If my math is correct, then I will have N1 completion near the end of 2022

Bunpro
#21

not really. some of those are actually very common for some reason (like 10%), but i have yet to find most of them “in the wild”. sometimes i really wish there was a a grammar list ordered by frequency instead of jltp…

oh, and that’s also one of the reasons why i prefered “rushing” through the grammar instead of learning it properly. as someone said, if a grammar point is important then you’ll learn it eventually through immersion, if not then it wasn’t that important to learn in the first place. that said tho, i think that going through n2-n1 improved a lot my “intuitive” understanding of the langauge.

anyway, considering that the next thing on my immersion list is nekopara, i think i’m ok for now, lol

2 Likes
#22

I plan to take N1 this July and only three N1 grammars point in one month. Basically I do same amount of reviews (around 250) and let the immersion do the rest.

I made these lesson plan because I lack in N3 reading section (barely pass btw). So yeah, I tried to immerse myself along with consistent reviews.

#23

The math is correct. What math doesn’t consider though is the need to let some of the tougher grammar points stew.

If you continue at the pace and hit a little bit of a snag (which is completely normal!), you don’t want to pile on more grammar points until the snag is untangled a bit. Otherwise you’ll be answering questions and maybe not understanding the why of getting questions right or wrong and unable to use them in a natural setting. Doing so will not cause progress, but possible frustration and regression.

Keep this in mind as you continue your journey so you will not discourage yourself when you do eventually hit these kinds of road blocks. 頑張れましょう！

2 Likes
#24

actually, N1 is just rarer grammar points. In terms of difficulty, N4-N3 is probably the most difficult due to how alien the grammar seems to a beginner. N2 is also difficult but due to the similar grammar points that start to overlap with each other and you need to remember the nuances.

3 Likes
#25

While I don’t necessarily disagree, I would also say that I don’t approach learning the language this way. I understand many people take your approach (where they stopping learning new things until they feel like they have a good grip on what they’ve already learned), but for me, I don’t think that’s the best approach. I always keep learning new grammar and new vocabulary, regardless of whether I’m struggling with something I’ve already seen before. I do that for a few reasons.

First is I would rather be less certain about more grammar and vocabulary than be more certain with less. When reading Japanese my biggest problem is running into things I don’t know. At least if it’s something I recognize I have a chance at figuring it out–even if imperfectly. Second is one’s natural experience of language acquisition as a child better matches my approach. As a kid, you didn’t (couldn’t) artificially limit your exposure to language based on what you knew. You just had to keep ploughing ahead. Eventually things became clearer. And the third reason is, I find it discouraging doing the same reviews over and over again without making headway with new items. I get impatient about how much I still don’t know, so I always want to keep moving forward.

I’ll admit that I might be overly ambitious in my learning goals, though.

6 Likes
#26

My main issue with threads like that is that learning a language isnt a race and certainly also not a “drill learn all grammar points and you good” kinda thing. Honestly.I spent hundreds of hours on reading immersion, learning new vocab in the thousands and thousands and on the side putting grammar points i might already know or not know intro Bunpro and if I only really went ahead and went through the grammar points my reading would still suck like crazy. It still does even after tons of immersion, but the immersion certainly made grammar points make real sense- no text book can tell you anything there is to know about grammar. You just get the tools to recognize it better and do something with it.

Instead of forcing yourselfto learn X grammar points in Y time, spend less time on that and more time on immersion itself. I am literally filling my whole free time with it and I will still not get anywhere near fluency in a year or anything like that.

Sometimes I am not sure if some people dont consider that language is something organic and your brain needs to see stuff you introduce to it many times in hundreds of different scenarios to make it learn and intuitively understand all stuff.

That isnt to say it cant and wont be great to learn many new grammar points quickly, but if you only look at that aspect (and that this is literally the least time-intense aspect of learning the language already despite taking tons of work and hours), you wont be able to do that much with it even if you learned and somehow understood all those grammar points just in theory.

Nonetheless good luck in your endeavor^^

P.S: JLPT level also doesnt automatically equal fluency

4 Likes
#27

also, i second most of the points made here, this method is also my kinda thing. i am not really reading what I should with my level and while its hard its also much more satisfying and leads to better results.

New grammar points I dont spend much time on or go through 10 sources because in the end I will still not be able to cover its core without encountering it in the wild.

What I want from Bunpro, WK and similar things is making my immersion easier and smoother. Strengthening my knowledge/feel about the language and how those work in detail comes through exposure. I can still reference back many times and read up a bit on things a little at a time if i get stuck or encounter something i think I know but end up not remembering. That gives me some cues. And then I will go back to reading while I encounter many new things. Often I will reference some of those before I ever added or learned them anywhere and will develope a feel of those simply by being exposed to those structures often enough.

When I later learn new grammar or read the Bunpro entry to add them to SRS its often that it makes perfect sense or I go into them with a feel of what they might mean.

In the end I feel that you need to force yourself into the unknown, as thats the most natural thing.

Which isnt to say that all people have to do it like that, but while I certainly like increasing those numbers on Bunpro and co., I really prefer spending most of my time on simply diving in, being troubled about understanding stuff or getting a bit stuck here and there but in the end doing what I wanna learn from the getgo: Interact with the language.

1 Like
#28

This really is key. When you think about your own native language, consider how flexible and nebulous the meaning of certain phrases can be depending on context. That’s no different from any other language, including Japanese. You will see the same vocabulary or grammar that you think means x be used to mean y because the speaker is being hyperbolic, figurative, comedic, etc. Language is an extremely fungible tool humans use to convey meaning. The way that tool is employed is unique to each person. You only came to know your native language through constant, immersive exposure. You’ll only come to a native understanding of Japanese through the same.

3 Likes
#29

Not at all. Everyone I know who’s fluent in Japanese reached that level on their own in around 2 - 2.5 years, and they all reached N1 within around 1 - 1.5 years. Of course you would reach that level soon if you’re studying at a good pace.

#30

Not at all. Everyone I know who’s fluent in Japanese reached that level on their own in around 2 - 2.5 years, and they all reached N1 within around 1 - 1.5 years. Of course you would reach that level soon if you’re studying at a good pace.

That’s kind of insane, honestly. I know people who have been living in Japan for that long and still aren’t even close to fluent.

5 Likes
#31

Living in Japan isn’t enough to become fluent. I have meet a handful of people who have lived over here for multiple decades and they only know a handful of basic words. Just as you can create an immersion environment from abroad, many foreigner residents in Japan create an English bubble to live in.

1 Like
#32

Passing the N1 in 18 months and becoming fluent in Japanese a year or less after is an incredible achievement. It’s far beyond what could possibly be expected for a typical person, let alone many people. It’s so superlative, it’s difficult to comprehend how it could even happen. Unless you don’t actually mean to say they are truly fluent (a word that gets thrown around a bit too easily) or that they didn’t actually pass N1 (they just “studied” to that level). I’m not sure if that’s what you meant.

6 Likes
#33

It’s estimated that fluency in Japanese takes 2200 hours for native English speakers. If you want to accomplish that in 18 months, that means studying Japanese for around 4 hours every day (Or less if your goal is 2 years) - which should not be difficult to do if you are living in Japan. For example you might have an hour long commute in the morning and again on the way home, an hour for lunch, and an hour or two at the end of the day before bed. That’s 4-5 hours daily that you could spend reading books, watching tv, talking with people, or studying grammar.

The reason why most people struggle with it is because they don’t devote the time to it or they simply do not know how to learn a language.

Having N1 doesn’t mean you are fluent. There are many people who have passed N1 and can’t even hold a basic conversation. But if you are fluent then it can be assumed that you are above N1 simply because fluency requires a large vocabulary and the N1 holders only have to know around 10k words. What I am talking about is people who are fluent and live their lives and work their careers in Japanese. It is not at all rare or unheard of to pass N1 within 18 months, and there are many schools in Japan which exist specifically to get students up to that level so that they can enter into Japanese universities.

Rather, I would argue that if you haven’t reached fluency within that amount of time then you are doing something wrong. Like spending too much time on grammar and textbooks and not enough time reading or talking with people, or simply not enough exposure to the language in a day. For example reading for just an hour a day will get you very far in two years, but it’s not enough exposure to reach fluency in that time.

#34

I’d just like to point out the definition of “fluency” is completely arbitrary and varies by person to person. But most importantly, I’d just like to mention that your definition of “fluency” does not match the statistics you’ve cited. Specifically:

The US State Department considers Japanese a category IV language and estimates proficiency in 88 weeks or 2200 class hours. I would assume this is where you got your statistic from. In which case this instruction only takes you to “a score of “Speaking-3/Reading-3” on the Interagency Language Roundtable scale.” Which, according to the Language Testing Institute itself only brings you to the middle of the scale. 5 Is considered “fluent.” This estimated 2200 hours only brings one just past what they consider “Limited Working Proficiency, Plus” which, again, is halfway to what they consider fluency.

I’d also like to point out that this number is the average amount of time it takes. An important distinction to make because people in these programs come from all backgrounds. Some have experience with Kanji, or Japanese in general, and some are starting completely from scratch. So 2200 hours is an average figure and not the standard. A student with 1400 hours and a student with 3000 hours makes the average 2200, but that doesn’t make it the standard. Which leads me to…

Even that figure can be misleading. Another organization, JLEC, a Japanese Language teaching organization in both America and Japan, had data with even higher numbers:

It was estimated for students who had experience with kanji could pass the N1 in 1700-2600 hours. But students with no prior experience with kanji would take 3000-4800 hours.

Which brings me to my main point:

I feel like that’s not only incorrect, but it’s condescending, if not just outright rude. Different people learn a language at different rates due to a whole host of reasons. Somebody not reaching “fluency” (again, completely arbitrary definition) isn’t due to them doing something wrong. There’s a whole host of environmental reasons why people learn languages at different rates.

That’s not just my opinion; that’s science. Just off the top of my head: current brain plasticity, previous exposure to foreign languages to increase aforementioned plasticity [1] [2], and exposure to foreign languages at specific periods in childhood [1] are all HUGE biological benefits one can have. Even the quality of education is going to be a huge factor. A student with a professional educator paid for by the U.S. government complete with materials tailor-made to people in the program is absolutely going to have a better grasp of Japanese than somebody with Bunpro and Genki II in the same timeframe. Doubly so if somebody has had exposure to parts of the language or even the language itself.

Sorry for writing a book. I wound up having to go over similar research for my Master’s thesis and I find most of it super interesting. But I also just find this attitude of treating language-learning like a race so disappointing. There are people just starting Japanese, likely on their own, reading stuff like this and being completely mislead to disappointment. And it’s especially frustrating because I know of people, really capable people, that give up before they even start because they see this behavior.

If you are studying, if you are seeing results, just keep going. Don’t compare yourself to this.

16 Likes
#35

Screen Shot 2022-03-25 at 15.08.33
Screen Shot 2022-03-25 at 15.08.331342×356 78.1 KB

The definition is pretty clear. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

Even if it took you 4000 hours, that just means using Japanese for 5 hours a day which should be no problem for someone in Japan. For example if you commute by train an hour each way, have an hour for lunch at work, plus 2 hours of free time at home at the end of the day then you have 5 hours to study Japanese every day.

I really don’t understand why you are taking offense to this or are trying to make it more than it needs to be. We’re talking about language learning, not rocket science: it’s just a matter of time invested daily.

This is getting into the realm of anecdotes, but I have taken language classes and I have also self studied and to me this point just sounds silly. Class instruction can only get you so far and in order to reach fluency you have to actually use the language because there is a clear difference between memorizing grammar rules and vocabulary words and actually acquiring them. Anyone going through those programs is going to be spending a lot of time holding conversations and reading books or watching TV in the language they are learning. Are you saying hat normal people are unable to read books, talk to people or watch TV in Japanese?

1 Like
#36

Second is one’s natural experience of language acquisition as a child better matches my approach. As a kid, you didn’t (couldn’t) artificially limit your exposure to language based on what you knew. You just had to keep ploughing ahead. Eventually things became clearer.

I just want to be clear here: I don’t think that you shouldn’t be looking or listening to other people or try to read other things while studying. I do this all the time. What I am saying is that, if you’re introducing new explanations of grammar points and don’t fully understand the explanations? Slow down!

You might very well get the grammar point from listening to others and picking up on it, sure, but as a child, you have adults correcting you and providing you feedback on almost a daily basis because they’re invested in you. You don’t have that so much as an adult.

Ultimately, do what’s best for you in your journey and do what you can to ensure you’re doing what you can to help care for yourself when you inevitably hit frustrations in the process. That’s all

1 Like
#37

This is actually something that has really started being studied within the past few years. There has always been an assumption that children learned better via implicit education simply because they were children. Explicit education within a child’s “sensitive period” wasn’t widely looked at. I found this recently and thought it was interesting.

Age and learning environment: Are children implicit second language learners? (2016)

A big factor in this research being important is its recency. A large portion of “children are the best language learners because they just are better implicit learners” research is often 20-30 years old. This was done only a few years ago and, to quote from their conclusions:

The position I call the maturational hypothesis holds that children learn languages implicitly because of cognitive maturation – because they are children. If this is the case, children should not benefit from explicit training. Results, though, showed that children aged five to seven who received explicit training did develop more explicit knowledge of the mini-language’s grammatical rules than those receiving implicit training, and that all children, even those not given explicit training, produced sentences more accurately when their attention was drawn to form. These results better fit the instructional hypothesis: children learn languages implicitly because they have not been exposed to explicit grammar instruction; adults learn languages explicitly because they have already been exposed to explicit grammar instruction.

…

Overall, this study shows more similarities than differences between child and adult L2 learners. Both children and adults are capable of learning an artificial mini-language under either implicit or explicit training conditions. Both perform more accurately when their attention is drawn to form. Both develop more explicit knowledge when instructed explicitly (although adults may also develop explicit knowledge on their own). Both age groups make errors, displaying individual differences in performance.

…

These results do not support the idea that children, because of their cognitive maturation, rely on implicit learning mechanisms in all circumstances, nor that adults always rely on explicit learning mechanisms. Rather, they suggest that the learning environment is very important: explicit language instruction leads to explicit language knowledge, at any age. Adults, having had more lifetime exposure to explicit information about language, may be more likely than children to seek out and use explicit knowledge – without this difference being caused exclusively by cognitive maturation. This makes an important contribution to our understanding of age and second language acquisition. Relying on explicit knowledge and benefitting from explicit instruction may not be hallmarks of ADULT classroom L2 learning specifically, but rather hallmarks of classroom L2 learning at any age.

Basically. Language learners start using more classroom learning methods as they get older because a majority of what they have learned has come from the classroom. Their environment matters more than their age. Although there is a lot of research indicating that children do have a better ability to pick up languages and understand phonetical differences, when it comes to learning a language neither immersion nor classroom learning is particularly better than the other and it all comes down to what fits best for you.

7 Likes
#38

i always thought “fluency” simply meant being able to talk without thinking (about grammar/vocabolary), like when the right words just “come up” to you when needed.

also consider that all the first year elemetary school kids are considerent “fluent in japanese”, and the might not even pass n5, let alone n1. i’d say that we are talking about 2 completely different skillsets here

#39

I feel like I see these types of posts every once in a while, and I genuinely wish you the best of luck with achieving your goal, but I’m honestly not sure I have seen anyone hit N1 in a year who wasn’t a native Korean speaker. Japanese grammar rules are “simple” however it’s a very “dense” language, primarily due to all the Kanji that must be learned in addition to the grammar. There’s also a lot of nuances in terms of politeness and how you physically carry yourself in conversation with Japanese people that are hard to learn without lots of interactions.

Regarding fluency, my Japanese tutor put it very succinctly. She said fluency is when you can speak, read and write and you don’t have to think about it.

#40

I used to teach some supplementary classes for EFL teachers and one of the first questions I would always have them discuss with each other is “what is fluency?” Like, reeeeaaallly think about what that word means and you’ll find it’s kind of hard to quantify.

  • Is it being able to speak what’s on your mind quickly in Japanese? Because I’m able to do that in Japanese now and yet I likely wouldn’t be able to pass N2 currently. Does that make me fluent? I wouldn’t consider myself so.

  • Is it being able to have a conversation? Because you can have a conversation with the most bare minimum of vocabulary and grammar. A toddler can convey to me needs, wants, and ideas with just words. Is a toddler fluent?

  • Is it being able to understand 100% of what somebody said in their native language? Because even within a target language there’s different levels of ability. If I understand an elementary school student am I fluent? A junior high school student? A high school student? A college graduate? A professor?

  • Is it accuracy? Then consider, hypothetically, somebody perfecting what you would consider N5 and N4 vocabulary and grammar. Let’s say you spoke at an N4 level with 100% accuracy but knew none of the grammar beyond. Is that fluent?

  • Is it vocabulary and grammar knowledge? Because as has been discussed previously you can have a ton of vocabulary and grammar knowledge and still be unable to have a conversation. Moreso, at what % of vocabulary knowledge does fluency begin? If I know 50% of a target language’s vocabulary is that fluent? What about 40%? 30%? What’s the exact amount?

I don’t mean to hamper anyone’s goals of fluency. But I just want to point out that what fluency is can be kind of nebulous. So rather than trying to be “fluent” I would just say try to be better than you were yesterday, you know?

5 Likes