Javizy wrote:It's easy to say 'no Japanese' and 'no readings', but it's incredibly hard to learn and remember all three at once in anything close to the 6-9months mentioned.
I think what is probably at the core is two differing styles of learning or two different interim desires.
Heisig --> learn a large chunk concentrating on 2 tasks in a relatively short time. (kanji plus english keyword)
Complete knowledge is deferred until this task is complete. The payoff is being more comfortable with kanji, and having knowledge of a more or less complete set needed for literacy. Quicker ability to write by hand (on a keyboard not so much I'd say) The general knowledge of an English keyword while it has it's limitations should allow you to extract/guess some meaning from an unknown text.
non-Heisig --> In smaller chunks learn complete information on a kanji that you already have an immediate use for. This will involve lets say 6 tasks per kanji perhaps. If it's tied into existing Japanese knowledge I see no compelling reason that it is any more difficult than learning several kanji concentrating on English keyword alone. (leaving aside memorisation tactics) The payoff for non-Heisig is immediate use and integration with the learners spoken knowledge. The tradeoff is, it will take longer to cover 2000 characters (perhaps, remember Heisig isn't fully complete until you can put Japanese to the characters. I'd be willing to guess the two groups converge over time. ) You are more constrained to operating at your level of spoken Japanese.
However I feel there are diminishing returns in learning kanji (or vocabulary), some words are more common and therefore more important and more useful. Also the words you need or the words that interest you get memorised faster and better and are more likely to get constant use.
My inability to spell chrysanthemum is similar to an inability to write 菊, although I can read it ok, maybe if I had more interest in flowers...
I personally believe that self directed (from the outset) learners seem to prefer Heisig and those whose introduction to the language was via the classroom seem to prefer non-Heisig.
I also think that the only measurement you can use is a real world functional ability with kanji. That means ability to write them in sentences and read and understand in Japanese. Ability to pass Kanken level 6 would be my benchmark, a test aimed at those having completed elementary school. or level sub 2 which has the knowledge of someone having completed high school, but I think you could claim literacy if you can operate on the same level as a smart post primary school Japanese.
On non-Heisig assumptions and misconceptions. I would say it is rarely done through practising drawing the kanji alone. That might be the way people start but before long they notice the radicals (components, primitives) and remember kanji in that fashion. Nor are readings crammed. To an extent you can do this for kunyomi but onyomi rarely have meaning without other kanji. Again eventually you realise that learning through example words and usually words you already know is the best way. To give a single reading for a character I'd say Japanese work backwards from a known jyukugo.
The unfortunate thing about non-Heisig is that memorising the individual kanji is never addressed properly. That is one huge plus of Heisig, he gives a method for learning an individual kanji. Mostly non-Heisig tends to ignore this. However I have found that Japanese school children's books do address this issue. And some other kanji books are quite systematic in breaking kanji down into radicals and groupings around onyomi using the same radical.
The Heisig stories are the biggest issue people have with Heisig. For some they don't suit their style. For me I look at a character and for the life of me can't come up with stories about it, nor do other peoples stories work. I just see the components as components. I prefer to see the actual logic behind the character to help me remember than to make something up.
Also some people see stories as an unnecessary overhead. If you do think this way it's going to be hard to get past it and that will hamper you even if you do start using stories I feel.
I am paradoxially following Heisigs order and concentrating on English keywords at the moment. (I still don't like the book) I keep on hitting bumps with H's choice of English keyword, and find that the character only clicks when I can relate it to Japanese usage. It seems I need that extra hook for the character to be meaningful. I'm also a bit stumped as to what to do with these kanji I only have an English keyword for.
The other thing I wonder about is "Is memorisation learning; is learning acquisition?"
There's an extra leap from memorisation to using a character with ease within a flow of language.
I think there's potential for improvement both to Heisig and traditional methods.
However, it may well be better done by someone who understands kanji and educational methods and not a learner. A learner should probably just get on with it with the resources they can find "off the shelf" that seem to make sense to them. In the end what does it matter what anyone else uses. Learning Japanese is a long term endeavour, you should enjoy yourself along the way and concentrate on using what you know rather than get hung up on pointless arguments over styles. (I think we're all just passionate and opinionated about Japanese and want to share our views and experiences)
And as to effectiveness, all there is is opinion and personal endorsements. I have never come across any studies about effectiveness or methodologies for learning kanji, so there is no objective evidence one way or another on this matter to the best of my knowledge.
Id love to study for more hours but sadly ive got to work.