Talk:Remembering the Kanji I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s importance scale.

[edit] Criticism

The method introduced in this book has been widely criticized. A primary criticism is that it encourages students to learn to write and remember the meaning of all the jōyō kanji before learning any pronunciations or anything about the usage of the kanji.

It is not a side effect of the method, but the very point of it, to separate learning of the meaning from learning everything else. You can't criticize X for being X. Taw 23:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I think this book is utter crap and flim-flam, a con. However, the criticisms in the current version do not seem to be sourced and could well be removed. --DannyWilde 00:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The citation misses the point by excluding the sentence that comes right afterwards: "Thereby it separates integral parts of the written language." - and whether it's an accurate criticism or not is not really important -it's important whether it is being criticised on those grounds or not. I wrote most of the article, including the criticism, which I've gathered mainly on the usenet group sci.lang.japan. Do a search and read some of the long threads about the subject. OuroborosSlayer 14:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I just reread the criticicm part and realised someone had added what seemed like a non-NPOV remark in the second paragraph (about the second volume mainly). I've 'corrected' it - I think it's more NPOV now. OuroborosSlayer 15:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The following material is unsuitable for Wikipedia at present

The method introduced in this book has been widely criticized. A primary criticism is that it encourages students to learn to write and remember the meaning of all the jōyō kanji before learning any pronunciations or anything about the usage of the kanji, thereby separating integral parts of the written language. Heisig argues that learning pronunciation and usage along the way just clutters the process and ultimately slows down the student. He believes that it is faster and more efficient to learn these skills separately. Even followers of the method have at times criticized Heisig - mainly for his choice of keywords which aren't always accurate. The obvious reason for at least some of the inaccuracy is the method's requirement that each keyword be unique.

Some people argue that the pronounciation is learned in Remembering the Kanji II: A Systematic Guide to Reading Japanese Characters but the second volume enjoys less success compared to the first. The second volume has been criticized for not introducing a system comparable to the first volume's use of imaginative memory - instead most of the book uses root memorization.

Despite the heavy criticism of Heisig's book, it has also been praised by many who believe it has considerably lightened the burden of learning the writing and meaning of the jōyō kanji.

Please don't "edit this for neutral point of view". Say who the critics are and add references. The above kind of unsourced opinions are totally unsuitable for a Wikipedia entry, whether they are in favour of or against Heisig. --DannyWilde 00:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

If anyone's willing do the footwork of establishing proof of a general criticizm of Heisig's work (I for one am not inclined to at the moment), then a good place to start is [1] and [2]. I think the criticizm was/is usefull, so I hope someone is up for the challenge OuroborosSlayer 08:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Critism (again)

I've removed the criticism section again for being unsourced. Per Wikipedia's Verifiability and source citation policies, additions to articles need sources. Someone has to be the one who is proposing that these aspects of the system are bad points, and without attribution, we can't include the information in the article. For the record, I agree with the criticisms, but my opinion or that of any other Wikipedia editor is not notable. Find a reliable source that discusses these negative aspects of Heisig's method, and the section will be more than appropriate for this article. -- BrianSmithson 04:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with the need for citation, but beyond that, much of the criticism currently in the article is too vague. The combination of vagueness and lack of citation makes me want to excise it from the article altogether, but I will leave that to someone else due to my anonymity and the fact that there has been some debate over this here before, and that the material has presumably been added again after your removal of it.

Heisig's method, and his book, has been criticized on several fronts. First, learning the kanji using this method does not allow the learner to "read," since only a keyword for each kanji is learned initially, and not the pronunciation; also, compound kanji words frequently have meanings that cannot be easily understood from their various parts.

This criticism questions the goal of the method itself, not its efficiency in attaining it. I don't see any other argument in it than "Heisig's book does not teach the reader enough that they can read Japanese". However, the goal of the book is to merely be a good step on the way to that. Why is that not good enough? You could criticize anything in the world for lack of scope, and it isn't worth mentioning unless there's a specific reason and the reason is mentioned too.

Heisig's choice of keywords has also been criticized. For example, Heisig gives the kanji 召 the keyword "seduce." Though the definition "seduce" is associated with this kanji in character dictionaries, the most common meaning of the kanji is "consume," and the character is not used in compound words for "seduce."

This conflates the verb 召す and the kanji 召. Meaning of the kanji 召 is to summon a person (with one's mouth, 口). 招 (where hand has been added to the left) is "beckon", and it was formed simply by specifying the meaning of 召 by "done using a hand". Of course the usage of words and kanjis changes with time, but 召 certainly does not mean "consume" currently, while 召す the verb is used with that meaning (and a myriad of others, including honorific form of to summon, to wear, to bathe, to buy).

I don't know why Heisig chose the keyword, but I guess he thought "seduce" would be close enough to "summon" and would make stories easier to remember. It is true that the keywords could be improved upon, but there are much better examples than this. One example is 乙("fishguts"), which is as far as I know completely bogus.

Similarly, Heisig's "primitives" may or may not be radicals, and the meanings he assigns to them may differ from their traditional meanings.

Indeed, some of them are not radicals and many that are differ from their traditional meanings. I fail to see the similarity with keywords though, as the meanings of radicals are not used in the language and fall into the realm of trivia, completely unlike meanings of whole characters which the keywords represent.

I suppose this criticism could be considered - like that in the first paragraph - to be of the goal of the book, which does not include learning of the traditional meanings of radicals. As that information is pure trivia (ergo useless), I doubt that's the intention. Perhaps the writer has a problem with Heisig teaching arbitrary meanings for parts he has assigned himself, and wants to suggest that learning incorrect meanings for radicals would result in problems? That is also an unlikely interpretation due to the uselessness of the information in the first place. Is the method then alleged to be inefficient because additional "fluff" is learned along the way? That is unlikely too, as such mnemonic methods are generally considered useful and similar mnemonics are used by the Japanese themselves, if not as systematically. What, then, is the point here? I'm confused. The criticism should be more specific in its claims, instead of stating facts and leaving the reader guessing what in the world in them is supposed to be criticism. -- 82.103.215.236 04:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)