Reading and Writing - How do we define literacy?

[戴 睿]

I wanted to quote from the following article on Hacking Chinese:

http://www.hackingchinese.com/chinese-character-challenge-towards-a-more-sensible-way-of-learning-to-write-chinese/

Symptoms of bad character learning:

When you’ve forgotten a word, you just keep repeating it until it sticks

You tend to forget the difference between similar characters

You’re reading ability is okay even though your handwriting sucks

You need to rely heavily on context to understand characters

You have no idea how to write characters like 尴尬 (T: 尷尬)

Specifically, the line: "Your reading ability is ok even though your handwriting sucks"

It is stated as a symptom of bad character learning.

My question is, how important is it to be capable of writing characters?

To play a bit off of what Ollie said, obviously the ability to write any specific character is powerfully indicative of the fact that you have genuinely committed said character to memory. Writing is the pinnacle of Chinese learning - if you can do it well, then it is a safe bet the rest of your language skills are reasonably up to snuff.

I suppose from my perspective, if somebody told me they could read and understand English decently well, but was incapable of actually using a pencil and paper to create the language themself - I would consider that man or woman illiterate.

Obviously, there are some differences - there isn't a huge need to be able to write characters in many circumstances, particularly with the advent of the computer and digital pinyin input system.

But there are still handwritten portions found on the majority of mandarin language proficiency tests around the world.

I hear from a lot of Chinese learners that writing characters is of secondary importance. This suggests it's acceptable to delay learning how to write - first learning to read and recognize characters, and later sometime in the "indefinite future" picking up the written skill.

But is separating your character learning in that way honestly the best thing for you? Does it not make more sense to making learning new characters - both how to read and write them - one definitive, comprehensive experience?

I'd love some more opinions and perspectives on the issue.

I, for now, stand firmly on the grounds that writing is an integral form of literacy, no matter what language you speak or technological age you live in.

[Kelby]

I think you hit on a good point, that if someone can't write by hand they're not fully literate. Your crossover example of English falls apart however with the fact that someone can write Chinese by just knowing pinyin and having a feel for what characters they meant to type, whereas you can't do the same with English (unless you have badass autocorrect, lol). This separates writing Chinese out into two unrelated skills; typing them trough pinyin and constructing them by hand by component. I mean, ask any of my 小伙伴们 if I'm literate and they'll say yes because I can text and that's how they experience my writing. However, put me passing secret notes in a meeting and I'd barely be literate because I can't write very well and often leave out a stroke. Weak skill in one doesn't effect the other because these are different methods of writing. However for the sake of conversation I figure being literate to some and illiterate to others can't count as full literacy.

I think being considered illiterate depends in part on whether you're being judged by an old person or a young person. I'd bet any young person would say that using your phone and computer is enough, while others (I have a soon to be mother in law with this opinion) would see writing by hand as an indispensable skill.

I also think it depends on how useful the skill is. After all, I can read, write, and type English but I can't write in shorthand yet nevertheless I'm unarguably literate in English. This is despite not being able to use one of the methods of writing English. However since writing by hand is still a widely used skill in Chinese, it should be counted as a component of defining whether you're fully literate or not.

[戴 睿]

I actually mention the pinyin input method in my original post, and pretty clearly recognize that it's possible to communicate digitally with Chinese without physically writing. I would hardly say the example "falls apart." The purpose of my post is to ask whether or not, in spite of pinyin, it is still a worthy pursuit to learn to write characters, and whether or not it deserves to be considered an integral part of the character learning process.

I don't really understand your "English shorthand" example - while it is vaguely related to the pinyin/character relationship in that shorthand was used by English speakers to transcribe real-time meetings/court holding/etc. before keyboards were invented, shorthand has never to my knowledge been part of an English language proficiency test.

In contrast, if you want to pass the HSK, you need to write characters. So by that standard, I don't feel shorthand has any real merit in the discussion.

[gato]

It really depends on how much time you have and how you want to prioritize your time. If you want to memorize handwriting as opposed to reading recognition, you can assume that you'll need to spend twice as much time.

For your hypothetical man illiterate in English, you would need to think of someone who can type literate English but cannot write by hand for some reason (due to a mysterious handicap, extremely poor penmanship, whatever). Is such a person really illiterate according to an average reasonable person's definition of "illiterate"?

[li3wei1]

For your hypothetical man illiterate in English, you would need to think of someone who can type literate English but cannot write by hand for some reason (due to a mysterious handicap, extremely poor penmanship, whatever). Is such a person really illiterate according to an average reasonable man's definition of "illiterate"?

 

No, these people exist in Chinese as well and we wouldn't call them illiterate. the proper analogy is someone who can read English, but can't spell. they could only come up with vague phonetic approximations of words.

[Kelby]

I actually mention the pinyin input method in my original post, and pretty clearly recognize that it's possible to communicate digitally with Chinese without physically writing. I would hardly say the example "falls apart." The purpose of my post is to ask whether or not, in spite of pinyin, it is still a worthy pursuit to learn to write characters, and whether or not it deserves to be considered an integral part of the character learning process.

I don't really understand your "English shorthand" example - while it is vaguely related to the pinyin/character relationship in that shorthand was used by English speakers to transcribe real-time meetings/court holding/etc. before keyboards were invented, shorthand has never to my knowledge been part of an English language proficiency test.

In contrast, if you want to pass the HSK, you need to write characters. So by that standard, I don't feel shorthand has any real merit in the discussion.

I apologize if you feel that I was picking you apart. That wasn't my intention, and I now see my wording gave that impression.

The point I'm making is that illiteracy is much a societal construction, and so the skills that are required for someone to be considered literate change with the times. While shorthand has never been en vogue per se it was in the past considered an asset in the workplace as it enabled one to be able to take notes in a quick manner. I use it to highlight that writing skills used to express a language wax and wane in usefulness over time, and thus so does their importance. The point of the parallel is to say that while learning to pen Chinese characters is less and less necessary, it, unlike shorthand, still maitains its importance to much of the population and thus should not be neglected if you want to truly be considered adept in the language.

[戴 睿]

If you want to memorize handwriting as opposed to reading recognition, you can assume that you'll need to spend twice as much time.

I think it is absolutely true that committing yourself to handwriting will vastly increase the amount of time needed to develop fluency (in that particular aspect of the language), but I think here we have to be careful of the word usage "as opposed." In someways, the exercises required to improve handwriting can still passively improve reading recognition.

But I like what you said about prioritization. I suppose that in some ways I'm biased - I look at mountains of possibilities in which the written language is still used (academic coursework, personal letters, the HSK, etc.) and I feel like I still assign a lot of value to those things, and thereby consider handwriting to still be of considerable value.

Consequently, if you know handwriting will take place at some point in your distant future, is it worth making studying to write characters a part of your language study, even when first learning to read those same characters?

Finally, another compelling point: should the HSK ever consider not featuring handwriting? I personally can't imagine that, and so long as such a massive test of language proficiency features handwriting sections, I suppose I too will consider handwriting to be of importance.

[c_redman]

the proper analogy is someone who can read English, but can't spell. they could only come up with vague phonetic approximations of words.

This situation is quite plausible for native speakers of English who are only learning to read and write as an adult. Students who learn through a formal course learn by being introduced to a series of phonetic rules that can be used to decipher most words. For many words, more than one rule applies, so the approach is to try the methods that apply, and guess which one sounds like a word they are familiar with. Extensive reading with the help of a tutor gradually improves speed and accuracy. But this method doesn't work well for writing, where you would need to know which phonetic rule to apply. The writing produced by adult learners in the midst of learning would be filled with bad spelling, though mostly readable as a phonetic approximation.

Would these people be considered literate? In the US, there is a higher importance on reading as the priority. There is a real problem with literacy among certain populations, so the bar is set pretty low. The goals are up to each person, whether is to get a better job, read a newspaper, read their pill bottle, or be more involved in the child's homework. So real literacy is a sliding scale. Someone who could read but not write well might be considered literate but just a bad speller. Even well-educated native speakers will have spelling mistakes on accasion. They would still generally be considerated "literate".

[Nathan Mao]

The word for illiterate in Chinese is 不认字.

Not 不能写字.

Maybe that settles it, maybe not.

 

I do have a friend, born and raised in the US.  His handwriting is so bad that half the time, even he can't read it.  Is he illiterate in English?  I don't think so. But he can't form readable characters with this hands.

 

That being said, I do think learning to write characters is a very important step in learning to read and recognize them.

 

But that being said, my ability to write characters really sucks right now.  You saw some of my writing a few weeks ago:　I was making basic mistakes even picking the right character from the list.

A little effort, and I think I'm back on track.

Also it would probably take little effort to get the bulk of my handwriting ability back.

But I have more important things to work on right now...

 

Whether I'm actually literate or not, because about all I can write is simple, basic characters like numbers and 我 是 不 好 正 有， etc, doesn't really matter to me. I'm skilled in the areas I consider most important, in the areas I use constantly.

[戴 睿]

Thank you for the people who have commented thus far - I think that question about defining literacy as a foreign learner of Chinese is quite compelling. It's interesting - I have quite a few very, very close native Chinese friends. Their encouragement tends to be different than the encouragement of my random chinese "acquaintances" in terms of Character study. My more distance chinese contacts feel as long as I can text or type it is enough. My close friends, however, feel very strongly that it's important for me to continue to improve my handwriting.

Maybe this stems from a sort of greater respect that natives hold for foreigners that can write characters. I also feel my personal draw to chinese is a passion that far transcends any definitions of what is reasonable or effective. I feel I love the language in a way that makes all study, including handwriting, fun. Not at all a chore. I'm also very ambitious and goal oriented, which also pushes me to master the language in every conceivable way.

I still wonder what people have to say about standardized Chinese language testing and handwriting exam portions.

[ouyangjun]

 

 

In contrast, if you want to pass the HSK, you need to write characters. So by that standard, I don't feel shorthand has any real merit in the discussion. 

 

Not anymore.  The new HSK tests can be done on the computer and the portion that was previously written can now be done on the computer by typing (pinyin input). 

[li3wei1]

The new HSK tests can be done on the computer

 

Only in some locations. You may have to travel considerable distances if you want to take the computerised version.

[Ruben von Zwack]

I hand-write, for a number of reasons, one of them being is that in a lot of situaitons, scribbling a note on a piece of paper seems the fastest and least complicated thing to.

Besides, my hand has got its own memory, so even when I can't recollect the detail of a character before my inner eye, usually I can write it fluently, like auto pilot mode, when I put a pencil to a paper.

Don't know if those who never try it miss out on something, or if it just means that my purely visual memory is particularly bad.

 

But I think it's pedantic to make a big issue out of it.

I think Olle is exceptional in how systematic and how much of a perfectionist he is, and I'm in his sensible character learning challenge. But I wouldn't sign everything he ever writes as the ultimate gospel, applicable to everyone. Taken out of context (his perfectionist approach, being a foreign learner, and an especially ambitious learner), some statements may come across as snobbish.

[戴 睿]

I wouldn't label it an issue as much as a discussion. I'm interested in knowing (in terms of active users) just how many people on the forum are dedicated to writing by hand, and who isn't.

I'd also like to hear a few more of the reasons others choose to pursue handwriting, or at least some experiences that caused them to be grateful they took the time to develop the skill.

[icebear]

A few points to consider:

1. Stephan Hawking is considered literate, as are many (all?) paraplegics. Hand writing is not a necessary condition.
2. Many able-bodied Chinese are fairly mediocre hand writers.
3. The HSK is available with just computer input; I imagine this will become the norm, consistent with the watering down of the "New HSK 1-6" to make the test more approachable for lower to intermediate students.
4. I'd wager that fairly little of the meritous/valuable (in a business sense) written content each day globally is hand written.

My view is that handwriting is like riding a horse in 1900. If you didn't do it, you weren't really mobile. A hundred years later no one thinks the same thing of the horse-less - but in the US we do of those that don't own a motor vehicle. Literacy will eventually be defined by how well you can type, rather than hand write, because its more relevant to most needs of modern life.

 

Handwriting is a big force today, but won't be in 50 years. There are still horse riding enthusiasts, but those that need to get around have more efficient options now. 

 

That said, I do think there is value in learning how to handwrite the first thousand or so characters, at least - learning how the strokes work helps with differentiated characters and integrating them into memory. 

[roddy]

Just to pick on one little point...

Writing is the pinnacle of Chinese learning - if you can do it well, then it is a safe bet the rest of your language skills are reasonably up to snuff.

 

I really don't think this is the case. There are plenty of people who obsess about how many characters they can write, to the neglect of actually speaking. It's not the pinnacle, it's a whole different mountain. 

[Ruben von Zwack]

I wasn't criticising you for bringing it up, it is a discussion that I find fascinating too. I was just basically trying to say, some of Olle's opinions seem to harsh for me, at least when taken out of context.

 

I'm interested in knowing (in terms of active users) just how many people on the forum are dedicated to writing by hand

Count me in, then

 

reasons:

- daily life. Sometimes you got to leave a message on the fridge, write a note to someone. It's over the top to send a text message "hi, please have some chocolate cake if you like!"!

- There are situations when it is the easiest and fastest thing to do. For example, when I'm leaving my luggage at the luggage depository in a train station, and the situation is a bit hectic and I am writing a reminder to myself when they close, and at which level and near which exit they are. It makes sense the write down that sort of stuff, and also what the employees tell you. It's just confusing for me to constantly switch between languages.

- When Chinese travel, they write a lot of postcards to their friends (at least the ones I know), I think that is very admirable and I want to be able to do it too

- the auto pilot thing that my hand can do, like I mentioned above. It is an extra learning resource, why would I deny myself that?

- it is so funny to overhear some elderly Chinese on the train talk to each other "she can write!" - "really?" - "yes, I saw it!" - and then after some consideration, someone will walk up to you and politely ask a few things. I find elderly Chinese particularly interesting, and I was always very happy and excited when I got the chance to meet someone.

[roddy]

You could put a poll up if you want, or if you have a search I'm fairly sure someone will have asked the question before....

[li3wei1]

Over the last few years, I've worked mostly on my reading, to the exclusion of writing, listening and talking, partly because of what I needed, and partly because of what was available easily. Now, I'm finding it necessary to (re)learn how to write, because I'm teaching, and I have to write on the whiteboard. Also my students have to learn to write, because they're taking the GCSE and as far as I know it's only available in handwritten form. I'm not especially enjoying it, but I'm sure that every character I know how to write will improve my reading, and there will be many situations where I need to produce a character without the aid of electronics, or if not 'need', then it will be more 方便。

[戴 睿]

Just to pick on one little point...

I really don't think this is the case. There are plenty of people who obsess about how many characters they can write, to the neglect of actually speaking. It's not the pinnacle, it's a whole different mountain.

You bring up a good point, I should have phrased my statement more carefully. What I meant was handwriting full blown paragraphs or essays in Chinese demonstrates a solid understanding of the structure and functionality of the language.

As somebody whose speaking and listening fluency far outstrips their reading and writing, I suppose I take for granted the fact that their are some learners whose situation is quite the reverse of my own (classroom rote learners with great character writing and recognition, but little capacity to navigate a busy street filled with Chinese people or hold a spontaneous conversation with a native).

Ruben, I think some of the reasons you've expressed for wanting to learn to write are all very realistic applications of the skill, so thanks for that.

For liwei, in your experience (now having to "relearn" how to write characters), do you wish you had put forth that effort in the beginning?

One thing that I do feel Ollie has right is that handwriting doesn't have to be the massive ordeal so many make it out to be. Tools like skritter are incredibly convenient and powerful.