Thoughts on learning Japanese via a J:J Dictionary

Something I stumbled across a while ago as a recommended technique to learning Japanese was to stop using English language translations entirely after a certain point (I'd say most recommend "after learning Hiragana, Katakana, Jouyou Kanji and Core 2000") and learning words and meanings from Japanese Dictionaries (not Japanese-English dictionaries, just plain old Japanese dictionaries).

At the time I passed on it. Not because I thought it was a bad idea. I wasn't even at the level most recommended and I felt it was a little too much for my schedule to be of use. But, after learning more and more and thinking more on the topic, the more I begin to think it only makes sense for a certain category of people.

Things of which I have no doubt:

• Once you get far enough in, your learning will take off at a fairly rapid rate.
• You're initial (and perhaps even longer term) understanding of words will more accurately reflect their intended meanings in Japanese.
• It is a HUGE investment of time to get "far enough in".

So, who do I think should use this technique? People who plan on translating in a professional capacity. And those who need to learn the language quick and have nothing better to do.

If you're translating professionally you'll need to use a Japanese Dictionary at points anyway most likely and the more accurate your initial understandings of the words and their usage the less likely you are to get fired for something embarrassing. Pretty simple.

Outside of that though, go read up on this approach. It is the burn-out inducing master technique. The reason? Well, it sounds simple. And the theory IS. But, even armed with the Core 2000 Japanese words, there will still be a HUGE army of words you don't understand. So, when looking up the definition of some new word or other, you may run across new words in that description that you need to look up to understand the original word you were trying to define. And there is ALMOST no limit to how many words this process can uncover. 

So, it isn't uncommon to see responses in threads where a person trying to define 1 word had to dive through HUNDREDS before they were able to piece together a definition of the original word in Japanese which they could understand. It is also not uncommon to see people who gave up on the process on the very first word they tried to define.

I imagine that the first couple of weeks to months with this technique will yield soul crushingly long hours with a notebook and dictionary. But, if your habits are good, you'll learn not only more accurate meanings of the words you were looking for. You'll also undoubtedly learn tons of other new words in the process.

In these threads, the people who stuck with it will proudly boast about how quickly they assimilated vast armies of vocabulary and how the superior definitions lead to a more rapid understanding of basically everything. But that initial hump is huge. And if you can't tackle it fast enough the speed gains gradually taper off. It may even slow you down if you can't dedicate the time and do it properly as you might be diverting time away from other approaches which might work better for you given your schedule and needs.

So, of how much value are those definitions REALLY? And, again it depends on a number of factors. Simple exposure to the language will gradually impart much of those more nuanced definitions into your own understanding of the words. It will just take longer to get there. But then... how badly do you need that level of understanding? Especially if you can't justify torturing yourself with the first few months of that approach?

Here's the thing though... language is a living thing. A language is a thing which has as many exact interpretations as people who speak it. And it evolves over time. Take the definition of the word "literally". A major dictionary acknowledged a shift in the usage of the word to add an additional definition to the word which basically means "figuratively". That dictionary did this because it acknowledged a trend wherein the word was FREQUENTLY being used "incorrectly". A foreign learner who learned the meaning of this word using an English dictionary prior to the new addition might be appreciably perplexed by our usage of the word.

In other words, dictionaries DO define words in their native language. And this can be incredibly helpful. But no two people share an EXACT definition or understanding of a word even if they speak the same language. We all have additional context, or attributes we associate with those words. Dictionaries basically contain a lowest common denominator definition for the broader population. And that means that even those using a J:J dictionary will actually need to get real world examples of the usage of these words to truly understand the current culturally accepted meaning. Having a better baseline definition will help. But someone without that better baseline could come to a better understanding of the usage simply because they've heard and used it more often.

A while back I talked about vlog that talked about words they wished existed in English and most of the words... pretty much did. But we used them a little differently. And that got me thinking. When I think about those words, does my understanding match the dictionary definition. Or the dictionary definition lack specificity or include things I disagree with. So, I took nostalgia and natsukashi (it's Japanese counterpart) and started thinking about them.

Here is a definition of nostalgia in English from Dictionary.com. It isn't a bad definition in my mind. But it lacks certain limitations in how we use it. For instance "former place and time" could mean yesterday. But, we don't usually use the word nostalgia to talk about something recent. It is almost always something good and almost always something deeply meaningful to us and also almost always something we feel is "gone". Past in a permanent or semi-permanent fashion. Like, "I didn't expect to feel that way again" as a result of something that triggers a fond memory.

And I'll wager some English speakers will disagree with me and that others will fully agree with me. But, those who disagree, if they thought on it would probably find their own amendments to add to the dictionary version. And so, learning the dictionary version wouldn't really help you understand the cultural context within which the word is used.

From what I've seen, the Japanese version of the words lacks a lot of these cultural limitations. It is used much more frequently. Because while they also use it many of the same circumstances we'd use "nostalgia", they also use it for more recent events and even things which they do regularly (if the frequency is spaced out enough).

I could be totally wrong.

Still hats off to anyone successfully using J:J dictionaries for all of their vocab. I think it is quite an accomplishment. And I don't doubt that there are great merits to it. I just don't think it is the thing for everyone, and I don't think that there is a problem with that reality either. I also don't think it is as perfect a technique as the hype tries to impart on it. Find a technique you can stick with. Mix things up when you feel you need to. As long as you can keep going you'll get where you want to go.