As a Chinese I want to contribute some thought into this topic.
One thing I want to mention is the difference in language. Classical Chinese is a language extremely difficult to master. It literally take decades of effort to be able to write a decent piece. It is hard not because of complicated grammar or complex sentence structure. But because it focus on poetic expressions and scholarly idioms. This language is very enjoyable to read and relatable when used in expressing emotions and ideas. However it is quite cumbersome in expressing precise logic and definitions. Yet at least before the new cultural movement in 1916 it is generally regarded that anything worth put into writing should be done in Classical Chinese. This severely limits the participation of the general populace. Even if someone is trained enough to put down scientific related topics in Classical Chinese it is unlikely to be regarded as a masterful piece and gather much audience. Just like if a poorly written piece is posted in lesswrong we are more likely to skip it regardless of the content it is expressing.
Classical Chinese is a language extremely difficult to master. It literally take decades of effort to be able to write a decent piece. It is hard not because of complicated grammar or complex sentence structure. But because it focus on poetic expressions and scholarly idioms.
Sounds like writing became mainly a way to signal one’s intelligence and erudition, instead of a tool for efficient communications. But why didn’t Western civilization fall into the same trap, or how did it manage to get out of it?
I am by no means expert in this. My theory is effective writing in general is a way to signal one’s intelligence in most medieval societies. This is especially so if one can write and read in a form of ancient text. But in Western Europe this was achieved by directly using a old language—Latin. Proficiency in a different language by itself is enough to be an indicator of intelligence. However the Chinese to an extent have been using the same language (or at least writing) for the entire history. An example would be for a typical grade 8 Chinese language textbook would include many old passages some of which was written 18 centuries ago. Being able to write plainly in an everyday language is not something hard. So the Chinese scholars have a greater urge to show their status by using poetic and archaic expressions. Very often at the expense of clarity.
Huff had a section on this which I didn’t cover for space reasons but which matches what you say. (p. 293)
In his analysis of the Chinese system of written communication, Derk
Bodde points to the many weaknesses of the Chinese language as an instrument
of clear and unambiguous communication. These include its ancient lack
of punctuation, the habit of ignoring paragraph indentations, capitalization
of proper names (or the use of other signibers), and the lack of continuous
pagination, as well as the absence of a system of alphabetization. 17 The importance
of the last of these as an aid to the organization of knowledge can hardly
be overstated. This state of affairs is itself related to the absence of Chinese
grammarians until the twentieth century.18
Professor Bodde also notes that Chinese characters tend to be monosyllabic,
and although they have undergone relatively little morphological change, they
are capable of taking on very different meanings. Indeed, alternative translations
(which are grammatically correct) may produce diametrically opposite
meanings (on which more later). On another level, Bodde accentuates
the tendency of writers of literary Chinese to use a great variety of archaic
metaphors, allusions, cliches, and notoriously unmarked direct transcriptions
from ancient authors. These practices obviously present many pitfalls for the
unwary reader or unfortunate translator. 19
The ambiguity of Chinese words and their use is illustrated by the following
example. A simple phrase from Confucius is composed of eight terms: Kung
hu yi tuan ssu hai yeh yi. This phrase, Bodde tells us, could be given two
literal translations which are apposite: “Attack on strange shoots this harmful
is indeed” or “Study of strange shoots these harmful are indeed. “20 Given
a fluid English translation, this phrase has four equally correct translations
according to Bodde:
1. “To attack heterodox doctrines: this is harmful indeed!”
2. “Attack heterodox doctrines [because] these are harmful indeed!”
3. “To study heterodox doctrines: this is harmful indeed!”
4. “Study heterodox doctrines [because] these are harmful indeed!”
Ahh, the famous Lun Yu. It is full of such expressions that direct translation gives you a headache. To me the most famous example would be “民可使由之不可使知之”. Due to the lack of punctuation it can be translated in two different ways:
1: 民可使由之，不可使知之：common people shall be commanded, (but) not enlightened.
2: 民可，使由之。不可，使知之。：(if) common people are well educated let them act on their own. If not, enlighten them. Pretty drastically different political ideal here.
As a Chinese I want to contribute some thought into this topic.
One thing I want to mention is the difference in language. Classical Chinese is a language extremely difficult to master. It literally take decades of effort to be able to write a decent piece. It is hard not because of complicated grammar or complex sentence structure. But because it focus on poetic expressions and scholarly idioms. This language is very enjoyable to read and relatable when used in expressing emotions and ideas. However it is quite cumbersome in expressing precise logic and definitions. Yet at least before the new cultural movement in 1916 it is generally regarded that anything worth put into writing should be done in Classical Chinese. This severely limits the participation of the general populace. Even if someone is trained enough to put down scientific related topics in Classical Chinese it is unlikely to be regarded as a masterful piece and gather much audience. Just like if a poorly written piece is posted in lesswrong we are more likely to skip it regardless of the content it is expressing.
Sounds like writing became mainly a way to signal one’s intelligence and erudition, instead of a tool for efficient communications. But why didn’t Western civilization fall into the same trap, or how did it manage to get out of it?
I am by no means expert in this. My theory is effective writing in general is a way to signal one’s intelligence in most medieval societies. This is especially so if one can write and read in a form of ancient text. But in Western Europe this was achieved by directly using a old language—Latin. Proficiency in a different language by itself is enough to be an indicator of intelligence. However the Chinese to an extent have been using the same language (or at least writing) for the entire history. An example would be for a typical grade 8 Chinese language textbook would include many old passages some of which was written 18 centuries ago. Being able to write plainly in an everyday language is not something hard. So the Chinese scholars have a greater urge to show their status by using poetic and archaic expressions. Very often at the expense of clarity.
Huff had a section on this which I didn’t cover for space reasons but which matches what you say. (p. 293)
Ahh, the famous Lun Yu. It is full of such expressions that direct translation gives you a headache. To me the most famous example would be “民可使由之不可使知之”. Due to the lack of punctuation it can be translated in two different ways:
1: 民可使由之，不可使知之：common people shall be commanded, (but) not enlightened.
2: 民可，使由之。不可，使知之。：(if) common people are well educated let them act on their own. If not, enlighten them. Pretty drastically different political ideal here.