Logographic and alphabetic systems are the same
Our take
This Reddit post—and the ensuing discussion, we imagine—lands squarely in Spoot’s wheelhouse: that sudden, almost visceral realization that something you thought you understood is… not quite. The author's journey from dismissing logographic writing systems as impossibly complex to recognizing their fundamental similarity to alphabetic systems is a fascinating one, mirroring the way we often cling to assumptions about language and cognition. It’s a reminder that the perceived "difficulty" of something can be entirely subjective, a product of our ingrained biases and the mental models we construct. The initial aversion to Anki cards, the dread of memorizing thousands of characters—these are relatable feelings for anyone who’s attempted a new language. It also echoes a point made in A Good Review, where the author champions well-considered assessments over knee-jerk reactions, a principle equally applicable to evaluating linguistic systems.
The core argument, that proficient readers in both systems essentially recognize words as holistic units, bypassing individual letter or radical analysis, is compelling. The author rightly points out that the difference often boils down to the *type* of hint provided – pronunciation versus meaning. This subtly shifts the focus from the mechanics of writing to the cognitive processes underlying reading comprehension. Consider, too, the exploration of linguistic hybridity, particularly in languages like English and Japanese. English, with its notoriously irregular spelling, provides a fascinating case study in how a writing system can become divorced from its etymological roots. It’s a point touched upon in A Good Review where the author notes English’s tendency to retain foreign word origins, offering those intriguing clues to a word’s history. Then there's Japanese, where kanji are often combined to form multi-syllabic words, blurring the lines between logographic and alphabetic elements – a complexity further explored in Languages of a City of Sadness, which looks at how language shapes culture and identity.
What makes this realization particularly resonant is its challenge to the common narrative of linguistic progress. We're often told that alphabetic systems are inherently "superior" – more efficient, more accessible. This post subtly dismantles that assumption, suggesting that the apparent complexity of logographic systems is merely a consequence of our cultural conditioning and the learning curve associated with a different cognitive approach. The emphasis on “hints” is especially astute; all writing systems offer hints, whether they're phonetic cues or semantic associations. The value of those hints is, of course, dependent on the learner and their goals. Someone interested in etymology might find English’s messy orthography incredibly rewarding, while a learner focused on rapid comprehension might prefer a more direct phonetic mapping. The author’s experience with Romanian, a highly phonemic language, further illuminates the role of native language in shaping our perceptions of writing systems.
Ultimately, this isn’t about declaring logographic systems “better” than alphabetic ones. It’s about broadening our understanding of how language works and challenging the rigid categories we impose upon it. It's a reminder that language, in all its forms, is a messy, evolving, and ultimately fascinating phenomenon. The post’s concluding observation—that both systems require practice and that the underlying cognitive processes are surprisingly similar—is a powerful and encouraging message for anyone embarking on a new linguistic journey. The question now is, will this shift in perspective lead to a renewed interest in studying and revitalizing logographic writing systems, and could a deeper understanding of their cognitive mechanisms inform the design of more effective language learning tools?
I recently had this sort of realization. That logographic writing systems and alphabetic ones are the same. I think until now I saw the logographic writing system as something way too hard to get into. As something different. As something that takes way longer to get into. As something perhaps inefficient. As something I'd need to learn thousands of Anki cards to have any chance with.
First off, let's look at being good at reading in an alphabetic writing system. Once you get really good at it then you... don't you instantly recognize words? I believe that is what happens. If you get really good and fast at reading then you also stop subvocalizing, no? You just see the word and get the meaning. W => M. You get it instanly. My point here is that you... essentially recognize the word as a single sort of character. Just a word. You recognize its shape. I doubt we need to read each individual letter once we have become proficient with it. Doesn't this sound just like a logographic writing system? You see the character and get the meaning. You end up in the exact same place. The only difference is... the pronunciation hints? But in logographic systems you may also get that. Oh.
Hints. Isn't writing all about hints? Logographic systems may give hints as to the meaning of a word. Couldn't that potentially be an even more useful hint than just a pronunciation one? What's the point of beint able to pronounce a word when you don't know it?
I guess all of that makes sense but to me the alphabetical still felt more right. But why? Hmm. My native language is Romanian and in Romanian we have a really phonemic writing system. Logographic systems are cool and all but they would be harder. But why? I thought about it and I think it comes down to this one thing— word recognition. The way I grew up I could just grab a piece of text and once I knew the letters then I could read anything. All of the words I had learned growing up would get activated by this. I believe that this a crucial point. Knowing the alphabetical system I instantly can recognize all the words I already knew growing up. This is not had in a logographic writing system and I think that might have been my main problem with it.
But. Maybe I was wrong. Why did I think that you can only recognize words from knowing their pronunciation? What about the meaning hints of logographic systems and the context? And once a child growing up in that culture recognizes what that word is... then they can also remember what its pronunciation is? Like if they can tell that a written word means "grass" then they would of course know the word for "grass" having grown up with that language and that means they also know its pronunciation. So it's just that easy, no? I think my main gripe was that "word recognition" thing but it seems it can happen this way as well. You can recognize a word by its meaning and then you know its pronunciation, no? Plus in Japanese(TL) the kanji they use also have readings tied to them which makes it even easier.
Aren't languages hybrids anyways? I have been trying to learn Japanese and in Japanese they often use multiple kanji per word and these kanji have set readings to them.(I don't have experience with Chinese but it's probably similar?) Of course they have multiple readings and there's way too many of them... but this is kinda alphabetic, in a way. And have you heard of English? English is also "logographic" in a way but without much of any of the benefits of meaning hints. There could be a theoretical logographic language that had a strict only 1 character per each word. That would be the most logographic writing system. Japanese is not there. Romanian is closer to a most alphabetic system while English is less so.
Hints. I believe thinking as writing giving you hints is pretty useful. And this also opens up the possibility of more interesting hints.(like for any conlangs btw?).One thing the weird spelling system of English gives you is often the origin of the word, no? I remember seeing "piranha" and recognizing the "nh" spelling for "ñ" in Portuguese and feeling like that had to have been a word from Portuguese. And checking its etymology, it does indeed come form an indigenous language through Portuguese into English. English has not adapted the words, unlike other languages, so you can tell where they are from. This is cool and all but I could have known where the word came from anyways even if it was adapted to English. This is why I call them "hints". To a pro they are ultimately useless. This is why I say that logographic = alphabetic. The only difference is arguably in the hints and the hints eventually stop mattering anyways once you get good. The hints only matter more to beginners.
Of course culture is great. I think I hear talk of how great culture is often when I hear talk of logographic systems. This post is not about that. It only looks at the more practical aspect of it. I had thought the practical aspect would be kinda bad/hard so I was getting ready to grit it and get through the writing system to get to the good stuff... but the writing system is actually pretty good? I am not discovering anything here, I am just giving my experience. I feel more motivated to learn the writing system now I think. I am using subs in Japanese and I feel like it's working. With enough practice this is super doable. Ultimately in both cases you just need practice. It's the same. What are your thoughts on the logographic vs alphabetic difference?
[link] [comments]
Read on the original site
Open the publisher's page for the full experience