Is Chinese more difficult than European languages

[valikor]

Chrix: Whether it's correct by the standards of modern linguistics or not, the word "grammar" is used to describe rules for constructing sentences. Furthermore, morphology is an intergral part of grammar, even if it is no longer equated (you indicated that it has been equated in the past, by European linguists.. )

While I have no doubt that you can find reasons to justify your statement that Chinese has difficult grammar, it will be equally easy for me to justify that it has easier grammar, largely (but not only) due to simple morphology. You can point out that grammar includes more than morphology, and you're right--but that doesn't make morphology any less important, either.

If anything, I think that statements like "Chinese has very difficult grammar" will end up misleading an un-knowledgeable listener, more than informing him. If one were to say "Chinese has difficult vocabulary, simple grammar, and uses lots of idioms", I think this would paint a very accurate picture, even if it's over-simplified.

I also think you are completely overlooking the fact that statements like mine are inherently relative, and I have made this explicit. So despite your points about the difficulties of Chinese grammar, you have in no way proved that it might not be "easier"--just that it's not "easy" (whatever that means).

I acknowledge that this is in no way a black and white issue, and that they are very different languages. Perhaps Chinese has difficult 语法 but simple grammar, I'm not really sure.

I agree that this discussion is going nowhere. Though, I am committed to defending my statements... maybe it's because it's too discouraging to admit that everything about Chinese is hard ;)

[chrix]

Whether it's correct by the standards of modern linguistics or not, the word "grammar" is used to describe rules for constructing sentences.

Yes, this statement is correct. Did you read my earlier post? Morphology is NOT about constructing sentences, it's about how words change...

I also think that telling newbies that Chinese has simple grammar will mislead them. As I said complexity of grammar is hard to measure, but I personally think it's important you pay attention to the grammar of the language from the very beginning of learning Chinese.

[valikor]

The fact that Chinese has lots of sentence patterns (totally unrelated to morphology), and that many of these are complex and presumably difficult, does not disprove my point. I acknowledge that such sentence patterns (issues of syntax) count as grammar. This still does not disprove my point.

[chrix]

You wrote this:

Whether it's correct by the standards of modern linguistics or not, the word "grammar" is used to describe rules for constructing sentences. Furthermore, morphology is an intergral part of grammar, even if it is no longer equated (you indicated that it has been equated in the past, by European linguists.. )

While I have no doubt that you can find reasons to justify your statement that Chinese has difficult grammar, it will be equally easy for me to justify that it has easier grammar, largely (but not only) due to simple morphology. You can point out that grammar includes more than morphology, and you're right--but that doesn't make morphology any less important, either.

Now I think a casual reader can easily get the idea from reading this that you're equating morphology with "rules for constructing sentences". And morphology is not important unto itself, its importance varies from language to language. In Russian or Latin, morphology is much more important than in English or Mandarin.

Back to the point: I don't think that English has that much of a complex morphology. It no longer has gender (except for the 3rd person pronoun), it has no declension worth speaking of (some irregular plural forms, yay), and the conjugation is also quite simple, compared with other European languages.

Mandarin might still have simpler morphology overall than English, but it does have pesky aspect particles, and verbs have actually a lot of morphological patterns that are quite alien to European languages. So it's not like English is ahead here by miles, we're talking yards here IMO.

[valikor]

(My first few sentences of that earlier post were admittedly poorly written... though I do think you ignore the context of what I was actually saying).

I'm not interested in continuing this much longer, and I don't think you are either, so these are my final comments.

I've conceded that Chinese grammar can be hard. My point is that English is harder (and thus Chinese is relatively easy), and that for *basic* communication, the grammar is easy in Chinese. There are many people who have already posted on this thread who have also explicitly said they think Chinese grammar is easy... and many of them know much more Chinese than me, so it's pointless for me to argue with you here.

I can--and do--readily concede everything you have said about Chinese grammar having difficult aspects, but this does not disprove what I have said.

But, off the top of my head, I can provide countless examples of grammatical mistakes that educated native English speakers make on a regular basis... even in published works. This is quite different from what you pointed out (that native Chinese speakers might not understand difficult grammatical constructions or chengyus). Not being able to understand something difficult is normal for native speakers of any language. But, making mistakes while conveying basic ideas is common in English. I'm guessing it's not common in Chinese. Am I wrong?

Can most English speakers explain the difference between "that" and "which"? Some can, but most can't. (Sometimes it's obvious, but other times, the two words seem interchangeable. This is wrong). What about "who" versus "whom" (morphology)? We regularly misuse these words in conversation. People regularly mix up adjectives and adverbs (morphology) in simple sentences like "the car was driving really fast". Many people--if you asked them--would not even know that they had used incorrect grammar. These are only very basic examples.

I think morphology is an important part of the difficulties of English grammar, and one major reason why Chinese is easier.. but it's just one piece of the picture. Just like in any language, there are obscure sentence constructions in English... you've made it very clear that Chinese has these, but I never denied it. As I said, since all languages will have very difficult aspects at very advanced levels. All languages have things that native speakers might not be able to understand. This is somewhat of a moot point... it's more relevant to look at daily conversation and judge how things are the majority of the time, and thus I agree with what numerous other individuals (just within this thread) have already said. Chinese grammar is pretty easy!

You can nitpick it if you like, and I know you're right that Chinese has "pesky aspects". . . but nobody ever denied that.

[chrix]

Again, as I said before you're comparing apples and oranges here. You can't compare a situation where an educated native speaker of English commits mistakes in academic English with a situation where an educated native speaker of Chinese makes mistakes trying to learn basic communicative skills in English.

Any type of "high level" language is hard for native speakers.

As an aside: Also you might want to check out languagelog, the preeminent blog run by linguists. Many of those things you call mistakes, including your "which/that" example, are actually prescriptivist poppycock, as they call it

[xiaocai]

I'm guessing it's not common in Chinese. Am I wrong?

So how common is common here? I think I can "provide countless examples of grammatical mistakes that educated native Chinese speakers make on a regular basis - even in published works - off the top of my head" as well, but I have no intention to say that "you are wrong", since my English is no where near as strong as my Chinese. My point is, the comparison is really pointless if your understanding of the two languages is not at the same level.

Edited January 17, 2010 at 03:42 PM by xiaocai
Typo.

[valikor]

There's no official group which determines the rules of English grammar... so as people continue to misuse the language, it gradually becomes considered acceptable.

I have been aware--this whole time--that we're arguing about semantics, and trying to make a comparison that can't be made (for example, i can say that english grammar is so hard that even native english speakers make mistakes regularly.. whereas you could reasonably say that the relevant standard should be to reach a level where one can speak the same as a native speaker... and we'd both be right)

Of course the two languages are like apples and oranges. I just think that when you say Chinese grammar is hard, you're referring to things which other people would not call grammar. This is presumably why many people have said (on this thread, and elsewhere) that Chinese has easy grammar. I think that people who say this are more clearly communicating than people who say what you have said, based on the common usage of the word "grammar".

EDIT: @xiaocai I had a job helping new undergraduate students with writing, and there would usually be multiple mistakes per paragraph. It happens in oral speech as well, but is less easy to pick up on.

[chrix]

FWIW, I do hear from my Chinese-speaking friends that the level of written Chinese of new hires is bad, they make a lot of mistakes when they're asked to write something up to standard etc. Along with the complaint that magazines and newspapers are full of mistakes too..

This is of course anecdotal evidence, but my prediction is that this kind of thing happens in any language that has a written standard - it is hard to master even for native speakers...

[chrix]

Well, two things, valikor:

1. you didn't address my point that English doesn't have that much more difficult morphology than Chinese does.

2. using this definition of grammar is Eurocentricsm plain and simple, and in the worst case can also mislead learners into thinking that there is nothing to learn about Chinese grammar. If you think that this constitutes "clear communication" then so be it.

[valikor]

I'm sure you're right.. I've heard that the Chinese component of the college entrance exam is really hard (Also anecdotal evidence). I will staunchly maintain my current position and not change any of my opinions on this, even if much of it is just semantic bullsh*t.

EDIT (After reading chrix's last post)

Chrix: at 7:31 you already granted that chinese "might" have a more simple morphology... Plus, I also pointed out that native speakers struggle with morphology. I think I did address your point.

Am I eurocentric? I simply provided a definition of what I think grammar is, and since so many people here also said they think chinese has easy grammar, it seems that this definition allows for effective communication of ideas.. we're all talking about the same things. There's no reason why this has to have negative value judgments associated with it.

Really, I think it's quite petty to try to argue that defining grammar in a certain why is "eurocentric". And if it is eurocentric, what are the implications? Most Americans might agree with my definition simply because they don't know anything about other languages... and one could call them all eurocentric just because they answer a question based on what is familiar to them.... (at which point you are just being elitist, which is probably worse) We can't be escape our culture/background/etc. and analyze or discuss issues like computers.

This is an incredibly trivial issue and I would prefer to just admit that it's a semantic matter at this point. If you would like to determine if Chinese has simple grammar (as I have said) or difficult grammar (as you have said), maybe someone more knowledgeable of Chinese (like the many people who have posted on this thread that Chinese has simple grammar) would like to discuss it with you. I am running out of things to say, and think that you are inventing a problem where one does not exist (by accusing me of being eurocentric).

Edited January 17, 2010 at 04:10 PM by valikor

[BertR]

But, off the top of my head, I can provide countless examples of grammatical mistakes that educated native English speakers make on a regular basis... even in published works. This is quite different from what you pointed out (that native Chinese speakers might not understand difficult grammatical constructions or chengyus). Not being able to understand something difficult is normal for native speakers of any language. But, making mistakes while conveying basic ideas is common in English. I'm guessing it's not common in Chinese. Am I wrong?

I believe you are. A lot of Chinese people mix the different "de"s (的，得，地) and make a lot of mistakes using le (了) (at the wrong position in the sentence or use it when they shouldn't). Although you can consider these as quite basic (but very tricky) constructs, especially the 了.

[valikor]

(Bert, I'm sure Chinese people make mistakes speaking Chinese, My point was the degree/frequency to which this happens. But, since neither you nor I have--or presumably are able to--provide anything more than anecdotal evidence here, I guess it was silly of me to bring it up)

[chrix]

There's nothing elitist about using the academically valid definition of what grammar is. Context matters, we're not at a cocktail party here, we're discussing language matters.

[valikor]

You've not provided me with any negative implications of using my allegedly Eurocentric definition of grammar. It seems fairly obvious to me that all people bring to the table certain assumptions and perspectives... and that problems only arise when unfair value judgments are put into place.

You should also consider that different kinds of definitions exist (besides technical/academic definitions). As you said, context matters. Because of this, when people say "Chinese has simple grammar", it is immediately obvious to most people that they aren't talking about highly complex patterns of syntax left over from classical Chinese.

I must go to sleep now and hope that I will not have the temptation to check this thread tomorrow and waste even more time reading/replying, since I think it's been mutually acknowledged that it's going nowhere. I apologize to anyone who was annoyed by this spurt of posts

[chrix]

Well, I'm more than willing to leave it at that, but you keep misrepresenting what I've said. The bit about Classical Chinese patterns were relative to the high level speech native speakers have to master, it didn't relate to what English speakers trying to learn Chinese are facing. Again, apples and oranges....

I already talked about one possible negative connotation: there have been people on this forum that proudly declared they wouldn't bother learning any Chinese grammar because it had none. For some people this can work, but I'm sure on average the results won't be too pretty.

Another is more general: I personally believe one shouldn't look at everything through a Western lense, including ideas about language. Of course one can never be totally free of all biases and so forth, but one can try...

[renzhe]

Why is it not legitimate to say that having no verb conjugations, tenses, etc., makes it more simple? (I have read other posts here, where more advanced learners have argued that Chinese grammar is not easy.. but I can't speak to that. But, I can point to the many simple aspects that are readily apparent)

It is legitimate to say that having simple morphology makes it easier.

But there is more to languages than morphology. Wait till you get to learning all the intricacies of "了". This makes it harder.

Chinese is simpler in some aspects of grammar, namely morphology. Since this is the first thing a learner sees, it is usually the one that leaves the strongest impression. But it can be really tricky for a European to express himself accurately in Chinese, and it often requires expressing things in very unusual ways. This takes a long time to master. Some people never even notice that their speech is stilted and unnatural.

Like anonymoose said, many things that we would say in English can be extremely difficult to express in Chinese, even for native speakers.

Chinese grammar might be simpler than that of some European languages when taken overall, but I do feel that people (especially beginners) seriously underestimate it simply because they ignore all the aspects of Chinese grammar they are not familiar with and pretend that they don't exist.

For example, Chinese doesn't make distinctions with tenses either, and consequently Chinese people have (in my experience) much more trouble with tenses than do my other foreign friends (Germans, Romanians, Nepalis, for example)

Germans are notorious for using wrong tenses in English. they have tenses that are built exactly the same way, but used differently. In particular, present tense, present perfect tense and simple past are very often uses incorrectly by Germans. Other grammatical and vocabulary aspects (false friends, word order in relative clauses) are also often used in the "German" way when speaking English.

And Europeans are notorious for using wrong aspect particles in Chinese. Chinese has no tenses, but it has aspect particles, which are rather complex and have no direct equivalent in European languages.

(I could provide a condensed version of my point by saying that you've already stated that grammar is considered to be almost synonymous with morphology. As such, it's already been established that Chinese has easier grammar than English, because it has easier morphology. Unless there's a reason why we should change the definition of grammar, I don't see why the word "grammar" ought to be used to describe the difficult elements of Chinese)

If you want to say that Chinese has easy morphology, why don't you simply say that Chinese has easy morphology?

[valikor]

Renzhe: It is very clear to me that chinese grammar can be very difficult. I believe I have stated this numerous times, so I find your post a bit puzzling. I'm sure part of this is due to inadequate communication on my part.

At this point it seems very obvious to me that people who say "Chinese has simple grammar" (including many people who are much smarter and knowledgeable than me) are referring to something different than you are when you say that Chinese does not have simple grammar. I hope I have shed at least a little bit of light on this, but see no point in arguing over semantics any longer, since I don't think it's going anywhere.

[xiaocai]

@xiaocai I had a job helping new undergraduate students with writing, and there would usually be multiple mistakes per paragraph. It happens in oral speech as well, but is less easy to pick up on.

I don't have much chance to look into other people's writing and help them to find out any mistakes, since my own writing is not error-free as well. But I'd say that it is pretty common to come across some unreadable sentences in my colleagues' reports, which simply means no one else knows what they mean except for the people who wrote them.

Obviously to me, a Chinese native, English has a much more complicated grammar. I am not a linguist and have only basic knowledge of a few other languages but I'd say that if I have to compare, Chinese is probably the easiest one to me on all aspects. However that is not my point. The point I wanted to make here is that I will not make such a comparison since my understanding of Chinese is much much better than of any of them, and hence it will be hard for the comparison to be fair and impartial.

[dreamon]

Sorry for my stupid beginner's question, but... why exactly is Chinese hard? Well, if you compare with an English speaker learning French, then fine. But how about comparing with a Russian (or a Chinese) speaker learning English? Russian belongs to the same Indoeuropean family, but I doubt it is any closer to English than Sanskrit. Aside from the vocabulary borrowed since late 1980s and from the academic words, the rest is different. Do you claim that Chinese is still a lot harder? What makes it hard then? Characters? But there are just 4000 of them in common use, or less. It is work, but should be doable in a year. Grammar is easy. Vocabulary should be the hardest, but it is as hard as any distant language. Pronunciation? So far, having done almost all Pimsleur, I didn't notice anything extraordinarily hard, I could say all phrases out loud and it sounded OK to my ear. Understanding others speaking? Or is there something about reading that is particularly hard? Please enlighten me, while it's not too late!