Characters are objectively harder, even for Chinese

[dmoser]

sm_sung wrote:

The writing systems of both languages incorporate Chinese characters and so far, native speakers seem to be reasonably happy with them.

Americans are reasonably happy using the old English system of weights and measures instead of the metric system. And American technology soars above most countries. Is this a reasonable argument to prove that there is no problem with the English system, and there is no advantage to the metric system?

I wasted a lot of time in school learning that a mile was 5,280 feet... (I think. Just a minute, let me look it up... yes, that's right). And figuring how many yards in a mile, etc.

Experts have urged adoption of the metric system in the US for many decades, and for somewhat similar reasons that some people have urged replacing the characters with the alphabet: wasted man-hours, unnecessary processing demands, and incommensurability with the rest of the planet. The arguments for the metric system all fall on on deaf ears, and probably for many of the same reasons that arguments for character reform are resisted in China.

[Ian_Lee]

Dmoser:

General MacArthur had a free hand to romanize all Japanese language taught to school kids during the Occupation Period after WWII.

And indeed he exactly did that.

But what happens in Japan today? The school kids still need to learn 1,945 kanji after 12-year schooling.

If romanization could not be successful in Japan under the auspice of US administration, then why do you think it will have a chance to succeed in Chinese communities?

[smithsgj]

Now some fellow posters even want to give their own definition for "literacy".

Ian yes we do need to revise our definition for literacy if so-called literate people are truly unable to write a simple letter, or consult essential reference materials.

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*!

Besides that, I think because Chinese words in general are more “transparent” there is less often a need (but sometimes still a need) for a person to refer to dictionaries. Context and “morpheme analysis” often give meanings away.

Well there is a need, because no amount of transparency will reveal the English translation. But Chinese people (and not just Taiwanese people) hardly ever own or use Chinese-English dictionaries. Now most language learners would say an L1-L2 dictionary was a pretty essential tool, so why not for Chinese learners of English? Because they're not fully functionally literate in their own language.

So far some people here have been just ignoring the fact that there's a higher literacy rate in Hong Kong and Taiwan than many alphabetized society, and continue to use their learning experience as a non-native to emphasize the difficulty.

Pazu, you get higher literacy rates in more prosperous countries. The literacy rate in Taiwan should be tending to 100%, as in the UK say, not the mid-nineties. Your point about non-native speaker learning experience is not well taken, I'm afraid: a central point in the discussion, I thought, was that *native* speaker/writers experience some sort of mental block where they cannot remember how to write the Chinese for "sneeze" or "pillow", or even have an idea of how to set about writing it.[/b]

[nnt]

I think that dmoser is objectively right saying that "Chinese characters are harder...even for Chinese", but just practically and psychologically wrong because he touches an emotional chord.

The Japanese developped their own Romaji under ultra-nationalistic militarist government:

see here:

http://www.cic.sfu.ca/tqj/JapaneseStudy/romaji.html

When Kunrei was adopted in the late 1930's, the then powerful Japanese central government did much to try to further its use. Unfortunately, by forcing non-native speakers of Japanese with no intentions of learning the language to abide by a system intended for those who have some command of Japanese, the government gave the impression of intolerant language management which would have dire consequences later on.

...

The Government Railways politely informs readers that Mt Fuji is now Mt Huzi, Jujutsu is Zyuzyutu, and the Chion-in Temple, Tion-in. It was the Kunrei system's misfortune to be introduced at a time of Japanese militarism. After Japan's defeat, scholars and educators attempted to introduce romanization both as a teaching device and as a possible simple substitute for "kanji" (Chinese characters). but US administrators during the Occupation were wary of Kunrei's nationalistic in origin

IMHO Kanji is even more difficult to dethrone in Japanese because of the seemingly endless variations in the ways of reading (On-reading, Kun reading, euphonic variations...).

As for Vietnamese language, the words quốc ngữ (国语), which referred to Chinese characters, now designate the latinized alphabet, and there is no going back. The "chữ Nôm" was built on three layers of difficulties (Chinese characters, Vietnamese reading of Hanzi, Vietnamese own phonetics) and is now a script system for specialists (calligraphers, linguistic researchers, historians, etc...). Vietnamese schoolboys and students now have more time for leisure and to learn English and Chinese and thank God to have sent them Jesuit missionaries around 1600 to invent an alphabet (although wicked colonialists came with these missionaries in the 19th century)

As the French say, every reverse side has its medal (an vice-versa). The fact that Chinese characters system is less convenient to keyboard usage has encouraged the development of Optical recognition (for scanners), speech input (Chinese mandarin has less variations than English in this field) all based on Fuzzy logic mathematics, in which the Japanese are, as usual, not the inventors, but the earliest adopters...

see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_control_system

History & applications

Fuzzy logic was first proposed by Lotfi A. Zadeh of the University of California at Berkeley in a 1965 paper. He elaborated on his ideas in a 1973 paper that introduced the concept of "linguistic variables", which in this article equates to a variable defined as a fuzzy set. Other research followed, with the first industrial application, a cement kiln built in Denmark, coming on line in 1975.

Fuzzy systems were largely ignored in the U.S. because they were associated with artificial intelligence, a field that periodically oversells itself and which did so in a big way in the mid-1980s, resulting in a lack of credibility with in the commercial domain.

The Japanese did not have this prejudice. Interest in fuzzy systems was sparked by Seiji Yasunobu and Soji Miyamoto of Hitachi, who in 1985 provided simulations that demonstrated the superiority of fuzzy control systems for the Sendai railway. Their ideas were adopted, and fuzzy systems were used to control accelerating, braking, and stopping when the line opened in 1987.

The enthusiasm of the Japanese for fuzzy logic is reflected in the wide range of other applications they have investigated or implemented: character and handwriting recognition; optical fuzzy systems; robots, including one for making Japanese flower arrangements; voice-controlled robot helicopters, this being no mean feat, as hovering is a "balancing act" rather similar to the inverted pendulum problem; control of flow of powders in film manufacture; elevator systems; and so on

[pazu]

Seems like we're talking some medieval traditions and ignoring the fact that Chinese characters are written and read by so many people in China, we're not talking about Chu Nom, we're not talking it's a privilege for the Samurai, Chinese characters are now using throughout China with such a popularity.

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.

I've quoted some data, and I strongly believe that most of the educated public in Hong Kong aren't illiterate.

And note that, Hong Kong gained its momentum only 50 years ago (and losing it now though... ), most older people received very little education at that time.

I think it's the same case for Taiwan.

[pazu]

Vietnamese schoolboys and students now have more time for leisure and to learn English and Chinese and thank God to have sent them Jesuit missionaries around 1600 to invent an alphabet.

So where's their leisure time gone? I don't see much difference and I don't see they outperform their counterparts in China.

When I discuss Chu Nom with other Vietnamese, they all agree that Chu Nom is easier, which I agree, but for those who think Chu Nom is a key to prosperity, yet, this is far from the real statistics. Or we should give Vietnamese some time too, it's too soon to make any conclusion?

But as you have said, Chu Nom is different, because it never gained enough popularity in its own motherland, even some Vietnamese looked down this invention and regarded this as inferior (to Hanzi, note: interestingly most Vietnamese strongly believed that the latin alphabet is a superior to other logographic writing system), and that's different from Hanzi in China, which is now not only a language of the notable, but also a written form for the wider public.

By comparing Chu Nom and Hanzi, can never give you a full picture.

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*!

This is rather laughable but do you honestly think that it gives you a full picture of how Chinese think about the Chi-Eng dictionary???

[nnt]

we're not talking about Chu Nom, we're not talking it's a privilege for the Samurai

You're right, but I was adding something to Ian Lee's posts above...

This discussion concerns ideographic characters as a writing system, not just for Chinese standard Hanzi and mandarin, but also concerning Chinese dialects, Japanese and Korean (and more remotely Vietnamese).

[dmoser]

Dmoser:

If romanization could not be successful in Japan under the auspice of US administration, then why do you think it will have a chance to succeed in Chinese communities?

I don't.

[Taibei]

General MacArthur had a free hand to romanize all Japanese language taught to school kids during the Occupation Period after WWII.

And indeed he exactly did that.

This is incorrect.

For the real story, read Literacy and Script Reform in Occupation Japan: Reading Between the Lines, by J. Marshall Unger. Conservatives in Japan, working with the aid of misguided Americans, killed the romanization program even though it was showing good results (which they misrepresented).

I have most of the first chapter of the book, "Dreamers or Realists?," available on my website.

Romanization has never failed in Japan, but it has been sabotaged by conservatives.

[Taibei]

A lot of the support for characters -- especially in Japan, where there are other orthographic traditions -- is based on snob appeal.

And you know this for a fact because? ...Oh my god, we’ve got a mind-reader among us!!! Might I venture to propose that anyone who makes statements about how others *THINK* also provide some sort of evidence?

It's not necessary to read any minds. Plenty of people have made the same observation. There is absolutely nothing unusual or even really controversial in my statement. Or is it that you just can't accept anything that sounds like criticism of Chinese characters?

Writing in Chinese characters is viewed by many people in East Asia as being somehow superior, evidence of high culture, whatever. The use of Chinese characters, esp. difficult and obscure ones, is seen among many, especially in Japan, as a means of demonstrating erudition.

[Taibei]

Also, I would argue that the burden of proof is not on advocates of Chinese characters but on those who claim that somehow Japanese and the Chinese languages are somehow so similar to all the others in the world that alphabetic systems suit them better than Chinese characters.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: Occam's razor. The burden of proof is on those who would say, despite absence of real evidence, that Chinese characters are superior to alphabetic systems (used for virtually all other languages in the world) for writing the Chinese and Japanese languages, which aren't even from the same language family.

The writing systems of both languages incorporate Chinese characters and so far, native speakers seem to be reasonably happy with them. If change is to be brought about to the current state of affairs, it is the character-abolitionists who will have to “enlighten” the rest on the benefits of alphabetization.

Where are these character abolitionists?

There's a big difference between advocating digraphia and calling for the abolition of Chinese characters. And, anyway, what would this "abolition" be, anyway? Are you imagining Qin book burnings? Ripping down the calligraphy scrolls from the museums? No one is calling for this.

Oy vey. So many straw men in this thread.

After all, how can we be sure that alphabets will be a BETTER system than characters? I’m emphasizing the word better because even if an alphabetic system were equally good no changes should be made. Why move a mountain when there’s no need to?

Ah, now this is a more interesting argument.

I would say that the unnecessary moving of mountains is already taking place in the insistence of so-called greater China following its character-only tradition. Each generation is being forced to spend a great deal more time and trouble to acquire a literacy that is less complete than that offered by alphabetic systems.

[ala]

I would say that the unnecessary moving of mountains is already taking place in the insistence of so-called greater China following its character-only tradition. Each generation is being forced to spend a great deal more time and trouble to acquire a literacy that is less complete than that offered by alphabetic systems.

That and the addition of learning English by requirement, with low success rates (not many end up being able to appreciate the strengths of English). Better time might instead be placed in enriching the Chinese vernacular, which I still find to be rather weak in many areas. English should be treated as a foreign language elective, not the pidgin national language/obsession of China. And I wonder if Chinese would be a more accessible and popular language if it were alphabetic. Mandarin does have 900 million native speakers, 1200 million speakers overall, and is spoken significantly in dozens of nations. But it's role in the world is very much limited. Let's not even talk about the southern "dialects" (each with 40-80 million speakers). Isn't this also a cost worth analyzing? Maybe not, maybe national and cultural identity is far more important. But if the entire Chinese identity were to lie in the characters, then it's a rather superficial one.

[sm_sung]

Taibei wrote:

Or is it that you just can't accept anything that sounds like criticism of Chinese characters?

If you refer to my earlier posts, you will notice that I had agreed with a few of the criticisms concerning chinese characters namely:

(1)The phonetics are not totally reliable.

(2)They are harder to look up in a dictionary, map or whatever.

(3)Non-technical ci(words) are occasionally a little vague.

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.

Ala wrote:

And I wonder if Chinese would be a more accessible and popular language if it were alphabetic. Mandarin does have 900 million native speakers, 1200 million speakers overall, and is spoken significantly in dozens of nations. But it's role in the world is very much limited.

I'll agree with this one. Mandarin would probably be more popular if its written language were alphabetized. Having said that, I feel that a language's influence and importance are mainly determined by how dominant in the world its native speakers are. English has less native speakers than Spanish(I think) but is obviously the most influential human language. Interest in the Chinese language(especially in Asia) has increased in recent years following China's economic boom.

[pazu]

Confused, confused, confused. Ala.

It seems to me that on one side you prefer to retain Chinese characters (though again, it has wasted or ruined your precious youth... what's the after-effect?), I thought you were talking about the education reform, but somehow on the other hand you're talking about abolishing Hanzi for the sake of promoting Chinese culture around the world.

Let's not even talk about the southern "dialects" (

No then, in your world of pinyin they're not only dialects, they're "languages" themselves.

to acquire a literacy that is less complete than that offered by alphabetic systems.

For you, a pinyin maybe enough, but not for Chinese because Chinese treat Zhongwen as a native tongue.

Again, some people here just tried to attack these points as emotional, or accused Chinese of thinking their language as unique, or any other similiar reasons uttered by some other posters here, yet examining the fact of the inadequacy of alphabets for Chinese. No person has put this into real action so far.

It strikes to me very surprising that while you know very little Mandarin, you could conclude that alphabets suits Chinese better than Hanzi.

Being a nationalist can be bad, but accusing everything simply as a reason of being a nationalist is just too easy.

[Ian_Lee]

Actually I feel that most posters who don't like characters are outright emotional and all their arguments are unsubstantiated. For example:

(1) They start to label those pro-character people as "Character worshippers". Well, how can I worship it when I started to learn it since toddler? That is a part of my life.

(2) They describe those who are pro-character as thinking "Character is superior than alphabet". Well, I started to learn both Chinese and English since age 6 simultaneously. Never in my whole life has I ever thought that character-based Chinese is superior than alphabet-based English. If I have such idea, I would have advocated English should undergo characterization.

(3) They also accuse those pro-character posters as against world trend in stopping Chinese from romanization. But what standard they are talking about? Can they read Arab which is aplhabetic based? Can they read traditonal Mongolian which is also alphabet based? Can they read Hangul which is also alphabet based? When there is no standard in the alphabet world, isn't it funny that they ask Chinese to conform to the "standard"?

(4) They even allege that those countries which use charcters have a less literate population. Based on such assumption, I advise them to refrain from buying any Japanese products since there may be hazardous concern because they are designed by semi-literate people.

(5) And those school kids in the romanized countries have more leisure time in school because they don't need to learn characters. So where do they spend the extra time? Math? Science? Music?

So please don't base your assumption on emotion. Show us solid data and facts. Don't base your judgment from what you encounter with your neighbor's kids.

And after all, for your kid's sake of improving his math score in SAT, send a letter to your school board to advise them to add Chinese/Japanese as foreign language in school curriculum.

[ala]

Confused' date=' confused, confused. Ala.

It seems to me that on one side you prefer to retain Chinese characters (though again, it has wasted or ruined your precious youth... what's the after-effect?), I thought you were talking about the education reform, but somehow on the other hand you're talking about abolishing Hanzi for the sake of promoting Chinese culture around the world. [/quote']

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

No then, in your world of pinyin they're not....dialects, they're "languages" themselves.

As they should be.

[pazu]

As they should be.

Like Urdu and Hindi?

[sm_sung]

I have a question for the digraphia advocates. How is this digraphia policy going to be implemented? Surely, you’re not suggesting that newspapers, books, and public signs be printed in both characters and alphabetic systems. That would simply be too expensive.

If you want to use pinyin for personal purposes(like writing notes, diaries etc), then well, no one's stopping you.

[ala]

Like Urdu and Hindi?

No, more like French and Spanish for some of the dialects. A person speaking Urdu and a person speaking Hindi would have very little trouble communicating by speech.

[pazu]

Then just counting Cantonese you can have at least four more "languages" using pinyin, what a diversified world!