Characters are objectively harder, even for Chinese

[pazu]

I'm in favor of a policy of digraphia and continual open debate, there are no contradictions in my views.

Debate without ground? You have never found us any facts or statistics that pinyin works well for Chinese.

紙上談兵 (Talking strategies on papers only) is fine, but theorization can't substitute evidence.

[ala]

Do some research on studies regarding the Dungans (东干族) and the blind. Are you telling me that the Chinese and Japanese blind cannot communicate without characters? Is their level of communication less sophisticated? We have evidence that Chinese is capable of being alphabetized and the benefits from this are enormous (worthy of discussion at least for now). It's the emotional attachment to characters that lack hard scientific evidence (besides shady correlations such as GDP and characters) and is extinguishing debate before one even begins. As you have mentioned yourself, my stance is very flexible, I'm not in favor of any drastic movement against characters. I'm also looking at the problem not only from the educational aspect, but also from an economical, linguistic, social, cognitive, and cultural perspective. But instead of denying the problem, let's try to address it by discussion. And indeed it is very much 紙上談兵, but my aim has been for awareness. What is that awareness? That characters have problems that can be better addressed in alphabetized systems. These problems are not new, but the crux is that they have remained in society even though society is wealthier and more technologically advanced. Encouraging digraphia doesn't necessarily mean the immediate task of putting up signs and having government materials printed in 2 scripts, instead it is about developing the environment for objective discussion of the pros and cons of character script vis-a-vis alphabet, encouraging academics to develop more studies and solutions to address the issues brought up. In the current academic environment in China, this does not exist. Second what I also mean by digraphia is decreasing the public stigma of using anything other than characters to convey Chinese, encouraging the idea that Chinese is a language, and language can be expressed in many ways. Instead, the People's Daily constantly publishes unsubtantiated reports on the superiority of Chinese characters without paying a sentence of attention on the positives of alphabetization. This is not discussion. This is denial.

Again, I stress that the end goal is to enrich Chinese culture and increase Chinese productivity and creativity.

[pazu]

You never seem to answer me if you YOURSELF can do it better with pinyin, or you just avoid it intentionally? Again, only 紙上談兵.

[pazu]

(You wre fast to add something to your post. )

The difference between 紙上談兵 is, it's not put into real action. It's okay if you use it as a suggestion, but the problem of you is, you mistreat that as evidence.

[Ian_Lee]

I'm also looking at the problem not only from the educational aspect, but also from an economical, linguistic, social, cognitive, and cultural perspective. But instead of denying the problem, let's try to address it by discussion.

I am afraid that the opposite is true.

If the Chinese script is alphabeticized, then there will definitely be educational, economical, linguistic, social, cognitive, cultural and even math learning problems.

[Ian_Lee]

Dictionaries are indeed a particular problem in Taiwan, sm_sung. People don't even know what's available: one (educated, MA from the UK) Taiwan friend didn't even realize that Chinese-English dictionaries *existed*!

Smithsgj, you have to count me in. As far as I recall, in my whole life I never use Chinese-English Dictonary.

When I started to learn English, I used the English-Chinese Dictionary and later switched to English-English Dictionary.

And when I learnt Japanese, I used Japanese-Chinese/English Dictionary.

And when I learnt Korean, I used Korean-Chinese Dictionary.

I can't think of any scenario that I need to use a Chinese-English Dictionary.

Do you ever need to use an English-Chinese Dictionary?

[pazu]

Just a note: ala, can you start another post to reply or add your viewpoints rather than editing your old post? It's quite confusing.

[ala]

Well, actually, I pressed submit by accident (instead of preview), and I wasn't done with what I had to say yet. And you just happened to be reading half-a-post. So I then rushed to finish up, and submitted it again, and then found some parts in the later half unclear, and edited that. But it wasn't that confusing I thought. Not finishing up that post would have made my point hanging: "As you have mentioned yourself, my stance is very flexible, I'm not in favor of any drastic movement against characters." So what is my stance? (the whole point of the post was the clarification of my stance).

This was the second half of the post:

....And indeed it is very much 紙上談兵, but my aim has been for awareness. What is that awareness? That characters have problems that can be better addressed in alphabetized systems. These problems are not new, but the crux is that they have remained in society even though society is wealthier and more technologically advanced. Encouraging digraphia doesn't necessarily mean the immediate task of putting up signs and having government materials printed in 2 scripts, instead it is about developing the environment for objective discussion of the pros and cons of character script vis-a-vis alphabet, encouraging academics to develop more studies and solutions to address the issues brought up. In the current academic environment in China, this does not exist. Second what I also mean by digraphia is decreasing the public stigma of using anything other than characters to convey Chinese, encouraging the idea that Chinese is a language, and language can be expressed in many ways. Instead, the People's Daily constantly publishes unsubtantiated reports on the superiority of Chinese characters without paying a sentence of attention on the positives of alphabetization. This is not discussion. This is denial.

[pazu]

But it wasn't that confusing I thought.

It was confusing because I read your "half-posts" twice, once just after I finished my reply (timed: May 20, 2004 8:54 am), and then when I came back here tonight, I found you have again re-edited your post. So I had to re-read them again.

[Jive Turkey]

And yet, Smith, as I've said before, Chinese characters are difficult to learn as an adult, that's why in China all the "get rid of illiterate" (掃盲)programme are targetting at the young only. The older one, sorry, no solution so far, but for the young, it's not that difficult.

What are you talking about? I started studying Chinese at the age of 23. I was reading magazines on a daily basis and and the occasional book on politics, history or economics after two years. Most other serious foreign students I know can do the same in about two years of full time (yet not back breaking) study. That's about the same level of literacy that the average Chinese child needs 10 to 12 years of education to achieve. Even after considering the fact that an adult will be helped along by the knowledge and cognitive skills he's attained through basic education in his first language, two years is quite a short time for achieving a level of proficiency that would take a child 10 years. I can't and probably never will be able to compose good sentences and paragraphs in Chinese since much of what I learned for English writing will interfere with how I write Chinese, but as far as just writing characters is concerned, I can recall and produce them just as readily as any native speaker of Chinese I know. There is no evidence to suggest that it is easier for a child to learn characters than for an adult to do so. I wouldn't be surprised if the exact opposite were true.

[sm_sung]

Jive Turkey wrote:

I started studying Chinese at the age of 23. I was reading magazines on a daily basis and and the occasional book on politics, history or economics after two years. Most other serious foreign students I know can do the same in about two years of full time (yet not back breaking) study...but as far as just writing characters is concerned, I can recall and produce them just as readily as any native speaker of Chinese I know.

A native English speaker (and many others like him) attained a respectable command of the written language after only two years of study, a very short period indeed. It seems characters aren’t so difficult to learn after all!

BTW Jive Turkey:

I can't and probably never will be able to compose good sentences and paragraphs in Chinese since much of what I learned for English writing will interfere with how I write Chinese

Don’t be too quick to underestimate your abilities. If you have already mastered the characters, (usually the most daunting aspect of the written language for foreigners) then with some practice, imitation and effort this shouldn’t be a problem for long. Like English, Chinese is SVO in structure and its grammar is really a breeze. Many posters here have the experience of fighting the battle form the opposite frontier (native Chinese--->English).

The older one, sorry, no solution so far, but for the young, it's not that difficult.

I think what pazu meant by “older ones” was people who were already in their 50’s or 60’s, when there is less initiative to learn anything new. Pazu, would you mind clarifying what you said?

[ala]

It was confusing because I read your "half-posts" twice' date=' once just after I finished my reply (timed: May 20, 2004 8:54 am), and then when I came back here tonight, I found you have again re-edited your post. So I had to re-read them again.[/quote']

Haha. Sorry. In future will try to proofread more before submitting.

[smithsgj]

Smithsgj, you have to count me in. As far as I recall, in my whole life I never use Chinese-English Dictonary.

Hold up Ian! Am I alone in thinking that is the most extraordinary observation?

Your English is a hundred times better than my Chinese, so I can see that now you would have a wide enough English vocabulary not to hesitate very often over a word. But in the beginning stages of learning a language, how can you *not* need an L1-L2 dictionary?

Do you ever need to use an English-Chinese Dictionary?

Yes, all the time! If I know what I want to say in English (which I generally do!) and don't know or can't recall a needed Chinese word, then I look up the English word.

If I can't figure out a Chinese word from context, I look it up too. And then quite often I cross-check by looking up the English word the dictionary gives, in the English-Chinese section. I find this technique gives a better clue on usage, as well as reinforcing memorization.

Over-reliance on dictionaries in language learning is not a good thing, I'm the first to agree. It makes good sense to work with the vocabulary you are familiar with, where possible, rather than dabbling in the dark.

But surely an L1-L2 dictionary is an indispensable tool for second language learning? If you are reading this, please comment -- am I labouring under a terrible delusion?

Chinese learners of English do not bother with Chinese-English dictionaries, I claim, for the simple reason that it is too much hassle to look things up. I would say that in daily life in the UK I looked something up in a hardcopy English-English dictionary, an index, a gazetteer, a telephone directory or a timetable a dozen times a day. Native Chinese speakers, it seems to me, just don't bother with these resources.

You can't answer this, sm-sung, by saying "In mainland China items are ordered alphabetically in Pinyin". Different orders are used in different types of listings, and it is not made explicit what is being used; and most non-fiction books do not include indexes in pinyin or any other order.

I'm just looking at out departmental phone list to see how that is ordered. There are two 李s, and they are placed consecutively on the list. But I think this is a coincidence because the two 鄭s are miles apart. What I think they've done is order it by office number, but when people have been relocated the order has not been updated. It didn't occur to anyone to put the list in pinyin or bpmf order (a common dictionary order in Taiwan) because there is no real standard: if the list were in English, it would not have occurred to anyone to do anything other than order it alphabetically.

The list is short enough for it to be possible to skim through it each time a number is required -- but every time I do so, I think "why should I"? Because Chinese characters are not compatible with indexing and ordering in a standard way, that's why.

[pazu]

On my Palm's Address Book, I input my friend's names, usually when I want to find them I just use the "search" function. Why don't you use a Palm?

[sm_sung]

You can't answer this, sm-sung, by saying "In mainland China items are ordered alphabetically in Pinyin".

I wasn't saying that. I was merely saying that the I prefer dicitonaries ordered according to pinyin because there're easier to use than radical/stroke count varieties.

Because Chinese characters are not compatible with indexing and ordering in a standard way, that's why.

Hmm, pazu did mention of some kind of cangjie ordering of dictionaries. I think Chinese characters can be ordered in a more logical manner, but there seems to be little agreement as to what this manner should be.

Btw, could we stop discussing dictionaries? I think everyone here agrees that Chinese dictionaries are harder to use than English ones.

[smithsgj]

Btw, could we stop discussing dictionaries? I think everyone here agrees that Chinese dictionaries are harder to use than English ones.

Not just dictionaries. My point is that Chinese speakers just *don't bother* with standard reference materials (unless they're on a PDA!) because it's too much effort. That means they're not functionally literate in Chinese in the same way I (for example) am in English.

I thought that was a fairly telling comment on the efficacy/difficulty of the writing system. Whatever.

[skylee]

My point is that Chinese speakers just *don't bother* with standard reference materials (unless they're on a PDA!) because it's too much effort. That means they're not functionally literate in Chinese in the same way I (for example) am in English.

Generalisation. Too much of it.

[39degN]

That means they're not functionally literate in Chinese in the same way I (for example) am in English.

evidence?

1. 永遠不要用想象取代事實。

2. 用PHD輿小學不曾畢業的人比較是沒有意義的。

Not just dictionaries. My point is that Chinese speakers just *don't bother* with standard reference materials (unless they're on a PDA!)

it depends! i believe lots of other ppl in the rest of the world doing the same thing. and lots of chinese doing the opposite.

[Taibei]

Do some research on studies regarding the Dungans (东干族) and the blind. Are you telling me that the Chinese and Japanese blind cannot communicate without characters? Is their level of communication less sophisticated? We have evidence that Chinese is capable of being alphabetized and the benefits from this are enormous (worthy of discussion at least for now).

I have an excellent article on the Dungans on my site: Implications of the Soviet Dungan Script for Chinese Language Reform, by Victor Mair. This explains the situation in detail and points out how a Chinese language has successfully been written alphabetically. This is not theoretical: It already works.

For writing systems for blind Mandarin speakers, see Numeral Type for Mandarin Chinese. Although this describes a system that has become supplanted by others, the principle is the same: Because braille systems are more directly based in sound, it is easier for blind people to become literate than for other Chinese with unimpaired vision to learn to read and write using Chinese characters.

[Taibei]

Taibei, what made me disagree with you were these two words: snob appeal. You were implying that people who are proficient in the use of characters despise those who aren't. There is a difference between showing erudition of oneself and actually looking down on others.

That's not how I meant it at all. I apologize if I gave the wrong impression.

Not everyone who buys, say, an extremely expensive but well-marketed brand of perfume is a snob -- far from it. But the idea of instead wearing something purchased for US$3.50 at a 7-Eleven would put many people off, even if the products smelled exactly the same.

Many people tend to regard Chinese characters as Chanel No. 5 and would no sooner use romanization in many contexts than they would rub chou doufu on themselves before going on a big date.

That isn't because people are informed about the realities of Chinese characters or of romanization but because they've generally not had the opportunity to know anything other "what people say" about the issue.

And, yes, there are some people who like to show off -- but they aren't the majority.