[quote=“zeugmite”][quote=“ironlady”]
I know of no studies “proving” that logographic script (if you want to persist in the belief that Chinese is logographic) is more efficient than phonetic script for the educated native reader. [/quote]
I don’t think there is much to argue about. The information density of Chinese writing is much much higher than English. So in that respect it is more efficient. And in speed reading, the time is not wasted in comprehension as much as in eye-motion/scanning for content. Chinese writing makes for more information throughput per linear scan rate, ergo, faster reading. Writing speed is another matter altogether.[/quote]
Information density is not necessarily equivalent to faster comprehension through reading. You must also factor in the time needed for processing the information. Also, how would you prove that the information was “read”? Comprehension tests? Merely “finishing” the reading passage? How much information was retained? How much could be repeated/paraphrased? etc. etc. You might be able to argue that Chinese script is more efficient in STORING information (i.e., fewer “bytes” or “strokes” or “squares” or “pieces of paper” or whatever) because that is quantifiable. Everything else you’ve said about speed of decoding or reading is completely subjective and based only on your “observations”, which were (sorry ) not scientific at all.
[quote=“ironlady”]
But again, since most people have only one dominant language, it’s hard to design a valid study to prove or disprove this kind of thing.[/quote]
Well, no, there ISN’T always a valid way to prove or disprove something. In particular, when you’re talking about linguistics and language, it is very difficult to get rid of extraneous factors that you do NOT want to test. In this case, to prove that Chinese is read faster than English, you need to have a person who reads at precisely the same level of competence in Chinese and English. It has to be one person (or a set of people who have this same ability) because you cannot make comparisons across individuals, and you can only do tests comparing the reading speed of these people in Language 1 against their OWN reading speed in Language 2. It’s not valid to say “Mary reads Chinese faster than John reads Swahili, therefore Chinese is more efficient to read than Swahili.” We have no way of controlling for other factors (i.e., Mary is a genius and John is a bit torpid, Mary has better eyesight, John is attention-deficit, or whatever. I’m exaggerating with the factor examples but the point is valid: you can’t compare two different individuals for a study like the one you would like to see.) You’d have to use matched-T tests to determine whether differences in time were significant and it would HAVE to be a set of paired samples.
For example, my own Ph.D. and most recently 2nd MA thesis deal with foreigners’ accent in Mandarin. To compare reactions to “foreign accent” in Chinese, I had to use the same speaker twice on the stimulus tape. If I didn’t do that, it could be argued that the raters gave Speaker A higher ratings NOT because of the accent she used, but rather because of somethign about Speaker B’s voice that they didn’t like, a difference in speed between the two speakers, or whatever.
You really have to implement very comprehensive controls (i.e., you have to speed-match the samples using a two-track recorder or other means, you end up having to use reading passages rather than free speech to eliminate variables related to usage, etc. etc.) to be able to state that your data really supports the conclusion(s) you’ve drawn. Taiwan is not known for being particularly rigorous in this regard but things are beginning to change a bit, and I can guarantee you that no respectable academic institution or rigorously-trained scholar would accept your premise based on the evidence you’ve given nor on the type of experimental design you feel is adequate to prove it. For most studies like this, it takes weeks to figure out the design and mere hours to administer the experiment (well, then more weeks to play with the numbers and see what comes out. But it’s nicer now that you can do it with Excel! )
Gads somebody slap me, I knew there was a reason I got OUT of academe!!!