By Scott Alprin

 April, 2002

Teaching Kanji with Components:

Using An Element-Based Approach in Class

Introduction:

My experience with the Japanese language began in January, 1989 at Colby

College in Maine. I had taken French in high school, and intended to continue in
college, but overslept my French placement test one fateful day. A special intensive
Japanese course was offered in January, so I took it. The rest, as they say, is rekishi.

I was at once fascinated and befuddled by the study of kanji, which are the
Chinese characters used by the Japanese in their writing system. Kanji was taught at
Colby utilizing a “frequency-based approach,” which is the way it is taught
throughout the United States, and the world. I will explain what I mean by this term
below. I graduated in 1992 after four years of Japanese, unable to read a Japanese
newspaper, unable to identify the meaning of or read at least half of the kanji that I was
supposed to know, and unable to write most of the kanji I was supposed to know. I do
not mean to lay blame upon the Colby program, which I believe is excellent. I believe
that the problem is not Colby, but the “frequency-based approach” itself.

I moved to Nagoya, Japan in 1992, and began studying kanji on my own under
an “element-based approach.” By early 1994, I was able to read and write nearly all
of the two thousand common-use kanji (jyouyou kanji, or 常用漢字), and could read a
Japanese newspaper with ease. I learned the kanji through a course in a book by James
Heisig called “Remembering the Kanji” (Japan Publications Trading Co., Ltd.). I
thought at the time, and still do, that the “element-based approach” is more effective,
efficient, and logical than the “frequency-based approach.”

In 1999, I developed my own variation of the “element-based approach.” This

“method” is not yet unpublished.

In this paper, I will discuss certain advantages of the “element-based approach”

over the “frequency-based approach,” and will advocate the use of the “element-based
approach” in the classroom through a method that I created based on the Heisig method.

“Frequency-Based Approach” Defined

I use the term “frequency-based approach” to mean the following: the order in
which the kanji appears in textbooks or kanji workbooks when chosen based on the
kanji’s perceived fundamental importance in (a) society or (b) the particular textbook
chapter. An example of (a) is the order of the kanji as it appears in the Educational
Kanji Grade Breakdown Kanji Allotment Chart (教育漢字の学年別漢字配当表) of the
Ministry of Education (Monbusho). Monbusho is concerned with placing kanji in an
order based on “importance,” in light of the age of the learner. Therefore, the 76 kanji
taught to first graders carry meanings that are easily understandable to children, for
example: “flower” (花), “sky” (空), “school” (校), “left” (左), “correct” (正), “village”
(村), and “town” (町). It is my belief that the way that Monbusho prioritizes kanji has
greatly influenced the way in which textbooks choose the order of presentation of kanji.
Therefore, American college students are being taught kanji based on a system tailored
for Japanese children.

As an example of (b) above, that is, “importance” of kanji in the particular

textbook chapter, I would like to cite the kanji presented in Chapter ____ of “Yookoso!
An Invitation to Contemporary Japanese” by Yasu-Hiko Tohsaku. These kanji come
from a story in the chapter about “My Fashion (マイ・ファッション),” and are as follows:
“same” (同), “long” (長), “market” (市), “place” (場), “main” (主), “electricity” (電),
“sell” (売), “buy” (買), “wear” (着), “cut” (切), “yen” (円), “pull” (引),
“inexpensive/comfort” (安), “a shop” (店), “employee” (員), “color” (色), “black” (黒),
“white” (白), “blue” (青), “red” (赤), “yellow” (黄), “clothing” (服), “return” (返),
“flower” (花). These kanji were chosen not for their structural simplicity, but their
semantic simplicity. As an example of how the Monbusho list affects the presentation of
kanji in textbooks, please note the grade in which Japanese students are taught the kanji
in the Yookoso chapter mentioned above: “yen,” “white,” “blue,” “red,” and “flower”
are taught in the first grade; “same,” “long,” “market,” “place,” “electricity,” “sell,”
“buy,” “cut,” “pull,” “shop,” “color,” “black,” and “yellow” are taught in the second
grade; and “main,” “wear,” “inexpensive,” “employee,” “clothing,” and “return” are
taught in the third grade.

It is my opinion that textbooks generally follow the Monbusho example, and do

not usually dare to teach a kanji that is not considered “important” in beginning levels.
It is my contention that this makes sense for Japanese children, but not necessarily for
Western teenage and college students. It seems unfortunate to me that the “frequency-
based approach” is so mainstream that very simple kanji that could act as building
blocks for “important” kanji are virtually ignored under the “frequency-based
approach.”

“Element-Based Approach” Defined

An “element-based approach” emphasizes the learning of the building blocks of

kanji. Under such an approach, all of the parts of a kanji are identified and assigned a
meaning. Students become very familiar with the components of a kanji, and therefore
are able to create mnemonic devices for remembering the kanji as a whole. I am
familiar with two books that feature the “element-based approach”: Heisig’s book,
mentioned above, and “Kanji ABC,” by Andreas Foerster & Naoko Tamura (published
by Tuttle).

A look at three of the 76 Monbusho first grade kanji illustrates the stark
difference between a “frequency-based approach” and an “element-based approach.
“Flower” (花) is taught in the first grade under Monbusho, but its component, “change
form” (化), is not taught until the third grade. Under an “element-based approach,”
however, 化 would be taught before 花. “Sky” (空) is taught in the first grade, but its
component, “construction” (工) is taught in the second grade. Again, this order would
never occur under an “element-based approach.” Likewise, “school” (校) is taught in
the first grade, while “exchange” (交) and “father” (父) are taught in the second grade.
Similarly, under Monbusho, “pull” (引) is taught in the second grade, but “bow” (弓) is
taught in the sixth grade. As stated above, teaching (弓) after (引) would never be
permitted in an “element-based approach.”

The key, then, for teachers in teaching kanji under an “element-based approach”
is, first and foremost, knowing what the “elements” are. This topic is addressed below.

Identifying the Elements

In my variation of the “element-based method,” there are two basic types of

“elements”: (1) pure kanji and (2) open elements. (1) Pure kanji are the simplest kanji
that are easy to learn and used as building blocks. Examples include: “mouth” (口),
“big” (大), “river” (川), and “complete” (了). (2) Open elements are the simplest
shapes in kanji, are not real kanji, and are not assigned any particular meaning.
Examples include: 亠,扌, 凵, 隹, 尸, and 阝. It should be noted here that, though I
choose to call these basic building blocks of kanji “elements,” Heisig calls them
“primitives” and Foerster and Tamura call them “graphemes.” Whatever you call them,
they must be given great weight when teaching kanji under an “element-based
approach.”

Steps for Implementing “Element-Based Approach”

First Step: Know Your Curriculum

The teacher that uses an “element-based approach” should be aware of all of the
kanji that appear from the first level to the last level of the curriculum. Many high
schools programs require fourth year students to be able to read and write 300 to 500
kanji by graduation, while college programs may require 1000 to 2000. So, what should
be done if “bow” (弓) is not in a high school curriculum, but “pull” (引) is? I would say
that “bow” should be taught to the students, which would essentially add the kanji
“bow” to the curriculum. However, if a kanji such as “beg” (乞) never appears in the
curriculum, is it necessary to teach the kanji “second rank” (乙)? The answer is that it is
probably not necessary to teach “second rank,” assuming, of course, it appears nowhere
in the curriculum.

Second Step: Have Students Assign Meanings to Open Elements Themselves

The open elements (i.e., 亠,扌, 凵, 隹, 尸, and 阝) are so simple and identifiable
that the student can easily associate meanings with them. This allows the student to
unleash his or her visual imagination, which is, if nothing else, fun. Skeptics of this
method will complain that the etymological underpinnings of the “component” will be
lost if students are permitted to create their own meanings. My answer to that sentiment
is that, where necessary, the teacher may add the historical meaning to the student’s
lexicon. For example, a student may associate kusa kanmuri (the upper part of 芯) with
a “stitch” or a “staple.” Those familiar with kanji know that kusa kanmuri is related to
plant life, or grass. There is no rule against informing the students of this fact.

Next, the teacher can have the students vote on the meanings of each open
element as a class. I have found that this process may take a few classes. Therefore, if
time is limited, it may be necessary for the teacher to limit class discussion of the open
elements.

The idea of having the students assign their own meanings systematically to the
open elements is my own. Assigning meanings to the parts of kanji (busyu, hen and
tsukuri) is not new. Both Heisig and Foerster and Tamura assign meanings to the
components of the kanji before teaching the kanji that use those components. It is noted
here that Heisig introduces his meanings for the “components” as he teaches. For
example, 阝 (on the left side) is taught on page 309 of his book, right before kanji
number 1294, and given the meaning “pinnacle.” 阝 (on the right side) is taught on
page 398 of the book, right before kanji number 1841, and assigned the meaning “city
walls.” Foerster and Tamura, on the other hand, place the components at the beginning
of their book. 阝 (on the left side) is taught on page 1 of their book, and assigned the
meaning of “fortress.” 阝 (on the right side) is taught on page 2, and assigned the
meaning of “city walls.” I advocate teaching the students the open elements at the very
beginning of the course, similar to Foerster and Tamura.

Third Step: Teach the Basic Pure Kanji

There are about 50 pure kanji (i.e. “mouth” (口), “big” (大), “river” (川), and
“complete” (了)) when using a 2000 kanji curriculum, however, this number may be
significantly reduced depending on the number of kanji in the curriculum. It is my
belief that the meanings of these 50 or so kanji should be introduced to the students
right after the open elements, and the pure kanji should be tested almost immediately, to
assure retention.

Fourth Step: Mnemonic Stories

Now that all of the shapes of the kanji (in the curriculum) have been taught, the
students are ready to start memorizing the meanings (and reading, and writing?) of more
complex kanji. Because each component of a kanji is identified, it is not difficult, with
the correct guidance, for students to use the components to spark an image in the mind
that triggers the meaning of the kanji. The student can build up a whole network of
stories in their minds by using their imagination. This method systematizing mnemonic
stories, was devised by Heisig, and is best described in his aforementioned book. The
great thing about the Heisig book is that he teaches students how to remember the kanji
after they know the components. The Foerster and Tamura book falls short in this
respect, as their book merely presents the components, and introduces the kanji in an
order based on the components, but does not teach the student how to remember the
kanji using the components.
Empirical Data

I have attempted to use the “element-based approach” in two class settings,

elementary school and high school, and have used the approach with individuals of all
ages, as well. My experience has been that students can easily learn the components,
that is, pure kanji and open elements. Memorizing more complex kanji with mnemonic
stories is more difficult and takes more time. I have never, however, integrated the
method fully into a Japanese class curriculum, and do not think that such a strategy has
ever been tried.

Advantages of the “Element-Based Approach”

The biggest advantage of using an “element-based approach,” as opposed to a

“frequency-based approach,” is that the students can avoid the overwhelming feeling of
being confronted by many unfamiliar structures all at once. The advantages of the
“element-based approach” are best summed up by the following quotes:

“The sequence in which kanji are introduced is crucial. When graphically simple kanji are
introduced first, they can be used as components for more complicated kanji. This is not
possible when the sequence of introduction is determined by the importance of a kanji.”
(Kanji ABC, by Foerster and Tamura, Page x).

“[T]he most critical factor is the order of learning the kanji. The method is simplicity itself.
Once more basic characters have been learned, their us as primitive elements for other kanji
can save a great deal of effort . . . .” (Remembering the Kanji, by Page 9-10).

“The etymologically-based graphemes are powerful memory aids. Abstract stroke

combinations suddenly become combinations of terms familiar to the student. A feeling for
each kanji can be created. This method is similar to the natural process of remembering:
new information is linked to existing impressions and feelings.” (Kanji ABC, Page xi).

Conclusion

Adopting an “element-based approach” for learning kanji requires the teacher

not only to reorder the actual introduction of kanji to the students, but to rethink many
basic assumptions regarding kanji. First, teachers must acknowledge that the
Monbusho strategy for teaching kanji is not the most efficient and effective way for
teaching Western students. Second, teachers have to acknowledge that the time spent in
assigning meanings to open elements and teaching obscure kanji before “important”
kanji, though time-consuming at the beginning, will bear much fruit in the long run. I
would suggest that using an “element-based approach” allows students to learn and
retain a greater number of kanji than the “frequency-based approach.” Why? Because
learning kanji from basic to complex simply makes more sense than the other way
around.