Learn Japanese with JapanesePod101.com

View topic - Recommended study plan for my learning process?

Recommended study plan for my learning process?

Have a textbook or grammar book that you find particularly helpful? What about a learning tip to share with others?

RE: Recommended study plan for my learning process?

Postby HarakoMeshi » Thu 02.07.2008 8:20 am

Wakannai wrote:
But I certainly don't think you can say something like "inefficient by nature". That's such a close minded POV.


No it's a fact. Like 2+2=4. Closed minded is making ad-hominem and other examples of logical fallacies instead of arguing your point.

For example. This does not count as a counter argument.
Huh? I think you've got this backwards. Mnemonics can increase the efficiency of memorising certian things... its the whole reason for their existence.


First, you would need to show Mnemonics increase the efficiency of memorizing certian things. While you can show tha Mnenonics increase the ease of memorizing certain things, you will find it extremely difficult to show how it increases the efficiency.

Now, because mnemonics are by nature "illogical, arbitrary, and artistically flawed". I really shouldn't have to make this argument. But let me make it simple. 1 for 1 = 100% efficiency Thus if I use one unit of my brain to memorize one thing that is 100% efficient. If however I also have to memorize additional information, it is automatically less efficient. It's basic math. If I memorize that word + mnemonics = less efficient. The larger the mnemonic the less efficient it is. password = wdStcl2wbfctr. Mnemonic = Why did Sam the chicken look two ways before crossing the road. Pasword = 13 characters. Mnenonic = 62 efficiency 20%

cracking my passwords is an exercise in frustration. That of course isn't one of my passwords, but it is an example of how I come up with them.


What a total load of waffle.

Your choice to argue memorizing efficiency just in *brain units*, and ignore areas like study time is highly dubious.

You can argue that it may take more *brain units* (I'll come back to this later) but I don't really give a peep about how many *brain units* are working for me and how many are on sabbatical. My most precious commodity is time, therefore I am most interested in time efficiency (which you ignored). That can certainly be measured as amount of memorization versus time expended. Time can be timed, and memory can be tested.

Unless you can argue against time efficiency then I guess you don't have a complete argument.

Now back to this *brain unit* nonsense.

"It's basic math. If I memorize that word + mnemonics = less efficient. The larger the mnemonic the less efficient it is. password = wdStcl2wbfctr. Mnemonic = Why did Sam the chicken look two ways before crossing the road. Pasword = 13 characters. Mnenonic = 62 efficiency 20%"

You're assigning brain-cost to the two facts in a way that ignores how memory works, which I think is by building and strengthening connections.

Memorising "wdStcl2wbfctr" means memorising 13 random facts with no real connections between them, something our brain sucks at. Our brain has to work overtime to make connections out of a jumble with little correlation to anything that's in our prior knowledge, and its also very unreceptive at commiting seemingly useless random information to long term memory without extra repeated effort.

Memorising "Why did Sam the chicken look two ways before crossing the road." does not mean memorising 62 letters at all, not unless you don't speak a word of English. Since you do, then it is just 12 facts to memorize. But they aren't 12 random facts; they also relate to a lot of prior knowledge that you have, for example you know that "Sam" is a proper name so that word should be capitalized. You know the semantics of "Why did the chicken cross the road" jokes. You already have lots of connections between these 12 facts. Most of the connections are already in place, and you just have to memorize a small variation on patterns you already know.

Now, my interpretation of brain-cost is not comprehensive, but I think it should at least help to highlight that the cost of memory is not as simple as you used.
Last edited by HarakoMeshi on Thu 02.07.2008 8:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
HarakoMeshi
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu 11.22.2007 8:46 pm

RE: Recommended study plan for my learning process?

Postby Tesu » Thu 02.07.2008 8:31 am

People who are talking up Heisig don't realise that they are measuring completely the wrong thing, which is at issue here.

By using Heisig, you may be able to learn the meanings to 2000 Kanji in half the time it takes me to learn them through other methods. Therefore, you conclude that Heisig is more efficient and therefore a better system.

Now, the problem here is it that knowing the "meaning" of 2000 Kanji without speaking any Japanese or being able to use it in context is completely useless. The meaning of most compounds has nothing to do with the individual "meaning" of those Kanji you spent all that time studying. I think half the problem is people who spend all their time using Heisig often haven't spend enough time in Japan living in Japanese to realise just how futile it is.

Now, the secondary argument from Heisig fans then follows "But now that I know the meaning of 2000 Kanji, it becomes far far easier for me to learn new words and how to write them easier". And you know what? Its correct, I'm sure it is much easier to learn to read new words having completed Heisig, compared to those who haven't done it.

The problem is, the time invested in Heisig doesn't give enough of an advantage later to make it worthwhile. Lets say that it takes 3 years to get skilled in Japanese (for example). If you spend 6 months completing Heisig, then you would need to learn the rest of the Japanese language in under 2 and a half years to make it a worthwhile investment. Lets say Heisig makes it 10% easier (I suspect it doesn't save even that much time), then it should now only take 32.4 months instead of 36 months to get skilled.

That means that, via Heisig, in this example, it would take you longer to get proficiency in the language than had you not bothered and spent your time studying real Japanese in context (32.4 + 8 > 36). Of course the numbers here can all be argued away (they are just there for example), but I'm sure the point still stands.

Another way I think of this is with a financial example. Lets say I offer you (the Heisig student) a deal. I say that If you give me $10,000 today, then I will give you back $16,000 in 10 years time. No risk, it will just happen. Just think, you get to do nothing at all and you still make $6,000. Good deal!!!

Actually, its a pretty terrible deal. Sure, you make money, but you have a great opportunity cost. That is, making $6,000 for free is nice, but you can't use that $10,000 in any other way. Investing $10,000 at only 6% would give you more than $16,000 after ten years, but you would miss that easy chance.

This is becoming a terrible analogy, but Heisig is similar. Though it may have a positive effect on your Japanese skills, investing in Heisig carries a large opportunity cost. That is, you could be spending that time actually learning useful Japanese rather than the pointless crap which doesn't help anybody.

There is a reason why on this board Heisig followers all tend to be newcomers to the language who haven't progressed past JLPT lv4 ability (I doubt many at all who have passed even lv3). Yet the people here with the actual skills, who speak and read well, are all fairly anti Heisig ....?
User avatar
Tesu
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu 04.27.2006 5:08 pm

RE: Recommended study plan for my learning process?

Postby Yudan Taiteki » Thu 02.07.2008 9:03 am

but I do believe (and not entirely without evidence) that I learn the kanji+mnemonic combinations faster than I learn kanji alone. That would be "more efficient" by definition, would it not?


I have no doubt that you do. I agree that if you are memorizing out-of-context information with only a tenuous connection to actual language (i.e. individual kanji), mnemonics are helpful and probably essential.

Using a lot of mnemonics is always a sign that you're memorizing a lot of out-of-context information. Whether you're overusing this is something you have to decide for yourself -- just remember that at some point you have to actually start studying Japanese itself, and there's a limit to which preparing for that will help you.

(EDIT: I'm really trying to avoid the Heisig parts of this debate and stick to the effectiveness of mnemonics.)
Last edited by Yudan Taiteki on Thu 02.07.2008 9:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
-Chris Kern
User avatar
Yudan Taiteki
 
Posts: 5609
Joined: Wed 11.01.2006 11:32 pm
Native language: English

RE: Recommended study plan for my learning process?

Postby HarakoMeshi » Thu 02.07.2008 9:14 am

By using Heisig, you may be able to learn the meanings to 2000 Kanji in half the time it takes me to learn them through other methods. Therefore, you conclude that Heisig is more efficient and therefore a better system.


Probably much less than half the time, but anyway...

The problem is, the time invested in Heisig doesn't give enough of an advantage later to make it worthwhile. Lets say that it takes 3 years to get skilled in Japanese (for example). If you spend 6 months completing Heisig, then you would need to learn the rest of the Japanese language in under 2 and a half years to make it a worthwhile investment. Lets say Heisig makes it 10% easier (I suspect it doesn't save even that much time), then it should now only take 32.4 months instead of 36 months to get skilled.


Or if like me, you finish RTK1 in 3 months without putting your other Japanese study on hold, and you take a more optimistic 30% efficiency improvement then I could finish 10 months sooner.

We can pull numbers out of thin air all we want, but the fact is that there are people on RevTK forums who have been successful with RTK and swear by it. There are people on this forum who are very opiniated against RTK but don't have actual experience with it. Who to believe?
Last edited by HarakoMeshi on Sat 02.09.2008 3:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
HarakoMeshi
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu 11.22.2007 8:46 pm

RE: Recommended study plan for my learning process?

Postby nukemarine » Thu 02.07.2008 8:59 pm

Tesu wrote:
People who are talking up Heisig don't realise that they are measuring completely the wrong thing, which is at issue here.

By using Heisig, you may be able to learn the meanings to 2000 Kanji in half the time it takes me to learn them through other methods. Therefore, you conclude that Heisig is more efficient and therefore a better system.

Now, the problem here is it that knowing the "meaning" of 2000 Kanji without speaking any Japanese or being able to use it in context is completely useless. The meaning of most compounds has nothing to do with the individual "meaning" of those Kanji you spent all that time studying. I think half the problem is people who spend all their time using Heisig often haven't spend enough time in Japan living in Japanese to realise just how futile it is.


Really, man that must really suck for all the Chinese and Koreans that already know the basic concept of the Japanese Kanji. True, they run into the different problems, they not only have a meaning but a pronunciation already attached.

By the way, I have spent time in Japan while using Heisig. It is beneficial. Not only can you pseudo decipher items for fun and learning, you get a great conversation breaker with any local. Believe it or not, they get excited at a chance to play with Kanji (they have game shows based off it no less).

Granted, if you stopped using absolutes, your argument might go over better.

Tesu wrote:
Now, the secondary argument from Heisig fans then follows "But now that I know the meaning of 2000 Kanji, it becomes far far easier for me to learn new words and how to write them easier". And you know what? Its correct, I'm sure it is much easier to learn to read new words having completed Heisig, compared to those who haven't done it.

The problem is, the time invested in Heisig doesn't give enough of an advantage later to make it worthwhile. Lets say that it takes 3 years to get skilled in Japanese (for example). If you spend 6 months completing Heisig, then you would need to learn the rest of the Japanese language in under 2 and a half years to make it a worthwhile investment. Lets say Heisig makes it 10% easier (I suspect it doesn't save even that much time), then it should now only take 32.4 months instead of 36 months to get skilled.


The time invested in based in hours, not days. You'll spend the equivalent of 5 semester credits (250 hours) to get a 80% or higher recall of the RTK list. During that time, you can be other things be it verbal Japanese (via Pimsleur or others), traditional study (minus forced Kanji learning), immersion (via AJATT or others), etc.

Even after that, the 250 hours you spend on Heisig is a drop in the bucket to the 10,000+ hours you'll eventually need to spend to gain native fluency and literacy. That 1250 hours you talk about account for maybe 10% of that.

Tesu wrote:

This is becoming a terrible analogy, but Heisig is similar. Though it may have a positive effect on your Japanese skills, investing in Heisig carries a large opportunity cost. That is, you could be spending that time actually learning useful Japanese rather than the pointless crap which doesn't help anybody.

There is a reason why on this board Heisig followers all tend to be newcomers to the language who haven't progressed past JLPT lv4 ability (I doubt many at all who have passed even lv3). Yet the people here with the actual skills, who speak and read well, are all fairly anti Heisig ....?


JLPT results are out. RevTK forums has a thread where members are posting their results (good and bad). You're assumption holds no water. Well, it holds water if you limit yourself only to those on this board. The flaw there is the concept of group think.

I know the time invested in RTK up front seems steep. I would warn any that attempt it that it's a serious consideration with no upfront benefit unless you live in Japan. However, I seem to be getting my pay off now. Time will tell. Eventually, enough people will be using RTK and posting results to get a better idea on the overall benefit.
nukemarine
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed 10.10.2007 5:33 am

RE: Recommended study plan for my learning process?

Postby yukamina » Thu 02.07.2008 9:32 pm

Yudan Taiteki wrote:

Jukugo combinations vary too, but as long as you already know the kanji in them, it's fine.


If only this were true.

I didn't say it was easy :P Just not harder than learning a word you already know the letters in. Some words are hard to remember and some are easy, where ever you go.


About spending more energy to remember 'word+mnemonic' vs 'just the word', you have to think about how easy it is to recall the word without any aid. How much do you have to review it before it sticks? If you think you have it memorized one day, will you remember it the next or a week later? If a mnemonic helps you remember it beyond short term memory, it's doing it's job. If not...

A mnemonic is just a memory aid. It doesn't even have to be separated from context. For me it's as simple as connecting two kanji to the word they appear in. It only takes a moment. If I can't remember what the word is the next time I see it, the kanji themselves act as a mnemonic for what the word means(and often the reading too). Kanji usually do relate to the words they're in, and if they don't that's an even better reason to use a mnemonic. Anyway, it's not like you have to use it any more than you want/have to.
yukamina
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue 06.05.2007 1:41 am

RE: Recommended study plan for my learning process?

Postby Cratz » Fri 02.08.2008 9:19 am

The problem I see with many of the arguments here is that they are all ALL or NOTHING.

"Component analysis (a.k.a., Heisig, mnemonics, Henshall, Kanji ABC, et al) are worthless, never use them."

OR

"Component analysis is the BOMB - use them to learn every kanji known to man."

What's wrong with learning some kanji through rote (because they just seem to stick in your mind, with little effort, the first time around) and falling back on component analysis/mnemonics for those which seem to slip your mind when you try to write them from memory?

I think combining the strong points of these two approaches, based on your own personal needs, would yield far better results than just taking either method wholesale, regardless of personal efficacy.

I have always studied kanji in context. I.e., all my kanji flashcards had the character at the top, along with the stroke order, if I needed it (the opposite side would show the English meaning and all possible readings). This would be followed by several example sentences showing the kanji used in compound words and on its own (again, the opposite side would show the kana readings of the sentences and their English meaning). At the very bottom of the card would be the meanings of the constituent components. I never made it a point to remember the components. But if, for some reason, a character just refused to stick, I would use the components to create a mnemonic that would aid in memorization.

I really feel that this approach to learning kanji (along with a stunted social life) is the reason why I am getting ready to take level 2 of the kanji kentei. Because, let's face it, taking someone else's word for the best way to learn a language (or anything else, for that matter) may have little or no relevance to YOU. You should feel free to use, adapt, tinker, refit, use piecemeal and otherwise completely customize study methods to your own learning style. It is, after all, different from everyone else's.

And while doing so, remember that just because a method doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean you have to categorically chuck it out the window. There may be good points that can be salvaged and used. And if so, WHY NOT?!?
Last edited by Cratz on Fri 02.08.2008 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Cratz
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu 02.07.2008 9:01 am

RE: Recommended study plan for my learning process?

Postby Wakannai » Fri 02.08.2008 5:11 pm

Look, I agree, Heisig's methods as outlined in RTK will not work for some people therefore it would be inefficient for them.


First, this is not about Heisig. This is about mnemonics. Heisig is not even scratching the surface of what mnemonics is about, so don't go trying to turn this into another Heisig thread.

Now, if you have the stroke order and basic meaning of Kanji down the first time, then yes mnemonics are very inefficient FOR YOU.


There is no "for me" "for you" "first time" "last time" stuff going on here. Unless you really are a cripple, a crutch is not more efficient.

Main point being, it's not being completely fair to call mnemonics inefficient when you compare it only to a perfect memorization.


I'm not comparing it to perfect memorization. YOU ARE. That is why you are not getting my point. Actually, since you bring up Perfect memorization, I'll just add that I'm against it. I've learned the Pimsleur way is much better. When you can recall about 80% of a lesson, it's time to move on to the next one. Slowing yourself down for that last 20% of one lesson is less efficient than moving on and learning 80% of the next lesson. Especially, since that 20% you had trouble with should be repeated later, so it's not as if you won't get plenty of opportunities to learn it in a different context which will probably be easier to learn.

My own testimony is unscientific, but I do believe (and not entirely without evidence) that I learn the kanji+mnemonic combinations faster than I learn kanji alone. That would be "more efficient" by definition, would it not?

Your choice to argue memorizing efficiency just in *brain units*, and ignore areas like study time is highly dubious.

If on the other hand you take 30 minutes or more of effort for one kanji when a simple visual mnemomic nets you the same in 5 minutes, then isn't the mnemonic MORE EFFICIENT?



There is a difference between efficiency and speed. I think the problem with you guys based on these comments is you fail to recognize the difference. Let me clarify. One car, lets call it a Mustang can run 200mph but uses up 20 gallons of gas to go 100miles. Another car, lets call it a Metro can only run 50mph but can go 400 miles on 10 gallons of gas.

The Mustang may be faster but the Metro is more efficient. Give both cars 10 gallons and the Mustang will putter out while the Metro keeps going. Sure, you can argue that you can do one thing faster with your less efficient car, but you can't go as far for the same amount of effort. Mnemonics are generally only good for one factoid, sometimes two. Sure, you can argue that one mnemonic helps you learn kanji faster, and another mnemonic system helps you learn vocabulary faster. But there is a lot more to the language than simply kanji and vocabulary. Which is why a simple time efficiency argument is a false argument, since you are only learning one thing faster with mnemonics, but while you may be learning one thing faster, you are learning everything else slower.

The problem I see with many of the arguments here is that they are all ALL or NOTHING.


You apparently haven't read mine or Chris' arguments then.
"Component analysis (a.k.a., Heisig, mnemonics, Henshall, Kanji ABC, et al) are worthless, never use them."

We definitely never said anything like that. We say they are fine to use for difficult stuff, but don't insist on using them all the time, or you become dependent on them.

Now, my interpretation of brain-cost is not comprehensive, but I think it should at least help to highlight that the cost of memory is not as simple as you used.


Of course it is not. But your points fail to refute mine. My point was NOT the specific amount of brain space used. My point was that regardless of what measurement used, you are still effectively memorizing two things in place of one. Ergo, no matter what measurement you use, it still is less efficient. The exact amount of inefficiency is irrelevant since I wasn't arguing the amount of inefficiency, I'm only arguing that it is less efficient.

What's wrong with learning some kanji through rote (because they just seem to stick in your mind, with little effort, the first time around) and falling back on component analysis/mnemonics for those which seem to slip your mind when you try to write them from memory?


well, no one is really in favor of rote learning either, because it is very difficult to remember by rote. Generally, the only things worth memorizing by rote are tables, like dates and colors. Chris and I argue for learning in context, and using mnemonics for difficult stuff. It's much easier to learn words, grammar, and kanji in context. Plus, you also learn other things based on the context examples such as nuance, emotional cues and maybe even the culture. When I have trouble with a kanji, sure, I'll break out a kanji book like Hensall's and grab a mnemonic and proceed from there.
Last edited by Wakannai on Fri 02.08.2008 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wakannai
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Thu 10.18.2007 6:38 am

RE: Recommended study plan for my learning process?

Postby LZhao91 » Fri 02.08.2008 9:24 pm

its hard to learn japanese if u dont have a private tutor or anything like that...
so hard for me to find a japanese around the area i live in *sighs*
LZhao91
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun 02.03.2008 5:48 pm

RE: Recommended study plan for my learning process?

Postby HarakoMeshi » Fri 02.08.2008 11:20 pm

There is a difference between efficiency and speed. I think the problem with you guys based on these comments is you fail to recognize the difference. Let me clarify. One car, lets call it a Mustang can run 200mph but uses up 20 gallons of gas to go 100miles. Another car, lets call it a Metro can only run 50mph but can go 400 miles on 10 gallons of gas.

The Mustang may be faster but the Metro is more efficient. Give both cars 10 gallons and the Mustang will putter out while the Metro keeps going. Sure, you can argue that you can do one thing faster with your less efficient car, but you can't go as far for the same amount of effort.


I don't think that's our problem at all. Efficency is a general formula "efficiency = output / input". Speed is a very similar formula to the efficiency formula where the input is fixed to time "speed = output / time". Therefore when we talk about time efficiency, they are exactly the same.

In your example you're measuring efficiency in terms of "miles/gallon", so the slower car is more gas efficient. That's fine for car MPG, but its a weak analogy to memorization & learning, which I don't know about you but I measure by the time invested in studying & practicing, because I have a limited number of hours in my day that I can focus on my study. In other words I would measure by time efficiency (which is speed).

Mnemonics are generally only good for one factoid, sometimes two.


That's an opinion, but can you back it by some cold hard evidence that has shown how many factoids mnemonics can be good for?

Note that I'm not saying and never said that mnemonics are good for everything or that they could be used all the time. I'm just wondering why not use them when they are helpful for say... 2000+ kanji, if there is a mnemonic technique that makes that reasonably possible?

Sure, you can argue that one mnemonic helps you learn kanji faster, and another mnemonic system helps you learn vocabulary faster. But there is a lot more to the language than simply kanji and vocabulary. Which is why a simple time efficiency argument is a false argument, since you are only learning one thing faster with mnemonics, but while you may be learning one thing faster, you are learning everything else slower.


It's difficult to quantify the overall effect on learning everything, but saying that /learning by mnemonics/ slows down everything else is not necessarily the case. It may be delaying the time when you start learning everything else, but it may speed up that learning.

The knowledge that you have at any point in time has an effect on how you learn everything else. Certain knowledge can make a world of difference to your ability to learn other things, so it may be worth prioritizing to acquire that knowledge first.

For myself, I thought that learning RTK could have a profound effect so I prioritized that, and after I did it and continued to study everything else, I am pretty convinced I was right.

Now, some might say that RTK only seems good to me because I was not studying in some perfect way before, but hey if that's true, either way I took a step in the right direction for me.

That cost to me was about 150 hours of study over about 3 months. For someone who only has a couple of hours for Japanese study every day, I have a suspicion that 3 months is a drop in the bucket compared to the total time to Japanese mastery

Of course it is not. But your points fail to refute mine. My point was NOT the specific amount of brain space used. My point was that regardless of what measurement used, you are still effectively memorizing two things in place of one. Ergo, no matter what measurement you use, it still is less efficient. The exact amount of inefficiency is irrelevant since I wasn't arguing the amount of inefficiency, I'm only arguing that it is less efficient.


I did refute your point, I think its terrible. How are you memorising two things in place of one? Your mnemonic had no more "things" to memorize in it than your password.

Which of these has more items to memorize?

"471305" or "yon shichi ichi san zero go" or "apples pears oranges bananas kiwis" ?

I think the representation in writing has nothing to do with how much information we have to remember. The examples are all the same, they're just different items to memorise.

When you use a mnemonic you're not necessarily adding more information, you're just refactoring it. You might even refactor into a smaller form than the original.


Ok so now my turn to give a silly example. This kanji takes up over 32,000 pixels and 9,946 bytes as a compressed PNG image.

Image

However memorised with this handy story...

"While traveling down a ROAD on your way to the BIANG BIANG noodle restaurant, you see a HOLE. you peer inside and what do you see? SOCRATES sitting atop a HORSE flanked on each side by two COCOONed creatures that are very LONG, one wielding a MEATY drumstick, the other with a SABER. It is so exciting that your HEART begins to beat rapidly."

... it takes only 343 bytes!!! Mnemonics rule B).

Ok, that was a joke.
Last edited by HarakoMeshi on Sat 02.09.2008 3:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
HarakoMeshi
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu 11.22.2007 8:46 pm

RE: Recommended study plan for my learning process?

Postby HarakoMeshi » Sat 02.09.2008 12:58 am

well, no one is really in favor of rote learning either, because it is very difficult to remember by rote. Generally, the only things worth memorizing by rote are tables, like dates and colors. Chris and I argue for learning in context, and using mnemonics for difficult stuff. It's much easier to learn words, grammar, and kanji in context. Plus, you also learn other things based on the context examples such as nuance, emotional cues and maybe even the culture. When I have trouble with a kanji, sure, I'll break out a kanji book like Hensall's and grab a mnemonic and proceed from there.


I'm all for learning words in context, just not the writing symbols that are kanji. I think learning those is much more efficient with a system that builds them up; by learning each kanji while you're in the correct mindset, and by building on already learned and familiar components it takes a lot of energy out of the process.

Following the completion of learning the writings, I am quickly covering a lot of ground using just the advice you gave: in conext, and I feel that I can get more out of it too in terms of vocab & grammar because I can practice more variations in a shorter time, and the kanji are usually an aid.
Last edited by HarakoMeshi on Sat 02.09.2008 1:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
HarakoMeshi
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu 11.22.2007 8:46 pm

RE: Recommended study plan for my learning process?

Postby yukamina » Sat 02.09.2008 3:46 am

Wakannai wrote:

Sure, you can argue that one mnemonic helps you learn kanji faster, and another mnemonic system helps you learn vocabulary faster. But there is a lot more to the language than simply kanji and vocabulary. Which is why a simple time efficiency argument is a false argument, since you are only learning one thing faster with mnemonics, but while you may be learning one thing faster, you are learning everything else slower.

What does it matter if you learn one aspect of the language slower than another? I doubt many improve in every area at the same rate. I think that's a strange point to make. There's much more vocabulary to be learned compared to grammar points(which don't work with mnemonics as far as I can tell) or phrases, etc. So after learning the necessary grammar, one is left with a mountain of words to learn... Mnemonics work well for learning some things(kanji, words), but there's obviously other methods to be used(context, even rote).
yukamina
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue 06.05.2007 1:41 am

RE: Recommended study plan for my learning process?

Postby HarakoMeshi » Sat 02.09.2008 4:19 am

Yeah, I think that some people are over simplifying the task of learning in context. "Oh just learn in context and kill two birds with one stone". There's more to it than that. Yeah, context is very important and helps to remember things but it doesn't take care of committing things to memory quite as easily as some would make it out to be.

I learn words in context, but it often takes repeating the sentence or dialogue many times before I start to remember, and many more before I start to remember quickly without thinking. I am doing it like this to learn vocab not because it is super fast or easy to learn... but simply I don't know a better way. For learning the written form of the kanji there exists a much better way, IMO.
Last edited by HarakoMeshi on Sat 02.09.2008 4:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
HarakoMeshi
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu 11.22.2007 8:46 pm

RE: Recommended study plan for my learning process?

Postby AJBryant » Sat 02.09.2008 6:53 am

HarakoMeshi wrote:
Image


I'm saving this image to pass along to the next guy that asks for a kanji for a tattoo.

Heck, if you're getting a tattoo that you can't read, why not go for broke? ;)


Tony
User avatar
AJBryant
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5313
Joined: Sun 10.09.2005 11:29 am
Location: Indiana
Native language: English
Gender: Male

RE: Recommended study plan for my learning process?

Postby furrykef » Sat 02.09.2008 7:09 am

But this one has three dragons in it!

Image
Last edited by furrykef on Sat 02.09.2008 7:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
furrykef
 
Posts: 1572
Joined: Thu 01.10.2008 9:20 pm
Native language: Eggo (ワッフル語の方言)
Gender: Male

PreviousNext

Return to Learning Materials Reviews & Language Learning tips

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests