5 ms·

I live in Japan, and every single Japanese person that I know, and a few Chinese coworkers too, have told me how kanji/hanzi is so ridiculously difficult to lea

I live in Japan, and every single Japanese person that I know, and a few Chinese coworkers too, have told me how kanji/hanzi is so ridiculously difficult to learn. I mean, native Chinese and Japanese speakers require at least 12 years of education to learn how to read and write their languages at a basic level. They are the most difficult writing systems in the world by far, saying otherwise is totally disingenious.

dheera 5y ago
Difficult is subjective. > at least 12 years of education to learn how to read and write their languages at a basic level The idea of a "basic level" is fundamentally flawed. Can a 10-year-old child in Japan function to a similar level in their society as a 10-year-old child in England? If asked to water the plants can they do so? Can they catch the correct school bus? Can they read a children's book for their age level? Yes? If so language has served its purpose, and there isn't really a fundamental difference in difficulty level. Yeah, native speakers will tell you their language is hard, but they too are influenced by the media that all says it's hard. You might be right that it takes 12 years for the average kid to learn a particular set of Kanji but that's a very arbitrary standard applied to a language that does not demand you know all of those Kanji to be functional in society. There is context, there is the simple act of asking, there is so much more to it. Likewise, English speakers don't demand that they know the entire Oxford English Dictionary to be considered literate. I mean, yeah, if you asked the 10-year-old to "irrigate the agricultural enclosure" instead of "water the plants" you might stump them, sure. If we had those kind of expectations, English would be considered "hard" -- look at that thick book of the OED! It's thicker than the Kangxi dictionary and Xinhua dictionary combined, and therefore it must be harder! (My point is -- logic isn't the way to analyze this.)
- jcranmer 5y ago
  > Difficult is subjective. You're not responding to the evidence presented in this thread that there is evidence that some aspects of language learning is objectively harder. Specifically: * There's pretty strong evidence (comparison between literacy rates of children with different native languages) that some languages have writing systems that are harder to learn than others. (I feel obliged to point out that writing is the least important part of language acquisition--after all, writing dates to only ~6,000 years ago, whereas spoken language dates at least 100,000 years ago, possibly earlier. Of course, for most major modern languages, a language learner is equally expected to read/write in it as they are to listen/speak in it) * There is some evidence, albeit more controversial, that there is a critical age range in which it is far easier to acquire pronunciation of phonemes than learning subsequently. * Again, there is evidence that some phonemes are physically easier to pronounce than others, discovered in part by the order in which toddlers acquire various speech sounds. If you've got a toddler learning to speak, listen to the sounds he/she can pronounce and also the ones that aren't properly pronounced. I wouldn't attempt to chart out a full objective scale on which phoneme is harder than the other one, but I would be moderately confident in asserting that an Arabic ayin is objectively more difficult to pronounce than an `m' sound. * I also mentioned evidence that some grammatical features may be more complicated: the developments of lingua francas, or additionally creoles, does suggest that languages used heavily as second language acquisition tend to drop several grammatical features. (Now I should also addend that just because something is objectively more difficult doesn't necessarily mean that is specifically "hard." It is clearly objectively more difficult to lift a box 2 meters than to do so 1 meter... but that doesn't mean that it's hard to do so.)
  - dheera 5y ago
    > comparison between literacy rates of children I would even go so far as to say that I feel like comparing things like literacy rates (which have very arbitrary definitions) and phoneme acquisition are a very "western" way to analyze a language, and by doing so, Japanese and Chinese seem hard. If they are not analyzed with that kind of logical mindset and rather just "Do people function in society", "can the workings of a complex machine be articulated well" and "Are people able to communicate needs and emotions" I think a very different answer would be seen.
    - cehrlich 5y ago
      Are you seriously trying to argue that literacy is not a requirement for functioning in society?
      - pessimizer 5y ago
        That's simply a fact that doesn't need to be argued. Lots of English speakers can't read or write well, because English orthography is bad and hard, or because of dyslexia or blindness. They function in society. They can't do everything, but people who aren't plumbers, programmers, or are terrible at math can't do everything either. They work around it. edit: I think the functional illiteracy number in the US is something like 1 out of 6. R. Kelly famously can't read.
      - dheera 5y ago
        No, I never said that. I said that literacy has a very arbitrary definition. Rather, the act of drawing a hard line between literate and non-literate is a very Western way of analyzing language learning and doesn't scale well past a certain set of languages. By drawing such a hard line you end up with ridiculous conclusions such as that a child needs 12 years to be literate in Japanese. Sure, if you go by your arbitrary definition. You can say that the average kid in an English speaking country needs 18 years before they know what "erudite" and "ostentation" mean if you draw the line there.
- pezezin 5y ago
  Dude, why are you so stubborn? Have you ever tried to learn those languages? Do you really think that learning 20~30 simple characters is on the same level of difficulty as learning 2000~4000 characters, some of them very complex? But sure, Japanese and Chinese people think that kanji is hard because the media told them, not because they had to spend several hours a day of study for 12 years just to reach basic fluency. > You might be right that it takes 12 years for the average kid to learn a particular set of Kanji but that's a very arbitrary standard applied to a language that does not demand you know all of those Kanji to be functional in society. 12 years is what it takes to learn the joyo kanji list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_j%C5%8Dy%C5%8D_kanji https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_j%C5%8Dy%C5%8D_kanji) (I don't know the Chinese equivalent), a set of 2136 which is considered the *minimum* to function in modern society, what you will find in newspapers and government publication. Can you do with less than that? Maybe, but it won't be easy.
  - dheera 5y ago
    > Dude, why are you so stubborn? Personal attacks not appreciated here > Have you ever tried to learn those languages? Yes? I grew up with both Chinese and English? What gave you the impression I was saying stuff out of nowhere? > Do you really think that learning 20~30 simple characters is on the same level of difficulty as learning 2000~4000 characters, some of them very complex? Yes. I'm happy to elaborate as to why I think so but if you're only going to stand on the opposite side and not interested in even trying to understanding my perspective it's a waste of time on my part. > a set of 2136 which is considered the minimum to function in modern society For an adult, fine, but (a) "number of characters remembered" not a good way to measure the ability to function, any more than "number of SAT/GRE words memorized" to an English speaker, and (b) to function at an 8-year-old level in society you most definitely don't need 2136 characters. An 8-year-old in an English speaking country would trip up trying to read The Economist as well.
    - pezezin 5y ago
      Ok, then maybe you are a genius, because everybody else has told me how painful it was to learn all the characters. I'm going through the process myself, and while sometimes I enjoy it, there is no point in denying that it is way more difficult than learning an alphabet-based language.

dheera 5y ago

Difficult is subjective. > at least 12 years of education to learn how to read and write their languages at a basic level The idea of a "basic level" is fundamentally flawed. Can a 10-year-old child in Japan function to a similar level in their society as a 10-year-old child in England? If asked to water the plants can they do so? Can they catch the correct school bus? Can they read a children's book for their age level? Yes? If so language has served its purpose, and there isn't really a fundamental difference in difficulty level. Yeah, native speakers will tell you their language is hard, but they too are influenced by the media that all says it's hard. You might be right that it takes 12 years for the average kid to learn a particular set of Kanji but that's a very arbitrary standard applied to a language that does not demand you know all of those Kanji to be functional in society. There is context, there is the simple act of asking, there is so much more to it. Likewise, English speakers don't demand that they know the entire Oxford English Dictionary to be considered literate. I mean, yeah, if you asked the 10-year-old to "irrigate the agricultural enclosure" instead of "water the plants" you might stump them, sure. If we had those kind of expectations, English would be considered "hard" -- look at that thick book of the OED! It's thicker than the Kangxi dictionary and Xinhua dictionary combined, and therefore it must be harder! (My point is -- logic isn't the way to analyze this.)

jcranmer 5y ago
> Difficult is subjective. You're not responding to the evidence presented in this thread that there is evidence that some aspects of language learning is objectively harder. Specifically: * There's pretty strong evidence (comparison between literacy rates of children with different native languages) that some languages have writing systems that are harder to learn than others. (I feel obliged to point out that writing is the least important part of language acquisition--after all, writing dates to only ~6,000 years ago, whereas spoken language dates at least 100,000 years ago, possibly earlier. Of course, for most major modern languages, a language learner is equally expected to read/write in it as they are to listen/speak in it) * There is some evidence, albeit more controversial, that there is a critical age range in which it is far easier to acquire pronunciation of phonemes than learning subsequently. * Again, there is evidence that some phonemes are physically easier to pronounce than others, discovered in part by the order in which toddlers acquire various speech sounds. If you've got a toddler learning to speak, listen to the sounds he/she can pronounce and also the ones that aren't properly pronounced. I wouldn't attempt to chart out a full objective scale on which phoneme is harder than the other one, but I would be moderately confident in asserting that an Arabic ayin is objectively more difficult to pronounce than an `m' sound. * I also mentioned evidence that some grammatical features may be more complicated: the developments of lingua francas, or additionally creoles, does suggest that languages used heavily as second language acquisition tend to drop several grammatical features. (Now I should also addend that just because something is objectively more difficult doesn't necessarily mean that is specifically "hard." It is clearly objectively more difficult to lift a box 2 meters than to do so 1 meter... but that doesn't mean that it's hard to do so.)
- dheera 5y ago
  > comparison between literacy rates of children I would even go so far as to say that I feel like comparing things like literacy rates (which have very arbitrary definitions) and phoneme acquisition are a very "western" way to analyze a language, and by doing so, Japanese and Chinese seem hard. If they are not analyzed with that kind of logical mindset and rather just "Do people function in society", "can the workings of a complex machine be articulated well" and "Are people able to communicate needs and emotions" I think a very different answer would be seen.
  - cehrlich 5y ago
    Are you seriously trying to argue that literacy is not a requirement for functioning in society?
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      That's simply a fact that doesn't need to be argued. Lots of English speakers can't read or write well, because English orthography is bad and hard, or because of dyslexia or blindness. They function in society. They can't do everything, but people who aren't plumbers, programmers, or are terrible at math can't do everything either. They work around it. edit: I think the functional illiteracy number in the US is something like 1 out of 6. R. Kelly famously can't read.
    - dheera 5y ago
      No, I never said that. I said that literacy has a very arbitrary definition. Rather, the act of drawing a hard line between literate and non-literate is a very Western way of analyzing language learning and doesn't scale well past a certain set of languages. By drawing such a hard line you end up with ridiculous conclusions such as that a child needs 12 years to be literate in Japanese. Sure, if you go by your arbitrary definition. You can say that the average kid in an English speaking country needs 18 years before they know what "erudite" and "ostentation" mean if you draw the line there.
pezezin 5y ago
Dude, why are you so stubborn? Have you ever tried to learn those languages? Do you really think that learning 20~30 simple characters is on the same level of difficulty as learning 2000~4000 characters, some of them very complex? But sure, Japanese and Chinese people think that kanji is hard because the media told them, not because they had to spend several hours a day of study for 12 years just to reach basic fluency. > You might be right that it takes 12 years for the average kid to learn a particular set of Kanji but that's a very arbitrary standard applied to a language that does not demand you know all of those Kanji to be functional in society. 12 years is what it takes to learn the joyo kanji list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_j%C5%8Dy%C5%8D_kanji https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_j%C5%8Dy%C5%8D_kanji) (I don't know the Chinese equivalent), a set of 2136 which is considered the *minimum* to function in modern society, what you will find in newspapers and government publication. Can you do with less than that? Maybe, but it won't be easy.
- dheera 5y ago
  > Dude, why are you so stubborn? Personal attacks not appreciated here > Have you ever tried to learn those languages? Yes? I grew up with both Chinese and English? What gave you the impression I was saying stuff out of nowhere? > Do you really think that learning 20~30 simple characters is on the same level of difficulty as learning 2000~4000 characters, some of them very complex? Yes. I'm happy to elaborate as to why I think so but if you're only going to stand on the opposite side and not interested in even trying to understanding my perspective it's a waste of time on my part. > a set of 2136 which is considered the minimum to function in modern society For an adult, fine, but (a) "number of characters remembered" not a good way to measure the ability to function, any more than "number of SAT/GRE words memorized" to an English speaker, and (b) to function at an 8-year-old level in society you most definitely don't need 2136 characters. An 8-year-old in an English speaking country would trip up trying to read The Economist as well.
  - pezezin 5y ago
    Ok, then maybe you are a genius, because everybody else has told me how painful it was to learn all the characters. I'm going through the process myself, and while sometimes I enjoy it, there is no point in denying that it is way more difficult than learning an alphabet-based language.