Are characters necessary to become fluent in Mandarin?

[li3wei1]

Going a bit off topic here, but here's an interesting philosophical/linguistic question. Apparently there are those in the Deaf community you regard sign language as their primary language. Presumably they learn to read the written language in the area in which they live, but regard this as a second language. So, is sign language a 'written' language, because it is visual, or is it an 'oral' language because it is spontaneous and used in conversation? And if we treat it as visual, then can we regard these people as being the exact opposite of what we're talking about - literate in two languages, but whatever the oral equivalent of illiterate is in both?

[Silent]

 

But it's surely quite theoretical. It might be possible to reach an advanced level in a language without ever reading any of it, but most illiterate people have basic vocabularies, and most people with advanced vocabularies can read.

 

I suspect you have it the wrong way around here. I think illiterates have mostly basic vocabularies because they are uneducated. Also literate people with limited education tend to have less vocabulary then well educated people. Vocabulary is mainly a function of (formal or informal) education. Every subject has it's own vocabulary. Dept of knowledge brings additional vocabulary as it is needed to express higher level concepts efficiently. Uneducated people communicate about the weather, latest gossip and day to day chores which requires only basic vocabulary. They're very unlikely to discuss more advanced topics in dept as they don't understand them and consequently don't acquire associated vocabulary.

 

Sure, there is a correlation between literacy and vocabulary but the driving factor is not literacy it's education. Sure literacy is practically needed to acquire knowledge in a cheap and efficient way. I see however no reason why the same can't be achieved by audible input other then that audible input (audio books, lecture recordings etc) are underdeveloped compared to written material and hiring a bunch of 'teachers' or 'assistants' is very expensive.

[querido]

Someone using the word "fluent" in a post, with no delimiter or restriction, should be expected by this community - which should know this by now, right? - to clarify himself before the thread develops.

Unless one is talking about fluency over the entire language, some "domain of discourse" restriction is required.
 
I pointed out in #32 that the original poster himself - if I'm not mistaken, sorry if I am - said, of the LTL program: "If you stay in a Home Stay family and you study hard, after seven, eight, or nine months, you are fluent."

That's what he's talking about. How many thousands of words, fluently useable, is that? He should say. It cannot be the fully literate + fully fluent standard that developed over the course of the thread.

I gave the example of FSI Mandarin, which is two or three thousand words I think, done in 16 weeks without characters; the original question is answered: no, they aren't necessary up to the standard implied by the original post, or the standard implied by Andreas of LTL (#32).

[renzhe]

Sure, there is a correlation between literacy and vocabulary but the driving factor is not literacy it's education. Sure literacy is practically needed to acquire knowledge in a cheap and efficient way. I see however no reason why the same can't be achieved by audible input other then that audible input (audio books, lecture recordings etc) are underdeveloped compared to written material and hiring a bunch of 'teachers' or 'assistants' is very expensive.

And that is exactly why I find the discussion theoretical.

I guess that an interesting case study are well educated blind people. They do not have access to many of these written materials. I've come across two university students who were effectively blind, but both of them could read Braille, as I assume pretty much all blind people with university education can. Whether advanced education without reading is possible or not, it seems that nobody actively seeks that path. I suggest that if it were a feasible path, more people would have tried it and succeeded.

[querido]

I'm sure the original poster was well answered by one of the above posts!

Bye! :-)

[alanmd]

To follow on from my earlier reply, here's an article with some Chinese views on the way that they are losing their inability to hand write nowadays: http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2013-09/02/content_16936673.htm

[tysond]

Last night I tricked my teacher into trying to write 打喷嚏。She couldn't.  

Fortunately she didn't ask me to spell hippopotamus or explain the difference between who and whom.  

[Demonic_Duck]

Last night I tricked my teacher into trying to write 打喷嚏。She couldn't.

I think 嚏 is the most important character for Chinese learners to learn, bar none. It's the one you can count on to make people simultaneously unduly impressed with your language abilities and ashamed of their own.

[Chang Zhang]

From my point of view too many learners drop characters for pinyin but turn out that learning characters is unavoidable for pursuing high proficiency level. I could imagine very high level of fluency could be reached without enough study on characters. But characters bound with reading materials, so this kind of fluency is based on sacrifice the complexity. I often heard my students give me fluent but boring presentation by Chinese due to all the materials comes from the limited resources such as textbook, this won't change with their proficiency level up if characters are ignored. Characters=Reading Materials=True picture of Chinese language.

[Ania]

I'm slowly moving from pinyin world to characters world Some of the sources I use still have pinyin, but many don't and I imagine that the more I advance, the more used I will have to get to characters. So it's kind of a natural progression with me. I don't obsess over characters, but I see that the more input I get with characters the more characters I learn, I honestly can't imagine being an advanced Chinese learner or even being fluent in Chinese and being completely unfamiliar with characters. I certainly don't know how to recognize in writing all the words I know in Chinese, but the number is getting bigger and bigger, which makes me happy

[JustinJJ]

Perhaps you can be 'fluent' in Chinese without writing, but to speak really 'excellent' Chinese perhaps it would be much more difficult without obtaining vocab from reading.

 

The god of learning Chinese mentions during the first minute of this interview that he can read what an average university student can, so reading is probably really useful for getting to an excellent level of Chinese i.e. I'd find it hard to go against any suggestions this guy makes based on his command of Chinese.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guj1t4W8QeQ

[Meng Lelan]

I think 嚏 is the most important character for Chinese learners to learn, bar none. It's the one you can count on to make people simultaneously unduly impressed with your language abilities and ashamed of their own.

 

Thank you tysond and Demonic Duck, I will add that to my Skritter queue right now. 

[Silent]

 

Characters=Reading Materials=True picture of Chinese language

How equals reading material the true picture of Chinese language? Where does reading material differ from spoken language in this respect? What is the relevant difference between the paper book and the audio book with respect to this?

[imron]

I think the relevant difference is the significantly more resources and content available in written form.

[Ania]

I think the relevant difference is the significantly more resources and content available in written form.

Plus, for me being fluent in a language doesn't just mean speaking the language fluently, but also being able to successfully function in the community that uses that language. And I believe that's impossible without at least some understanding of the written form of the language. 

[renzhe]

Fluency is a meaningless term with one million definitions, all incompatible. It should never be used for any serious discussion of languages, only TVs and celebrity talk shows.