A Number of Arguments that Do Not Conform to the Facts in "Proof that Chinese Characters Are Easy to Learn and Easy to Use"

Abstract

Early this year Research in Education published the article "Proof that Chinese Characters Are Easy to Learn and Easy to Use" (first published [under a different title]). From the start, concerned scientists have been warmly welcomed to join in analyzing and discussing the various problems of Chinese language reform. However, this article fails to resemble what its author describes it to be at the end of the article: "The facts given were ironclad, coming as they did from research. The principles discussed came from the analysis and management of information and from studies of perception, learning, and memory." The examples that he used as so-called proof were for the most part unreliable, unscientific, and undependable. Here I would like to suggest a number of points and ask for the author's guidance concerning them. Moreover, I wish to join together in research and discussion with all those who are concerned about these questions.