a good discussion on the difference between ryokou (trip) and tabi (journey), with references to Japanese tour groups and Mononoke Hime. Again, a great discussion, which locks the subtleties between the onyomi and kunyomi readings. Also, learning the etymology of characters is a great insight into Chinese and Japanese history, culture and philosophy. As a side effect, we are all getting a great education, not just remembering how to write characters.

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.

Christine_Tham Wrote:I think the point that "Kanji in Context" and my Japanese teacher were trying to make (which I agree with) is that many words in the list are *not* in daily use, and therefore should only be learnt if necessary, not systematically. Kanji in Context, for example, *strongly* recommends that you learn 1200 systematically, and the rest by exception.

The thing is though, one of the things we all agree on is RTK isn't trying to give you full knowledge of the character. The methods you mention *are* trying to do this, they are trying to give you a full working knowledge of every character. With RTK it's just a few extra minutes to learn how to draw and recognize the kanji if you ever need it.

Also I don't disagree with some of your criticism, but I do disagree with what you are comparing. You are comparing just RTK which is meant to be a step in a process, and other methods that do all the steps at once. Now your goal is to complete 1000 kanji in a year of so right? So a fair comparison would be to see how far somebody is along after completing RTK in 2-4 months and then a good more than half a year of subsequent study.

cracky Wrote:The thing is though, one of the things we all agree on is RTK isn't trying to give you full knowledge of the character. The methods you mention *are* trying to do this, they are trying to give you a full working knowledge of every character. With RTK it's just a few extra minutes to learn how to draw and recognize the kanji if you ever need it.

Also I don't disagree with some of your criticism, but I do disagree with what you are comparing.

I think you have completely misunderstood my posts. I am not trying to criticise RTK, and I am not trying to compare anything. In fact, I have mentioned several times I started using RTK, and found it to be very useful.

Let me summarise what I have been saying:
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.
2. Then I mentioned that whilst I started using Heisig, I am no longer using Heisig but instead studying through a combination of methods, including shape decomposition (but via DeRoo and Henshall rather than Heisig). Again, no criticism of Heisig here. Analytical decomposition works, and I am using it. But I'm doing a whole lot more, including attending classes, learning Kanji by context, etc.

Several people questioned me why I abandoned Heisig, and I gave my reasons. Again, these are my personal reasons explaining why Heisig is no longer suitable for me and why I have moved on. This is not a criticism of Heisig - I have repeatedly said his method works.

At least one person started questioning my method, and saying I am not in the best position to give an opinion, and that what I'm saying is wrong. My response is that I am relying on advice given to me by teachers and more advanced students (as well as what several very well regarded textbooks have emphasized), and it seems sensible to me. Besides, it's worked so far, with good results, and that's what really matters, isn't it?

This is not a black and white "It's either Heisig or else" kind of situation. Different people learn differently, and no one method works for all. I am trying other methods, that's all, and explained several times why a pure Heisig approach is not suitable for me. But the approach that he advocates is a good approach, I am still using it, and lots of other approaches are very similar (Kanji ABC, DeRoo etc.) and even Japanese schoolchildren are taught using this approach. But specifically, I don't see any point in following his character sequence, or breaking down the learning process into chunks (that makes no sense to me and is against my normal learning process). I also see no value in using his primitives (I much prefer a Bushu based approach and etymology) and I don't see any point in attaching English keywords to the characters. That's clearly a transitionary step, but I don't need the transitionary step since I am learning everything "simultaneously."

Some people say you can't learn everything simultaneously, but clearly this does not apply to me, since I managed to learn over 200 characters this way. Some people have hinted that perhaps I will run into difficulties and struggle as I learn more characters. Perhaps. But perhaps not. If I do, I'll adapt my approach. But I have seen many people successfully learn kanji purely by context, so obviously it's not impossible.

Christine_Tham,

i am not going to try to catch you in some falacious error of logic or anything like that, so don't take this as a fully developed logical counter-argument. just an observation for consideration.

there is something interesting to me in two of your lines of arguments against heisig. and actually the combination of these two lines of argument is nothing new from people who disparage the heisig method.

one line goes something like this: the heisig method is insufficient, trivial, or just plain wrong-headed because it does not "go all the way" in learning kanji. it merely helps to remember how to write the kanji connected to a single english keyword. after completing the heisig method, one can write 2000 kanji and associate a meaning, but this can hardly be considered actually "reading" them because the student has no idea how to connect the sounds, etc.

the other line goes something like this: the heisig method is superfluous and a lot of extra work, because it focuses on writing the kanji (when all i really need to do or want to do is read them), and furthermore, it requires one to take on all the jouyou kanji (which includes twice the number of characters that i really want to or need to tackle).

like i said, running these two arguments at once does not really commit a logical fallacy. but still, i sometimes find it a bit odd. basically, i often hear from the same mouth something to the effect of, "i don't want to do heisig because it doesn't go 'all the way' with the kanji, and furthermore, i don't want to do heisig because i don't want to 'go all the way' with the kanji."

aside from the fact that i found the heisig method to be quite effective and efficient (and that observation comes as much from my experience as a special education teacher as from my experience as a student) a large part of my decision to follow the heisig method stems from my commitment to going "all the way" with the kanji. i knew from the start that i would not be satisfied with only learning 600-800 of the most commonly used kanji, and that i would not be satisfied with only knowing how to recognize them without being able to write them. and so, a method offering a systematic foundation for all the jouyou kanji (which in turn sets a firm foundation for quickly picking up any non-jouyou kanji i meet later) was very appealing to me.

so, it is quite alright if your life circumstances lead you to the decision to only take on 800 of the most commonly used kanji. if after careful consideration you find that is really all you need, then heisig may not be the most efficient method for you. and each student of japanese must find their own balancing point. but don't downgrade the heisig plan just because it is intended for a different audience with different aspirations.

and please don't make the mistake that most heisig opponents make in thinking that book 1 is the end of the adventure (i don't think you have yet, but sometimes you talk like it). as dingomick has so eloquently described, it is merely a structure, but for those whose goal is not limited to the minimum number of kanji needed "to get by," such a systematic structure is extremely helpful to have set in place from the start. with the system from book 1 in place, i find that the writing and meaning of newly met kanji stays with me quite naturally and effortlessly. and as for connecting the sounds, i am finding that they are also coming quite naturally without the need (so far) for systematic study. the 2000+ kanji nodes set up in my head are like a net that readily snares the readings as i encounter them in daily life and simple vocabulary studies (though this would certainly be different if i did not live here in japan).

EDIT: well, while i was writing this, a lot more posts have come up (you guys are so prolific!), so please don't take this as a reply to the post immediately above, or it will seem a day late and a dollar short (well, it is in fact five minutes late and a hundred yen short)...

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!

Christine_Tham Wrote:I don't see any point in following his character sequence

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.

Quote:or breaking down the learning process into chunks (that makes no sense to me and is against my normal learning process).

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?

Quote:I also see no value in using his primitives (I much prefer a Bushu based approach and etymology) and I don't see any point in attaching English keywords to the characters.

But you have! As I noted in an earlier reply, whether it's computers and fire, or soot and red, you are employing the EXACT same process as Heisig. Even your memory progression exactly follows his description, as I posted when I quoted him in full.

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.

Christine_Tham Wrote:I think you have completely misunderstood my posts. I am not trying to criticise RTK, and I am not trying to compare anything. In fact, I have mentioned several times I started using RTK, and found it to be very useful.

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.

Fabrice Wrote:"Reviewing the Kanji" is a reviewing aid that helps you keep track of, and schedule reviews for over two thousand kanji. While the title is a perfectly descriptive one, it is also a playful nod at the kanji study method called "Remembering the Kanji" by James W. Heisig.

It is assumed that you are studying the kanji in the same "frame number" ordering that is presented in the book.

While there may be some interesting points made in this thread, it seems very much like an Apple user (of which I'm one) posting to a Windows discussion forum.

Quote: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!

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.

Quote:And yes, whilst it's useful to know a few botanical terms, and I'm sure they will crop up in a novel or two, is it really necessary learning them?

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. It's like Heisig is saying "I'll give you this free car, and $1000 if you'll just sign this paper here." and you respond "Why would I go to the trouble of signing that paper? I already have a car and money."

Quote:To do all the above, I have been told by many people (as well as several books), only requires somewhere between 800-1200 kanji. I am kind of hoping it's 800, but I suspect it's probably closer to 1200. So 1000 as a target seems realistic.

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.

Quote:Well, I like the idea of *all* the work being done for me and having someone who has already done the research describe how each kanji was formed and has evolved.

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

Anyway, I wish you luck. I think I'm done with this discussion.

Christine_Tham Wrote:Well, I like the idea of *all* the work being done for me and having someone who has already done the research describe how each kanji was formed and has evolved. There's an entertaining tale behind each character that is sometimes weird, and at times rather ribald (or maybe this is just my teacher, who has a wicked sense of humour). You should hear his explanation for 北 (north) - the whole class roared in laughter. After that, everyone had no difficulty remembering how to write it. The explanation for the character 旅 (travel) became a good discussion on the difference between ryokou (trip) and tabi (journey), with references to Japanese tour groups and Mononoke Hime. Again, a great discussion, which locks the subtleties between the onyomi and kunyomi readings. Also, learning the etymology of characters is a great insight into Chinese and Japanese history, culture and philosophy. As a side effect, we are all getting a great education, not just remembering how to write characters.

That sounds great!

Quote: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.

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.

Quote:That's what I really enjoy about language - the social interaction. The idea of locking myself for a few months doing nothing but Heisig, and emerging at the end of it knowing how to write 2000+ characters, just seems weird.

I agree totally with you. Even more, if you go through all the 2000 ans something kanji, and just after all that start studying Japanese for real, could realise that you don't really like it and have wasted your time -and brains- on something pointless. But I think that most of people don't take -or at least, shouldn't take- RK as their only one activity when learning the language, but as an aid.


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.

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?

decamer0n Wrote:there is something interesting to me in two of your lines of arguments against heisig. and actually the combination of these two lines of argument is nothing new from people who disparage the heisig method.

See my post above. I am not trying to criticise the Heisig method, simply explaining why it is not suitable for me.

decamer0n Wrote:like i said, running these two arguments at once does not really commit a logical fallacy. but still, i sometimes find it a bit odd. basically, i often hear from the same mouth something to the effect of, "i don't want to do heisig because it doesn't go 'all the way' with the kanji, and furthermore, i don't want to do heisig because i don't want to 'go all the way' with the kanji."

Quote:so, it is quite alright if your life circumstances lead you to the decision to only take on 800 of the most commonly used kanji. if after careful consideration you find that is really all you need, then heisig may not be the most efficient method for you. and each student of japanese must find their own balancing point. but don't downgrade the heisig plan just because it is intended for a different audience with different aspirations.

But that's exactly what I'm saying. None of my posts are an attempt to "downgrade" Heisig, I've repeatedly said it's a good method and when I was using it, it was effective for me. If I say that I find what I'm currently doing to be more effective, that's because my goals are different. If I say for example "A works better for me than B" it does NOT imply "therefore I think B is crap". If you are making such an inference, then it is you who is making a logical fallacy.

Quote:and please don't make the mistake that most heisig opponents make in thinking that book 1 is the end of the adventure (i don't think you have yet, but sometimes you talk like it).

I don't know where you get the idea that I think Book 1 is the end of the adventure. As I've said before, I own a copy of RTK2. 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.