Serge wrote:

The Japanese and Chinese languages present their own unique difficulties with regards to readings of characters (which for most part cannot be resolved without a dictionary) but even if we forget about these for a moment

Meaning and pronunciation are two very separate things.  Through reading alone a person can hypothesize meanings for words and test their guesses.  This is not usually true for pronunciation, and I do use a dictionary to find out how to pronounce words.

... how can one correctly guess a plant sort, for example?! Let's say one is reading the phrase 'a [tree sort] table'. You can get the idea that it's a tree sort (which is even easier in Chinese and Japanese) but how can you guess whether it's an 'oak' or a 'teak' table, for example? The only way would be to look up the word in Google Images or to look for a picture in Wikipedia but that can hardly be quicker and more efficient than using a dictionary. The above is only an example, there must be plenty of word categories like this one.

The first question I would ask here is, what is the desperate need to know exactly what kind of tree it is? If I see the name of a tree I don't know anything about in English (say, a dogwood), I'm not going to run off to a dictionary or encyclopedia to learn about it.  So why would I do that in an other language?  I just accept it for what it is and if I can surmise other characteristics about it (sturdy, fragrant) from the reading I'm doing, that's great.

But for someone who must know what a tree or animal is, Google images is far better than a dictionary.  After all, a picture is worth a thousand words, and how can a dictionary possibly help you relate to the word さくら if all you think of when you hear the word "cherry" is this:
http://k53.pbase.com/u26/dannysmythe/la … Cherry.jpg

Tree and animal names do not neatly transfer from one language to another.  Look up the word こまどり in a Japanese-English dictionary and it will say "robin," but an American seeing the word robin will think of this:
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~psyc101/pom … 0Robin.jpg
not this:
http://tabidas.rurubu.com/data_image/29/29_01.jpg
Look up こまどり in a Japanese-Japanese dictionary and it will give you a bunch of scientific terms that basically amount telling you that it's a 4-inch long bird.

If one makes no assumptions about how the word is used - beyond what has transpired from these contexts - how does a dictionary become a enemy?

Because any dictionary acts as a barrier, making it so that when someone sees a word they think of some stiff formalized definition of the word instead of thinking about the word itself.  The dictionary becomes a crutch, no matter how open-minded one tries to be, and that is why it's the enemy.

I'm well aware of dangers and redundancy of translation: words like 'yappari' have no direct equivalent that reflect all its connotations in European languages. But even for this type of words, getting a general flavour of its meaning from a bilingual or a monolingual dictionary can be a great help.

I disagree.  I think such a thing can greatly hinder coming to really know the word by creating a bias about the word's meaning that becomes quite difficult to overcome.

Out of interest - which other languages are you now learning without a dictionary?

Chinese and French.  And I plan to apply the technique to Italian and Spanish, though I already know some Italian and a good deal of Spanish.

Last edited by JimmySeal (2007 April 23, 9:48 am)

Let me start by stating that I actually do believe that learning without a dictionary is a valid method. I know some gifted people managed to learn languages from absolute scratch that way - just through analysing and deciphering original texts. I think I might attempt something like that when I retire - purely as an intellectual exercise, with a language like Inuktitut or something equally obscure. Now, learning French or Chinese that way is a much more natural thing to do, as one can fall back on the general knowledge of Roman languages or Japanese. I don't know the first thing about Romanian but I could probably read something like 'War and Peace' in Romanian tomorrow without really needing a dictionary, just through general knowledge. (And in fact, I have done it in the past, with a Czech book.)

Other equally gifted people have done it the other way, starting off by learning 5,000-6,000 words from a dictionary by heart and only then turning to texts to analyse the grammar, etc. For some reason, this method appeals to me much more and I'd love to test it, too. The problem is, there isn't a single language that I'm interested in learning at the moment besides Japanese and Chinese, and I've already gone quite a long way with both for this experiment to work... (Cantonese is the only one with half a place on my wish list but learning it without obtaining very good command of Mandarin first seems like a waste of time.)

This is to say that the purpose of this discussion is not to prove you wrong but to play the devil's advocate, to a degree, as I don't think this method is necessarily the most efficient one or suitable for everyone's learning style and needs.

JimmySeal wrote:

The first question I would ask here is, what is the desperate need to know exactly what kind of tree it is? If I see the name of a tree I don't know anything about in English (say, a dogwood), I'm not going to run off to a dictionary or encyclopedia to learn about it.

The desperate need may come from the fact that the tree may be quite central to the story. Like when you're reading about Shinto practices, for example. Besides trees and birds, there may be other specialist terms that just cannot be guessed from the context. Of course, it is possible to skip them but one is risking to pass on a lot of important details in the book. It all depends on what you are reading and for what purpose, I suppose.

JimmySeal wrote:

Because any dictionary acts as a barrier, making it so that when someone sees a word they think of some stiff formalized definition of the word instead of thinking about the word itself.  The dictionary becomes a crutch, no matter how open-minded one tries to be, and that is why it's the enemy.

I disagree.  I think such a thing can greatly hinder coming to really know the word by creating a bias about the word's meaning that becomes quite difficult to overcome.

How does finding out about the word's etymology acts as a barrier instead of enriching one's understanding?.. And how does obtaining examples of its usage in additional contexts create a bias about its meaning?! And do any dictionary users (with monolingual dictionaries, I mean) actually memorise definitions instead of using them to better understand the examples?

In fact, there is such a thing as excessive use of a dictionary, when it becomes a crutch and a hinder. I have seen people obsessively looking up every single word - including those that are not in the least important for understanding the stuff they are reading. This is very tiresome, amongst other things, and often does not allow them to enjoy their reading properly. But from there to discarding it altogether...

Last edited by Serge (2007 April 23, 2:39 pm)

Serge wrote:

The desperate need may come from the fact that the tree may be quite central to the story. Like when you're reading about Shinto practices, for example. Besides trees and birds, there may be other specialist terms that just cannot be guessed from the context. Of course, it is possible to skip them but one is risking to pass on a lot of important details in the book. It all depends on what you are reading and for what purpose, I suppose.

As I've shown with my cherry and robin examples, a J-E dictionary can be horribly misleading when it comes to plants and animals.  I think one is far better off thinking of こまどり as "some type of bird" than thinking of it as a "robin."  And try looking up a type of tree in a monolingual dictionary.  It will not be very illuminating.
Flora and fauna vary vastly from country to country, and you may think that もみじ means "maple tree," but it doesn't.  It is simply an approximation that is useless if you don't know what a もみじ actually looks like.
The word "wisteria" appears 9 times in the book Absalom, absalom! in some very memorable lines.  I have read the book but I still don't really know what a wisteria is, and I don't really care.  It's a flowering tree that was somehow significant to the story, and that's good enough for me.

How does finding out about the word's etymology acts as a barrier instead of enriching one's understanding?.. And how does obtaining examples of its usage in additional contexts create a bias about its meaning?!

I didn't say anything about etymology and I was referring to your やっぱり example.  Here's what's wrong with using a dictionary to get a "general feel" of the word: a dictionary says that it means "as I thought," but this meaning only works about 30% of the time.  Nonetheless, if someone has tried to learn about the word that way, they will have "as I thought" pop into their head every time they see it, and this will distract them from simply observing the word to naturally find out what it means.
The volitional form -ましょう is another example.  Most people learn this as "let's" but that really applies to only a fraction of its uses.  But thinking "let's" every time one sees this verb ending will greatly get in the way, and this is what causes Japanese people to come up with English sentences like "Let's meet me at my house tomorrow."

Thanks synewave.
I have a quick question though(from reading the Part 1 link).

Rule #6 is  Do not learn by translating into your own language.
How does one defend the Heisig system (one in which we assign English/Spanish/German keywords to kanji)?

Last edited by chamcham (2007 April 23, 9:41 pm)

JimmySeal wrote:

Of course there is no way to completely justify the Heisig method while shouting "No dictionaries!" and that's precisely why I starting a thread posing the question of whether RTK3 could give enough benefit to justifty sacrificing that principle.

We don't have to be so absolute in our learning philosophy. Personally, RTK1 is probably the single most important thing I have studied as far as learning Japanese is concerned.

What I took from the links above was believing that reading without a dictionary was actually possible. But without Heisig, I wouldn't be at that stage.

While reading (for pleasure) I hardly ever go to a dictionary as it gets in the way of actually reading my book. That's not to say I don't use a dictionary when I'm studying.

As long as we keep our minds open hopefully we can become better learners...

i'd like to throw two quick thoughts and suggestions into the fray, and then quickly duck back out because i basically agree with points made on all sides of the discussion.

first, i'd like to point out or remind everyone the shortcomings of standard monolingual dictionaries to native speakers of the language.  certainly they are helpful tools which any self-respecting reference library should have, but, even to native speakers of a language they can be circular, misleading, and limiting.

--as a literature major, i never used a standard dictionary.  but i did very often reach for my Oxford because it gave etymologies and dated textual examples.  even to a native speaker, it is often more important to understand a words cultural and historical connections than its simple dictionary meaning.

--i taught native speakers of english with severe learning disabilities such as autism, aspergers, etc.  monolingual dictionaries are almost totally useless to them.  they can learn, but they need more comprehensive tools to tackle even their native language.



in many cases, what i have found to be much more helpful than monolingual, bilingual, or even picture dictionaries, is wikipedia.  i don't yet know enough kanji to read the japanese entries in wikipedia, however, i frequently look up a japanese animal/plant/medicine/etc. in my bilingual dictionary and immediately put what i find there into the english wikipedia search.  when i did that with the word tanuki, i found that for a year i had completely misunderstood and misused that word.  Japanese people translated it to me as "raccoon," and from the california mountains i am very familiar with raccoons.  but the bilingual dictionary definition of raccoon-dog made me think something was off in my usage, and when i looked it up in wikipedia, i found that it was really something quite different, with different cultural connections.  when i have enough kanji to do it, i will start using the japanese wikipedia articles a lot.

anyway, i suggest wikipedia, because most of the articles give you a picture, description, and cultural and historical background, plus references in film, literature, and music.  this way you won't miss out on some deep connections or allusions in your reading.

I agree with JimmySeal on the Heisig point and as I stated previously: Heisig system is an approach to bring some order in the seeming chaos of characters; English keywords are just a crutch, I was one of the people on this forum advocating the use of Japanese words that are associated with the kanji. I'm happy to say that by now I have successfully forgotten most English keywords but have no trouble dealing with the actual characters and - most importantly - I have found a way to navigate in a vaste sea of characters I'm now facing with Chinese.

JimmySeal wrote:

As I've shown with my cherry and robin examples, a J-E dictionary can be horribly misleading when it comes to plants and animals.

The tree was just an example of something that may be difficult (or even impossible) to guess from the context. There are innumerable categories of objects that would be difficult (impossible) to guess from the often limited contexts: body parts, materials like 'clay' or 'grit', colours, etc, etc, etc... As I stated previously, one can often skip these details in a crime story so one can stick with the plot but that hardly has any educational value and more sofisticated reading is likely to require better attention to details.

JimmySeal wrote:

How does finding out about the word's etymology acts as a barrier instead of enriching one's understanding?.. And how does obtaining examples of its usage in additional contexts create a bias about its meaning?!

I didn't say anything about etymology and I was referring to your やっぱり example.  Here's what's wrong with using a dictionary to get a "general feel" of the word: a dictionary says that it means "as I thought," but this meaning only works about 30% of the time.  Nonetheless, if someone has tried to learn about the word that way, they will have "as I thought" pop into their head every time they see it, and this will distract them from simply observing the word to naturally find out what it means.

Ok, let's stick to the やっぱり example. The 'goo' dictionary gives:

《同じく》too; also; as well; ((not)) either; 《結局》after all; 《依然として》still; all the same; 《予想通り》as (was) expected; as〈I〉expected.

My paper dictionary at home is even more detailed, with actual examples, etc.

The 'goo' monolingual dictionary says:

（副）
〔「矢張り」は当て字〕
(1)以前と同じ状況であるさま。事態が変わらずに続いているさま。
「今でも―あのまま残っている」
(2)前もってした予想や判断と同様であるさま。また、他の例から類推される状況と現実が同じであるさま。
「―彼一人が反対だった」「私も―自動車で行きます」
(3)さまざまないきさつがあって、結局、初めに予測した結論に落ち着くさま。一般的な常識・うわさなどに違わないさま。
「随分気をつけていたが―ミスがある」「若く見えても―もう年だ」
(4)動かないでじっとしているさま。
「他人を雇うて銭を出して我は―居るを居更と云ふぞ/史記抄 16」
――野に置け蓮華草(れんげそう)
レンゲソウのような野の花は、やはり野原に咲いているのが似つかわしい。ものには、本来それにふさわしい場所というものがある。

How is any of the above confusing or distracting? Please note that we are talking about the proper use of dictionaries, not cursory glances at them.

JimmySeal wrote:

The volitional form -ましょう is another example.  Most people learn this as "let's" but that really applies to only a fraction of its uses.  But thinking "let's" every time one sees this verb ending will greatly get in the way, and this is what causes Japanese people to come up with English sentences like "Let's meet me at my house tomorrow."

This is an issue of grammar and in the given example - of the English grammar specifically. If the learners read their grammar books and understand what 'volitional' means, they will have no problem grasping the meaning...

JimmySeal wrote:

I think you would have to look long and hard to find a book that explained why you can't use "me" in a sentence with "let's."  How someone would stumble across a rule like that in the course of their studies is beyond me.

It's been a while since I read English grammar books... however, it's possible to formulate such a rule and I wouldn't be surprised if it has been formulated in some books. It would go along the lines that whoever is included in 'let's' should not come back in the same sentence as the direct object of the verb.

Not quite sure what this example has to do with the dictionary discussion. Trying to bring it back to the dictionaries, I took the pain to look up 'to meet' in the English-English dictionary. The list of meanings is rather long but here is an extract:

1. to come upon; come into the presence of; encounter: <i>I would meet him on the street at unexpected moments.</i>
2. to become acquainted with; be introduced to: <i>I've never met your cousin.</i>
3. to join at an agreed or designated place or time: <i>Meet me in St. Louis.</i>
...
29. well met, Archaic. welcome.

The reason I'm quoting it here is that example number 3 would have provided a curious and careful learner with the correct way to build his sentence.

JimmySeal wrote:

In this way, the more grammar someone knows in terms of explanations in their own language (or even in the target language) the more it gets in the way because grammar definitions will inevitably over-generalize.

Not the carefully formulated ones.

But we digress...

Last edited by Serge (2007 April 24, 4:54 pm)

Well, I agree that J-J is slow and I still often use J-E in preference to J-J. 

It's tough to know when to use a dictionary and when not to, though, it's not an easy thing to answer.

People like to say that here, but I'm pretty sure I would qualify as "fluent" under at least some definitions, and I've never used J-J exclusively.  Even now I still go to J-E first, usually, although I certainly do use J-J sometimes.

I always check the j-j first, but if it's not apparent then I move to the j-e. The j-e I have though usually have short j-j definitions in addition to the English and sample sentences.

If anyone finds a good j-j dictionary for people that are learning Japanese (and is in electronic format) don't forget to tell the rest of us. Not every j-j is built the same after all.