I thought this debate was really interesting. It was great to see the different points of view laid out so articulately. As for me, I agree with Hsuan Meng, who writes, "In Taiwan and Hong Kong, schoolchildren have no trouble learning traditional characters, and those regions demonstrate some of the highest literacy rates in the world." I believe that oftentimes, people attibute the increased levels of literacy in China since 1950 to the switchover to simplified characters. I believe it is not the simplified characters that increased literacy, but the widespread campaign to standardize the educational system. Personally, I dislike simplified characters, and love the fact that traditional characters "offer a stronger and richer connection with the history of the Chinese language. "

As for the movement to switch back to traditional forms, I believe it will never be successful. The switch to simplified characters has been complete and total in the mainland. I think that Eileen Chow makes a good point: "Given the increasing flow of published and online materials among the mainland China, Taiwan, and the overseas Chinese diasporas, a literate reader must have the ability to code-switch. Thus, the answer is not either/or, but — annoyingly for policy makers — both."

Hi Ava, thanks for your input on this post. In fact, at my school, we start with teaching traditional characters and later introduce the simplified version in the second/third year. The students get to pick which form they want to use. The Chinese teachers are required to master both traditional and simplified characters. This teaching system has so far works fine, the only down side is that students sometimes use a mix of traditional and simplified characters in their writing.

Nowadays, the question seems to be, "Should the student first learn complex or simplified character forms?" versus "Should the student learn complex or simplified?" Increasingly it has become apparent that students will need to comprehend both character sets to become fully proficient in Chinese.

對於漢語的繁簡，作爲一名在海外的華文老師，我的看法是：繁體字和簡體字都各有優劣。繁體字的優勢是1）更清晰地體現造字原理，2）便於進行歷史研究等工作。簡體字的優勢是更容易學習，方便書寫閲讀，易推廣。如果繁簡字體共存，可以考慮“讀繁寫簡，” 繁體字作爲印刷體，簡體字作為書寫体。

This is an interesting area for discussion, but two important elements are, for the most part, neglected, consideration of the mission or purpose of a Chinese program (or a student of Chinese) and comparison with similar issues in other languages.

In my view, the starting point for discussing whether students should learn simplified, traditional, or both, is to look at the mission of the program. If the mission or purpose of foreign language programs in US schools were to prepare students for the study of ancient texts, our schools would be filled with ancient Greek and Latin programs. Obviously they are not. The ACTFL standards for Advanced proficiency in reading state “Texts at this level include descriptions and narrations such as simple short stories, news items, bibliographical information, social notices, personal correspondence, routinized business letters, and simple technical material written for the general reader.” This is a far cry from expecting someone to be able to do research in ancient texts as suggested by Hsuan Meng.

I agree that we must maintain the ability to read and do research in ancient (as well as more recent pre 1950) documents, but decisions about what form of characters should be introduced at the early stages of study bears little relationship to what can be included in more advanced studies. I agree with Hsuan Meng that there appear to be no rigorous studies linking ease of learning with simplified characters. It should be pointed out, however that many proponents of traditional characters make the same claim, that it is easier to learn traditional first.

Making a decision on entry level character sets must be done in the context of the school community. Schools in Portland, Oregon with a relatively small Chinese community may find strong support for simplified characters for a variety of reasons; perceptions that simplified are easier or belief that their students are much more likely to visit/work on mainland China rather than Taiwan, as two examples. Schools in San Francisco, on the other hand, may make a very different decision for equally valid but different reasons; a large and vibrant Chinese community with ties to Hong Kong and Taiwan or the prevalence of Chinese language signs throughout the city that are almost universally in traditional form. The entry point is much less important than the exit point, however. By the time students reach Intermediate level, they must be able to read both simplified and traditional text at their appropriate level. I disagree with Eileen Cheng-yin Chow that this should be considered an annoyance for policy makers. Just as with learning to write block letters and cursive in English, it is just the way it is,

Finally, I think the points brought up by Norman Matloff concerning confusion over meaning when one character in simplified form may replace two or more traditional characters indicate a common problem in discussions about Chinese. There is a tendency to look at issues in Chinese as if they do not exist in any other language. Perhaps because major differences between written Chinese and written English are so obvious, we assume there are no similarities. The use of homophones in simplified characters produces no greater complication in Chinese than it does in English. For example, when the computer sees the English word “bow” it must choose between no less than 13 definitions that range from: a looped knot, a weapon for firing arrows, a rod for playing stringed instruments, bend head or body forward, front part of a boat or ship, etc. While inconvenient for the computer, it is not a problem unique to Chinese.

In short, discussions over which character set should be learned should really focus on which character set should be introduced at the entry level, because the exit level of any program must include the ability to read both. That entry level decision should be made at the school level, based on the school’s purpose, resources, etc. and not on the preferences and prejudices of persons far removed from the experiences of that individual school.