3 ms·

> 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 arbitra

by 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.

3 ms·

> 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 arbitra

by dheera 5y ago

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.