two for the price of one

A frequent pattern in Japanese is the closely related transitive and intransitive verb pair.  These will use the same kanji, and usually the same reading for the kanji, but slightly different okurigana.  It’s easy to confuse the one for the other if you study randomly, but by studying pairs together, you can learn two verbs in no more time than it takes to learn one.

Let’s look at a couple examples.  How about:

集まる/集める (あつまる/あつめる)

Here, 集まる is the intransitive form and 集める is the transitive.  Both have the meaning of gathering or collecting.  So you might say, for example, ”虫集まる” – “The insects gather” – or ”彼は虫を集める” – “He collects insects”.  You can see the only difference is the next-to-last syllable, which moves from the あ row for intransitive to the え row for transitive.  Several of these pairs work the same way; another such is 決まる(きまる)- to be decided – and 決める(きめる)- to decide something.  But there are lots of different ways in which the pairs can vary and that is just one of the more common forms.

Koichi from Tofugu has put together a good basic list of such pairs on smart.fm, and that’s a great way to get started.  This interesting linguistic phenomenon can either really confuse you or make your learning more efficient, so you might as well use it to advantage!

redundancy or reinforcement

I think I might be at the point where I have enough reference material.  What led to this revelation was reading about a book (Naoko Chino’s sentence pattern dictionary), getting all inspired to purchase it, and then realizing I already had it and it hadn’t been off the shelf in months, while I focused exclusively on kanji.  Le sigh.

That led to an idea though, which led to a question, which led to this post.  I am very new to the practice of SRS.  Mainly till now I’ve only used the SRS at smart.fm, which manages itself mostly, and the RTK site which isn’t really an SRS at all.  Now I have downloaded my RTK progress to Anki, and also made a reverse deck with Heisig keywords for kanji recognition.  Also I have a good start on Tae Kim’s grammar deck.  So I have a good start, but that’s it.

So when I was looking through Chino’s book a little, I realized firstly that it was very neatly laid out for grammar study, in a way that would work nicely with the way I think about things; and secondly, that the example sentences were a great deal more realistic than Tae Kim’s, which are designed to convey the grammar point with an absolute minimum of vocabulary and no frills whatsoever.

Immediately then, I had the bright idea to study through this book and put most of the sentences into an SRS deck.  It might form the nucleus of my eventual main sentence deck, but most likely would stand on its own.  The doubt I have though, is, would this really be terribly useful?  I’d be covering more or less the exact same ground as Tae Kim’s.  Different sentences, and a simple rating of comprehension instead of production.  But pretty much the same thing.  It wouldn’t be a problem, I don’t think.  It might even work better doing both than just one.  Or it might be a waste of time and I should commence mining from non-didactic sources.

What say ye the collected wisdom?

RTK after story

Having finished the first part of Heisig’s Remembering the Kanji a little while ago, I’ve had some time to think about the experience.  Not that it’s entirely over, mind you; there’s still usually a hundred or so reviews a day, and I’m still not passing 100%.  Usually about 85%.  That should go up in fairly short order as the troublesome characters get concentrated toward the front of the queue and get dealt with.

You won’t find too many people who have used RTK that will advise others against it, and with good reason.  Still, there are some significant imperfections, or for most such points one could say incompleteness, in the system.

For those new to the idea (and I imagine that won’t be many of you) RTK is, briefly, this.  The concept is to assign a single keyword to each “primitive” (similar to what is usually called a “radical”, but not identical) and use these keywords to build an imaginative story for each kanji, assigning each one its single keyword in turn, with the idea that an interesting incident or amusing image is a great deal easier to remember than a random arrangement of marks on a page.  Furthermore, the order in which Heisig has arranged the kanji goes by related primitive element, and builds on previously introduced elements, using known kanji as primitives in their own turn as they form compounds.  Reviewing is done strictly from English keyword to kanji writing, under the assumption that if the writing is known surely the recognition will be trivial.

There are a great many advantages to this system.  With the story mnemonics, acquiring new kanji is very quick and retention is excellent.  Previously I had attempted the more usual brute-force method of massive repetition, but this didn’t get me past 500 kanji at best and most of those were very quickly forgotten.  I didn’t use an SRS system though, so I was handicapped there.  (I didn’t use SRS with RTK either; I used the Leitner box system on the RTK website.)  I have heard of more than one person going from zero kanji knowledge to the full jouyou kanji in two weeks with RTK; clearly, that is a feat both of memory and extremely hard work, but I can’t see how such a thing would ever be remotely possible without the use of this type of mnemonic.

The fact that the stories rely on breaking down the kanji into its component parts is also a great benefit, not only for ease of memory, but also for ease of getting the stroke order correct, and further down the path also for learning other kanji not covered in RTK.  This gives the student a good understanding of how kanji actually work, which makes learning unfamiliar ones a much simpler process.  Instead of learning 20 strokes all you need to learn is three primitives, for example.

The order of learning is unconventional, but a great improvement on either going by Japanese school grade level or frequency of occurrence. Since the thinking is that in order to read fluently, a knowledge of only a part of the kanji isn’t terribly helpful, no matter if it’s a rather large part, Heisig instead ordered the kanji by related primitive elements.  This leads to much improved retention in early reviews, since you know that all the kanji you’ll be reviewing that day have the same element, or one of only a few elements, however many you learned at a chunk the previous day.  It almost seems like cheating, but quick retention in the early stages saves a great deal of time overall.  Moreover, because of this order, you are never dealing with more than one unfamiliar primitive element at a time.

The emphasis on writing is also a strong point, but a flawed one.  The muscle memory does greatly aid retention, especially in the medium and long term.  And writing the kanji makes very certain that you fully know it, because you can’t miss even one stroke, or get the stroke order incorrect; whereas if one attempted recognition only, missing details is rather a lot easier.  The flaw in this, though, is what has been wryly dubbed “Heisig syndrome”, in which the student finds himself in the odd position of being able to write the kanji but not readily recognize it.  This is much easier to fix than the opposite problem though, and a relatively brief time of reviewing in the opposite direction, not to mention encountering the kanji in use, will soon have this sorted.

It must also be mentioned that the website dedicated to RTK at kanji.koohii.com is a tremendous user-generated help in getting through the kanji the RTK way.

The greatest single annoyance with RTK is synonymous keywords, due to the system of single keyword per kanji.  At first, these are not an issue.  As you work your way through, more and more pairs and even triplets of keywords will begin to crop up and trip up your reviews.  At the  moment I find myself constantly writing the kanji for “wedding” instead of “marriage”, for instance, and the group of “heir”, “inherit”, and “bequeath” are another of many such trouble spots.  It seems until around maybe 1300 or 1500 characters, this won’t even register as a problem.  After that, it’s a serious nuisance, more annoying because you actually do know the kanji, the problem was in the English keywords that you eventually won’t even be using at all!  As I mentioned at the beginning, at the moment I usually fail around 15% of my reviews; I would estimate around half these failures are caused by this issue.  I can only see the problem compounding as one tackles the next thousand kanji in the third volume of RTK, too.

Another issue, which is probably not of great concern to many, is the frequent inaccuracy of meaning.  Since the system is designed to facilitate memory, not to educate an etymologist, primitive elements are often assigned an arbitrary meaning that is easy to remember.  I wish there were a fusion of RTK and the accurate etymology found in such books as The Key to Kanji.  But kanji etymology is a subject of some fascination to me, whereas most people want simply to be able to read the character and don’t much care how it developed its current form.

In sum, even with the detractions mentioned, I would whole-heartedly recommend RTK to any student.  In fact I agree with Khatzumoto that learning the meanings and writing of the kanji should be the very first thing a beginning student does, because having done that any word and any sentence is open for your learning the actual language, not just its orthography.  And once you’ve finished the first 2042 characters, you will intimately understand how kanji actually work.  Be prepared for synonymous keyword troubles though.  It is mainly because of this that I don’t plan to use RTK for any more kanji, although I’ll certainly adapt much of the method as it fits, and will likely use Heisig’s order in RTK3 as well.

two more tips for RTK stories

I wrote previously about what makes a good mnemonic story for remembering kanji.  Today I’ll add a couple more thoughts, which are obvious enough but sometimes easier to state than to follow.

Firstly: keep it short.  A dozen words is okay.  Eight is better, six is better yet.  If you could find a way to make a sentence exclusively from keywords that would be the very best.

The problem with long stories is that at some point you have more detail than you need and it becomes harder to remember the story than the kanji.  Even if you primarily rely on visual memory, a lengthy description of the event or situation contained in your mnemonic can cause more confusion than assistance.  It’s easy and fun to get carried away and write a novel but that isn’t what we’re here for – do that later (in Japanese)!

The main intent of the mnemonic story is simply to string together the elements in a logical order.  Don’t burden it with anything more than it needs.

Secondly: a strained story using the definition of the keyword that first pops into your head is far, far better than a polished and fluid story using a definition that you wouldn’t normally think of.  The character for “shift” – 移 – had such a difficulty for me.  The story I used had to do with the wheat (禾) field with its many (多) stalks of wheat “shifting” in the wind.  Not the sense in which I’d usually take the word “shift” – I’d be more inclined to think of some ground shifting, or maybe shifting a transmission in a vehicle.  I find that using such a story doesn’t really hurt short-term memory that much, but long-term won’t work as well.  (I’m using this example because it just came up for the first time in a month or so and I forgot it.)  So as tempting as it might be to use a nicely-crafted story based on a view of the keyword that you wouldn’t normally take, just resist it and make your own story using the definition you first think of, even if it’s a bit clumsy.

a simple hack

Some kanji are just sticky.  Or maybe the word is slippery.  At any rate, if you’re learning kanji you’ll probably agree that while most of them are easy enough, some, whether out of a stubborn unwillingness to fit any memorable story, or some slip of a shade of meaning in the English keyword, or whatever other reason, just refuse to be remembered.

I would compare it to that guy in Zetsubou Sensei who blends into the scenery, but I can’t recall his name.  Oh, right, Usui.

To find which ones fell into this class for me, I went to my full list on the RTK site, and sorted by total number of failures.  This was the key to getting all of them including the ones I couldn’t even remember forgetting.  I took all those that had been failed six or more times (fourteen cards, if you must know) and wrote them on small post-its and stuck them above my monitor in my office.  Just the kanji, no keyword or anything else.  I sit here for eight hours a day anyway, so if I have them in front of me I will get all the reviews I need to make them stick just by the occasional times my eyes happen to light on them, with no extra effort involved at any time.  So far I’ve only done this with one exceptionally recalcitrant kanji but it works like a charm.

Other applications could include selecting two that are frequently confused (like “chestnut” and “horse chestnut” – seriously, Heisig) and sticking them up side by side.

more simple math

As I approach the end of the 2042 kanji contained in the first volume of Remembering the Kanji, I’m finding (unsurprisingly) that with more cards to deal with my failure rate on reviews is increasing.  At first, it was unusual to have more than a 10% failure rate, and most of the time it would be around 5%.  Now, I’m not surprised to see over 20%, and probably average 15% or so.

I was thinking of attempting to reduce this rate by adding only very few new cards per day for a while.  Usually if I only add a half dozen or ten cards, I easily remember them all the next day, and longer term retention on such cards also seems to be a little higher although I have no hard data to support that.  So the thinking went that I could remember the kanji better if I take a slower pace, and I do believe that I would.  Given a week or two of this, easy cards would move further down the boxes, harder cards would see more reviews and then in their turn become easier, and the daily number of reviews would go down while the failure rate would also go down.

The other option is to keep adding as many new cards as I can find time for every day.  This is usually around 30, sometimes 40.  That way I would be finished adding cards in about two weeks from now, but my failure rate would continue to climb.  I might even occasionally damage my delicate OCD psyche by adding new cards with restudy cards still existing (horrors!).

Deciding which route to take, though, is quite simple.  First the goal must be clarified, and then a little elementary mathematics must be applied.

The goal is simple enough; finish RTK1 and begin reading and SRSing sentences.

The math is just as simple.  100% sounds better than 80%, and to a perfectionist indeed it sounds much much better.  However, 100% of 10/day is 10; whereas 80% of 30 is 24.  Therefore tolerating errors allows over double the rate of progress as not tolerating them.

Full speed ahead it is then.