Strictness with Synonyms: Anki/SRS/Flashcards

[Leviathan TQ]

I've been using Anki regularly to study vocabulary from dialogues in Italian, and I'm coming across a problem of synonyms.

For example, when talking about food preparation, the verb "to stir" or "to mix" in Italian can be translated as "rigirare, girare, or mescolare." If I have a flashcard that asks for the present continuous "stirring" and I mentally reply "girando", but the back of the card I made says "rigirando", how should I proceed? Should I simply edit the card flashcard to include the synonyms? Or should the subtle differences between the verbs be retained? It feels unintuitive to have so many cards for what are, in the context of my learning, synonyms.

I know "girare" and "rigirare" both also mean explicitly "to turn", while mescolare means more explicitly "to mix". These are subtle differences, yes, but in the context of food preparation they seem to be used interchangeably.

This issue also came up with "cibo, cottura, and cucina", which mean "food, cooking, and cuisine", respectively, but these differences are much more pronounced, and I think they deserve separate flashcards.

[alaart]

[...]Should I simply edit the card flashcard to include the synonyms? [...]

I usually just tick them as correct and keep on, or I add the synonyms and additional information if I really want to be precise.

For example your card could look like this:
girare - to turn (synonym: rigirare, sometimes mescolare - in the context of food preparation they seem to be used interchangeably)

[themethod]

My current method is to include the synonyms in parentheses with the "hint".

For example:

Here is the Anki sentence with a ______ deletion.

Hint: Missing word's definition (not: [synonym 1], [synonym 2])

This forces me to recall the correct word and avoids the issue of answering with the wrong synonym, while also reminding me of the synonyms and their subtle differences.

[Cainntear]

Your post is pointing to a very real problem with flashcards: there is very rarely a one-to-one correspondence between common words in two languages. Some people claim this means translation/gloss lists are a bad idea because of this, but that's going too far.

Concrete nouns tend to be pretty reliable: sunflower = tournesol = girasol = Sonnenblume = Solsikke = ... etc.

It also works well with less common abstract terms, particularly if they're technical jargon.

It's just not great for really common terms that are very heavily dependent on context and phraseology for meaning.

If a word's not a good fit for SRS, probably better not to use SRS to learn it -- I'm sure you're doing plenty of other things and will encounter the words outside of SRS lots.

[lingohot]

My current method is to include the synonyms in parentheses with the "hint".

For example:

Here is the Anki sentence with a ______ deletion.

Hint: Missing word's definition (not: [synonym 1], [synonym 2])

This forces me to recall the correct word and avoids the issue of answering with the wrong synonym, while also reminding me of the synonyms and there subtle differences.

This is exactly how my cards look like and how I do it in this case, hints are great because there are synonyms that might fit perfectly into the same context. But the key is to use sentences and NOT only single words. The latter only works for very basic vocabulary imo.

Apart from that, SRS isn't meant to be THE method to master a language, it's a tool that hammers vocab/structures/expressions/idioms and even grammar into your brain because it forces you to remember and think about what you want to learn. It was (and still is) tremendously helpful in my case.

Your post is pointing to a very real problem with flashcards: there is very rarely a one-to-one correspondence between common words in two languages. Some people claim this means translation/gloss lists are a bad idea because of this, but that's going too far.

You can put a definition/description (in any language you understand) instead of a corresponding word on a flashcard.

It also works well with less common abstract terms, particularly if they're technical jargon.

Abstract technical terms can have many synonyms that, if at all, only differ in nuances and very often do NOT have a corresponding term in the language you already master (usually your mother tongue). Cf. contract, agreement, convention, covenant, treaty, accord, pact, arrangement...

It's just not great for really common terms that are very heavily dependent on context and phraseology for meaning.

No-one hinders you from putting phrases/sentences/whatever context instead of single words on a flashcard.

If a word's not a good fit for SRS, probably better not to use SRS to learn it -- I'm sure you're doing plenty of other things and will encounter the words outside of SRS lots.

What exactly do you mean by SRS?

[Cainntear]

Apart from that, SRS isn't meant to be THE method to master a language, it's a tool that hammers vocab/structures/expressions/idioms and even grammar into your brain because it forces you to remember and think about what you want to learn. It was (and still is) tremendously helpful in my case.

...which is pretty much exactly what I was trying to get at. SRS is useful, but you've got to recognise its limits and use it if and when it is appropriate/

Your post is pointing to a very real problem with flashcards: there is very rarely a one-to-one correspondence between common words in two languages. Some people claim this means translation/gloss lists are a bad idea because of this, but that's going too far.

You can put a definition/description (in any language you understand) instead of a corresponding word on a flashcard.[/quote]
But the more you go into long-winded definitions, the more you rely on declarative memory (memory that can recite rote memorised "facts") and the less you rely on procedural memory (things that you can do without really having to think much about them -- in language, this means words you can recall directly without having to think "what is the French for sunflower...?")

The more you rely on declarative memory, the more you're just memorising words in order to learn them later.

Early on in my language learning, I had a "memorise first, learner later" attitude, but I've come to distinguish between things that need to be memorised and things that really don't.

It also works well with less common abstract terms, particularly if they're technical jargon.

Abstract technical terms can have many synonyms that, if at all, only differ in nuances and very often do NOT have a corresponding term in the language you already master (usually your mother tongue). Cf. contract, agreement, convention, covenant, treaty, accord, pact, arrangement...

Most technical realms are largely culture-agnostic.
I note that you've used law here -- most countries have distinct legal systems, but they don't have similar for (eg) computer programming.

It's just not great for really common terms that are very heavily dependent on context and phraseology for meaning.

No-one hinders you from putting phrases/sentences/whatever context instead of single words on a flashcard.

No, no-one does. But something does -- if you are memorising entire phrases, you are necessarily overexposing yourself to a single use of the word, rather than dealing with the full range of meanings.

If a word's not a good fit for SRS, probably better not to use SRS to learn it -- I'm sure you're doing plenty of other things and will encounter the words outside of SRS lots.

What exactly do you mean by SRS?

SRS is about memorising atomic elements of knowledge by repeating them at progressively longer intervals.

If a word is so common that you are likely to use it (whether receptively or productively) multiple times between each scheduled revision, you're basically not learning it by SRS. Which isn't to say that you should attempt to learn it in a piece of software that is designed for SRS, but you should at least be cognisant of what you're actually doing.

[språker]

It's just not great for really common terms that are very heavily dependent on context and phraseology for meaning.

If a word's not a good fit for SRS, probably better not to use SRS to learn it -- I'm sure you're doing plenty of other things and will encounter the words outside of SRS lots.

I don't do SRS, but I have decided to put my concentration to words and constructs that, after looking up, I am quite sure maps. This means that I ignore a lot of constructs that are hard to translate, a lot of them being very common words, like conjunctions. I hope I will understand them someday. I don't want to write a note in my book about the word if I am not sure that is what it is, I rather skip it for now.

[lingohot]

Apart from that, SRS isn't meant to be THE method to master a language, it's a tool that hammers vocab/structures/expressions/idioms and even grammar into your brain because it forces you to remember and think about what you want to learn. It was (and still is) tremendously helpful in my case.

...which is pretty much exactly what I was trying to get at.

Frankly, your post sounded more anti-SRS than pro-SRS.

SRS is useful, but you've got to recognise its limits and use it if and when it is appropriate

My point was that I didn't agree with the limits you have mentioned.

You can put a definition/description (in any language you understand) instead of a corresponding word on a flashcard.

But the more you go into long-winded definitions, the more you rely on declarative memory (memory that can recite rote memorised "facts") and the less you rely on procedural memory (things that you can do without really having to think much about them -- in language, this means words you can recall directly without having to think "what is the French for sunflower...?")

So rote memorization is a no-no when it comes to learning languages? Interesting stance.

The more you rely on declarative memory, the more you're just memorising words in order to learn them later.
Early on in my language learning, I had a "memorise first, learner later" attitude, but I've come to distinguish between things that need to be memorised and things that really don't.

How do you go about "memorising a word" and "learning a word"?

Most technical realms are largely culture-agnostic.

What do you mean by "technical"? Technical jargon can be used in any kinds of domains from computer programming to religion.

I note that you've used law here -- most countries have distinct legal systems, but they don't have similar for (eg) computer programming.

Law is not the only domain where the system is country/culture-dependent.

No-one hinders you from putting phrases/sentences/whatever context instead of single words on a flashcard.

No, no-one does. But something does -- if you are memorising entire phrases

No-one has said anything about "memorising entire phrases". On the contrary, I quoted themethod's method of arranging Anki cards, i.e. with clozed deletion. That is not memorising an entire phrase, but memorizing one item (which doesn't have to be a "word" by the way) embedded in a context (which you do not memorise, but of which you take note).

you are necessarily overexposing yourself to a single use of the word, rather than dealing with the full range of meanings.

No-one hinders you from creating multiple cards of one item (I call it item because it doesn't have to be a word) in multiple contexts in order to deal with the full range of meanings.

SRS is about memorising atomic elements of knowledge by repeating them at progressively longer intervals.

If a word is so common that you are likely to use it (whether receptively or productively) multiple times between each scheduled revision, you're basically not learning it by SRS. Which isn't to say that you should attempt to learn it in a piece of software that is designed for SRS, but you should at least be cognisant of what you're actually doing.

And how can you be so sure that we all talk about the same thing here?

[Cainntear]

Frankly, your post sounded more anti-SRS than pro-SRS.

I apologise for not making it clear what I thought SRS was good for. I should probably have included an example word. Like, I don't know, sunflower tournesol girasol Sonnenblume. Why that example came to my head is left as an exercise for the reader...

SRS is useful, but you've got to recognise its limits and use it if and when it is appropriate

My point was that I didn't agree with the limits you have mentioned.

Which is fine - it's a valid disagreement and a point for discussion.

So rote memorization is a no-no when it comes to learning languages? Interesting stance.

it's not a "no-no",but it's just less effective than just learning stuff.

As I said:

Early on in my language learning, I had a "memorise first, learner later" attitude, but I've come to distinguish between things that need to be memorised and things that really don't.

Note the fisticuffs between things that need to be memorised and things that don't (which undermines your belief that I'm suggesting memorising is a "no-no").

How do you go about "memorising a word" and "learning a word"?

If I had a clear answer that I believe in, I would not be on a language forum engaging in discussions to bring things forward -- if be running a YouTube channel where I sit like a god, proclaiming my mighty truth to mere mortals.

I have an intuitive feel for it as a teacher and self -teacher, but I don't understand it well enough to act like a guru on it.

Law is not the only domain where the system is country/culture-dependent.

No, and I didn't say it was. My point is that showing an exception to a general tendency and rule of thumb doesn't disprove it -- exceptions only disprove hard and fast proposed scientific laws of nature.

I was trying to suggest that SRS works well for words that have particular properties. Your interpretation of my post as anti-SRS has blinded you to that.

I would not also here that the creators of Mnemosyne actively discouraged its use for language because they thought it really would only with fit things like memorising arbitrary definitions in intellectual fields... which law pretty much is. I should correct what I said before by saying that learning with definitions kind of implies that you're learning the concept, which is fundamentally different from learning a word.

No-one has said anything about "memorising entire phrases". On the contrary, I quoted themethod's method of arranging Anki cards, i.e. with clozed deletion. That is not memorising an entire phrase, but memorizing one item (which doesn't have to be a "word" by the way) embedded in a context (which you do not memorise, but of which you take note).

even gapfill* cards bias you towards a single sense of the word, which leads to the danger that the most interesting examples are not often based on the semantics gore of the missing word.
* you’re probably not interested in why I say gapfill rather than close, so I won’t bother explaining

No-one hinders you from creating multiple cards of one item (I call it item because it doesn't have to be a word) in multiple contexts in order to deal with the full range of meanings.

Which begs the question whether it is really SRS any more if you do that.

SRS is about memorising atomic elements of knowledge by repeating them at progressively longer intervals.

And how can you be so sure that we all talk about the same thing here?

The last time I tried to establish whether we were talking about the same thing, you were all insulted and accused me of acting picky.

I didn’t ask this time because you were unhappy the last time I did. And now you’re having a go at me for assuming that everyone is working on the same technical definition of SRS as me. Classy.

[luke]

It's just not great for really common terms that are very heavily dependent on context and phraseology for meaning.

I have decided to put my concentration to words and constructs that, after looking up, I am quite sure maps. This means that I ignore a lot of constructs that are hard to translate, a lot of them being very common words, like conjunctions.

That makes sense to me. When I use pre-made decks from frequency lists, I usually delete the cards for those types of words.

On the main topic, it depends where I'm at on the learning path. At first, I generally count correct cards that I have at least one of the definitions (senses) correct. Later on, I'm more strict and try to learn the most common senses of a word. I don't call a word "wrong" if I remember only one sense. I give it the "didn't know very well" grade so it will come back a little sooner to remind me of other senses of the word.

One tiny example from today. In Spanish, coherente means both "coherent" and "consistent". Since I'm near the end of the deck, I want to learn both of these senses.

By the way, I use https://wordreference.com/ to determine the common senses, when it's not obvious by looking at the pre-made card. wordreference calls these "Principal translations".

That reminds me I want to ask:

What is your favorite word translation website?