6 ms·

I can sum it up as "it's deliberately hard and teaching it to children has been shown to slow their learning"

beat 8y ago
Except both of those are wrong. Remember, literacy was a rare and elite thing throughout the Western world as well, until the 19th century started seeing the first attempts at universal education. Widespread literacy is a 20th century thing. And China lagged behind the West, having spent the first half of the 20th century throwing off colonial oppression rather than developing a sophisticated, modern education system. So until recently, it cost China nothing to use pictograms rather than romanization. So no, not "deliberately hard". Since then, China built a modern education system, and has literacy rates on par with western nations. So it's not preventing China from teaching children to read. Therefore, your claim that "teaching it to children has been shown to slow their learning" constitutes an extraordinary claim, and requires some extraordinary evidence. Occam's Razor suggests that you think it's hard because it's unfamiliar, not because it's hard.
- FabHK 8y ago
  I'd think it's fairly uncontroversial to say that the Chinese writing system is harder to master (and it thus takes longer) than alphabetic ones. It's an extraordinary claim that learning 6000 symbols is just as easy as learning 26 symbols (hey, make it 52, or, since we're on HN, 128 or even 256 :-)
  - beat 8y ago
    It's not a claim I'm making, because it's an irrational comparison. My son knew the alphabet by the time he was three years old. Did it give him a 6000 word vocabulary? No. Standalone Roman letters are meaningless, unlike Chinese characters. And there are other tradeoffs. Chinese writing is much more compact and easier to read, relative to alphabetic writing. A layer of translation has been removed. I'm not convinced that learning to write Chinese with a "literate" vocabulary is substantially harder than achieving equivalent literacy in a language with alphabetic writing. It might look easier to you if you've never learned both. But proof is in the pudding - China's literacy rate is on par with Western literacy rates, for similar educational effort.
    - FabHK 8y ago
      > China's literacy rate is on par with Western literacy rates, for similar educational effort. Well, that's precisely the claim that is under dispute. For example, DeFrancis [1] aims to dispel what he calls "The Successfulness Myth: Chinese characters are responsible for a high level of literacy in East Asian countries. (A weaker version of this myth is simply that despite the flaws of Chinese characters, East Asian countries still have a high level of literacy.)" He makes the opposite claim that (from the Wikipedia summary) "The Chinese script, with its huge number of characters, its complexity and its irregularities, is harmful to the literacy improvement efforts of the Chinese society, and needs to be replaced by a more efficient writing system if China is to achieve the benefits of modernization." There is, in other words, serious scholarly dispute about the success of the Chinese script. > Chinese writing is much more compact and easier to read, relative to alphabetic writing Agreed on the first part, it's more compact (not surprising if you have ten thousands of choices per character, say 14 bits, instead of 26, or 5 bits). But I don't think it's easier to read (let alone write), and I'd want to see evidence for that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chinese_Language%3A_Fact_and_Fantasy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chinese_Language%3A_Fact_a...
      - beat 8y ago
        Couldn't the same thing be said for the horrendous spelling and grammar issues of English? For what it's worth, my spouse has a Master's degree in Chinese pedagogy. I've not heard such arguments from her. A single book, weighed against observation, isn't proof.
        FabHK 8y ago
        > horrendous spelling and grammar issues of English? Sure, English has pretty horrible orthography, arguably the worst among alphabetic languages (though it's not that easy to reform, either, see eg. [1]). But it's still more phonetic than Chinese. Spanish has a beautiful orthography, and pretty close correspondence between written and spoken word. "Chinese characters are so difficult to learn that even the best system of rudimentary characters, or simplified teaching, does not equip the people with a really rich and efficient vocabulary. Sooner or later, we believe, we will have to abandon characters altogether if we are to create a new social culture in which the masses fully participate." "We believe Latinization is a good instrument with which to overcome illiteracy." This was said by Mao Zedong (oh, dang, that's so ambiguous, I mean 毛泽东) in 1936, see [2]. "This has led many Chinese in the past to advocate the abolition of characters in favor of an alphabetic system, but such programs have met with little success." [3] So, the idea that the Chinese writing system is too cumbersome is by no means new, or "Western", for what it's worth. > A single book, weighed against observation, isn't proof Well, no. But there is more than a single book, there are decades of discussion and scholarship on this. It's conceivable to me that China could benefit from a move to alphabetic writing, and translations of Classical Chinese into vernacular (and anyone who wants can go study characters and Classical Chinese texts in the original, just like anyone in the West can go learn Latin and ancient Greek and Hebrew and read the classics in the original, or the Bible, for that matter). [1] https://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/accents_spellingreform.htm https://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/accents_spellingreform... [2] http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp171_chinese_writing_reform.pdf http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp171_chinese_writing... [3] http://sites.asiasociety.org/education/VISIBLE_TRACES/curriculum/pdf/CIAessay1.pdf http://sites.asiasociety.org/education/VISIBLE_TRACES/curric...
ssnistfajen 8y ago
Danish children acquire language skills at slower pace than six other languages (including Swedish which is in the same language sub-family): http://cphpost.dk/life-in-denmark/the-danish-languages-irritable-vowel-syndrome.html http://cphpost.dk/life-in-denmark/the-danish-languages-irrit... Is there also a conspiracy by the Danish "elites" to deliberately keep the language's phonological complexity so there's a "higher barrier of entry" to become an "intellectual"? Without using profanities, I'd just say that summary is absolute NONSENSE.

beat 8y ago

Except both of those are wrong. Remember, literacy was a rare and elite thing throughout the Western world as well, until the 19th century started seeing the first attempts at universal education. Widespread literacy is a 20th century thing. And China lagged behind the West, having spent the first half of the 20th century throwing off colonial oppression rather than developing a sophisticated, modern education system. So until recently, it cost China nothing to use pictograms rather than romanization. So no, not "deliberately hard". Since then, China built a modern education system, and has literacy rates on par with western nations. So it's not preventing China from teaching children to read. Therefore, your claim that "teaching it to children has been shown to slow their learning" constitutes an extraordinary claim, and requires some extraordinary evidence. Occam's Razor suggests that you think it's hard because it's unfamiliar, not because it's hard.

FabHK 8y ago
I'd think it's fairly uncontroversial to say that the Chinese writing system is harder to master (and it thus takes longer) than alphabetic ones. It's an extraordinary claim that learning 6000 symbols is just as easy as learning 26 symbols (hey, make it 52, or, since we're on HN, 128 or even 256 :-)
- beat 8y ago
  It's not a claim I'm making, because it's an irrational comparison. My son knew the alphabet by the time he was three years old. Did it give him a 6000 word vocabulary? No. Standalone Roman letters are meaningless, unlike Chinese characters. And there are other tradeoffs. Chinese writing is much more compact and easier to read, relative to alphabetic writing. A layer of translation has been removed. I'm not convinced that learning to write Chinese with a "literate" vocabulary is substantially harder than achieving equivalent literacy in a language with alphabetic writing. It might look easier to you if you've never learned both. But proof is in the pudding - China's literacy rate is on par with Western literacy rates, for similar educational effort.
  - FabHK 8y ago
    > China's literacy rate is on par with Western literacy rates, for similar educational effort. Well, that's precisely the claim that is under dispute. For example, DeFrancis [1] aims to dispel what he calls "The Successfulness Myth: Chinese characters are responsible for a high level of literacy in East Asian countries. (A weaker version of this myth is simply that despite the flaws of Chinese characters, East Asian countries still have a high level of literacy.)" He makes the opposite claim that (from the Wikipedia summary) "The Chinese script, with its huge number of characters, its complexity and its irregularities, is harmful to the literacy improvement efforts of the Chinese society, and needs to be replaced by a more efficient writing system if China is to achieve the benefits of modernization." There is, in other words, serious scholarly dispute about the success of the Chinese script. > Chinese writing is much more compact and easier to read, relative to alphabetic writing Agreed on the first part, it's more compact (not surprising if you have ten thousands of choices per character, say 14 bits, instead of 26, or 5 bits). But I don't think it's easier to read (let alone write), and I'd want to see evidence for that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chinese_Language%3A_Fact_and_Fantasy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chinese_Language%3A_Fact_a...
    - beat 8y ago
      Couldn't the same thing be said for the horrendous spelling and grammar issues of English? For what it's worth, my spouse has a Master's degree in Chinese pedagogy. I've not heard such arguments from her. A single book, weighed against observation, isn't proof.
      - FabHK 8y ago
        > horrendous spelling and grammar issues of English? Sure, English has pretty horrible orthography, arguably the worst among alphabetic languages (though it's not that easy to reform, either, see eg. [1]). But it's still more phonetic than Chinese. Spanish has a beautiful orthography, and pretty close correspondence between written and spoken word. "Chinese characters are so difficult to learn that even the best system of rudimentary characters, or simplified teaching, does not equip the people with a really rich and efficient vocabulary. Sooner or later, we believe, we will have to abandon characters altogether if we are to create a new social culture in which the masses fully participate." "We believe Latinization is a good instrument with which to overcome illiteracy." This was said by Mao Zedong (oh, dang, that's so ambiguous, I mean 毛泽东) in 1936, see [2]. "This has led many Chinese in the past to advocate the abolition of characters in favor of an alphabetic system, but such programs have met with little success." [3] So, the idea that the Chinese writing system is too cumbersome is by no means new, or "Western", for what it's worth. > A single book, weighed against observation, isn't proof Well, no. But there is more than a single book, there are decades of discussion and scholarship on this. It's conceivable to me that China could benefit from a move to alphabetic writing, and translations of Classical Chinese into vernacular (and anyone who wants can go study characters and Classical Chinese texts in the original, just like anyone in the West can go learn Latin and ancient Greek and Hebrew and read the classics in the original, or the Bible, for that matter). [1] https://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/accents_spellingreform.htm https://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/accents_spellingreform... [2] http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp171_chinese_writing_reform.pdf http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp171_chinese_writing... [3] http://sites.asiasociety.org/education/VISIBLE_TRACES/curriculum/pdf/CIAessay1.pdf http://sites.asiasociety.org/education/VISIBLE_TRACES/curric...

ssnistfajen 8y ago

Danish children acquire language skills at slower pace than six other languages (including Swedish which is in the same language sub-family): http://cphpost.dk/life-in-denmark/the-danish-languages-irritable-vowel-syndrome.html http://cphpost.dk/life-in-denmark/the-danish-languages-irrit... Is there also a conspiracy by the Danish "elites" to deliberately keep the language's phonological complexity so there's a "higher barrier of entry" to become an "intellectual"? Without using profanities, I'd just say that summary is absolute NONSENSE.