Simplification Is Not Dominant in the Evolution of Chinese Characters.

Simon J Han, Piers Kelly, James Winters, Charles Kemp
Author Information
  1. Simon J Han: Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
  2. Piers Kelly: Department of Archaeology, Classics and History, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.
  3. James Winters: School of Collective Intelligence, Mohammed VI Polytechnic University, Rabat, Morocco.
  4. Charles Kemp: Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia. ORCID

Abstract

Linguistic systems are hypothesised to be shaped by pressures towards communicative efficiency that drive processes of simplification. A longstanding illustration of this idea is the claim that Chinese characters have progressively simplified over time. Here we test this claim by analyzing a dataset with more than half a million images of Chinese characters spanning more than 3,000 years of recorded history. We find no consistent evidence of simplification through time, and contrary to popular belief we find that modern Chinese characters are higher in visual complexity than their earliest known counterparts. One plausible explanation for our findings is that simplicity trades off with distinctiveness, and that characters have become less simple because of pressures towards distinctiveness. Our findings are therefore compatible with functional accounts of language but highlight the diverse and sometimes counterintuitive ways in which linguistic systems are shaped by pressures for communicative efficiency.

Keywords

References

  1. Proc Biol Sci. 2005 Feb 7;272(1560):267-75 [PMID: 15705551]
  2. J Vis. 2014 Jul 03;14(8):6 [PMID: 24993020]
  3. Cogn Sci. 2007 Nov 12;31(6):961-87 [PMID: 21635324]
  4. Psychol Bull. 1956 Nov;53(6):452-71 [PMID: 13370691]
  5. Cogn Sci. 2015 Jan;39(1):171-83 [PMID: 25039798]
  6. Vision Res. 2006 Dec;46(28):4646-74 [PMID: 16808957]
  7. PLoS One. 2019 Aug 7;14(8):e0220793 [PMID: 31390374]
  8. Cogn Sci. 2018 Nov;42(8):2648-2669 [PMID: 30178468]
  9. Trends Cogn Sci. 2019 May;23(5):389-407 [PMID: 31006626]
  10. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2016 Aug;42(8):1186-203 [PMID: 26913778]
  11. Behav Res Methods. 2018 Dec;50(6):2606-2629 [PMID: 29934697]
  12. Cogn Sci. 2013 Sep-Oct;37(7):1356-67 [PMID: 23763661]
  13. Psychon Bull Rev. 2019 Jun;26(3):974-984 [PMID: 30478777]
  14. Cognition. 2015 Aug;141:87-102 [PMID: 25966840]
  15. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007 May;48(5):2383-90 [PMID: 17460306]
  16. Cognition. 2017 Aug;165:45-52 [PMID: 28494263]
  17. Cognition. 2021 Sep;214:104771 [PMID: 34034009]
  18. Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Oct;15(5):971-9 [PMID: 18926991]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0ChinesecharacterspressurescommunicativeefficiencydistinctivenesssystemsshapedtowardssimplificationclaimtimefindcomplexityfindingsLinguistichypothesiseddriveprocesseslongstandingillustrationideaprogressivelysimplifiedtestanalyzingdatasethalfmillionimagesspanning3000yearsrecordedhistoryconsistentevidencecontrarypopularbeliefmodernhighervisualearliestknowncounterpartsOneplausibleexplanationsimplicitytradesbecomelesssimplethereforecompatiblefunctionalaccountslanguagehighlightdiversesometimescounterintuitivewayslinguisticSimplificationDominantEvolutionCharactersculturalevolution

Similar Articles

Cited By