It has been widely claimed that Kanji is one of the most difficult aspects of Japanese language learning for learners with alphabetic language backgrounds. There are various techniques devised by teachers to teach Kanji effectively. However, given variables such as individual differences, none of these techniques can be a single perfect technique. In this paper, how learners process Kanji is analysed, then based on the findings of the analysis, techniques for teaching Kanji are classified into four categories for developing learners’ proper processing skills. The four categories are: 1) techniques to eliminate learners’ anxiety, 2) techniques to familiarise learners with Kanji, 3) techniques to store Kanji in long-term memory, and 4) techniques to restructure learners’ schema. The paper suggests 1) that learners need to have appropriate graphemic awareness to process Kanji, and 2) that techniques from each category should be implemented in teaching to facilitate the development of proper processing skills.
Reading in the Japanese language cannot be accomplished without adequate recognition of kanji words. Abundant research suggests that, when recognizing kanji words, it is crucial to use semantic and phonological information of constituent components of kanji. This paper reports on the results of a study investigating if English-speaking learners of Japanese have the ability to use kanji component information. A test measuring learners’ ability to utilise component information was devised and administered after training sessions. The analysis of the test results suggests that learners of Japanese have an ability to use component information. Judging from the findings of the study, learners are better at using semantic information than using phonological information for processing kanji words
The aims of this paper are: (1) to compare learning strategies employed to memorize the meaning of words written in kanji (logograph) and kana (syllablics); and (2) to identify effective learning strategies to memorize meanings of words in kanji. Eleven native speakers of English enrolled in Japanese at a university participated in this project. Twenty words were selected as the main research instrument. Participants were asked to memorize in 20 minutes the English meanings of the 20 Japanese words written in kanji while saying what they were thinking (a think-aloud protocol). Participants’ behavior was observed, and a test was given after the memorization. About one month later the same procedure was used for words written in kana. A questionnaire was used to find participants’ Japanese learning backgrounds. The findings were: (1) seven out of 11 participants employed different strategies for memorizing the meanings of words written in kanji from words written in kana; and (2) recognition of radicals and analysis of whole words were effective for memorizing the words written in kanji.
The present study investigated the development of semantic processing skills in character recognition among English‐speaking L2 readers of Japanese with different levels of knowledge of kanji (the morphographic script used in the Japanese writing system) by using a timed semantic processing task (a task involving the comparison of kanji). By analysing the results of the task (correct response rates and reaction times), the study described the changes in semantic processing skills at the different stages of knowledge of kanji. The overall findings of the study suggest that 1) L2 readers with different levels of target script knowledge approach the recognition of characters differently, and that 2) L2 semantic processing skills approximate those of L1 readers with increased L2 script knowledge.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.