--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
wrote:

> suzmccarth wrote:
> >
> > --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Nicholas Bodley" <nbodley@...>

wrote:

> > >
> > > Peter Daniels wrote:
> > >
> > > [PTD} English spelling is widely regarded as quasi-logographic
> > >
> > > I'm just realizing that, for the first time. It's something of

a

> > shock.
> >
> > As long as the terms 'logographic' and quasi-logographic' are

used

> > to describe Chinese and English writing systems the similarities

in

> > phonlogical processing between the two will be obscured. There

are

> > sub-lexical (phonological) dyslexics among readers of both

Chinese

> > and English. Since Defrancis and others described Chinese
> > as 'morphosyllabic', recognizing the phonological basis of

Chinese

> > writing, a great deal of work has been done in the area of

reading

> > theory and dyslexia among Chinese students. To continue calling
> > Chinese 'logographic' does such a disservice to those who wish to
> > observe how children access literacy through a writing system.
>
> What do you think "logographic" means?

It implies to me a lexical mapping rather than phonological and
morphological mapping between written and spoken language.
Logographic would mean to me that Chinese characters represent
words. Have I somehow misunderstood this meaning of logographic? I
realize it is broadly accepted as a descriptive term but it seems
that it obscures comparisons between writing systems that are useful
for observing how people interact with a writing system - problems
in reading and writing.

Suzanne McCarthy

> > http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/ho01706.htm
> --
> Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...