The example he gave is not a good one. I instantly recognized both words because the Chinese word for dragon is a single character and in English, words are separated by spaces.
Often times, words in Chinese are made up of 2 or 3 characters, or even 4.
Take for example this word [set?]
可口可樂
This means Coca-Cola in Chinese. In an English sentence, Coca-Cola is unmistakable as it's a word surrounded by spaces. In Chinese, we don't use spaces, we must decide for ourselves when words start and words end.
Furthermore, 可口 means thirsty. So it wouldn't be until I got to the third character that I would know I'm not reading thirsty (though more realistically context should have defined it for me already).
I find Chinese sentences involve much fewer syllables than English though, so perhaps there is some merit to that.
I read Chinese and Japanese. None natively, and I can read Japanese faster than my own native language. I can attest without the shadow of a doubt that native Japanese and Chinese speakers read way faster than native English speakers (or native French, Spanish or Russian speakers). There may be outliers, of course. Whether this is a matter of literacy level or inherent to the language could be debated, I guess. But the difference is substantial enough for me to think it's more than literacy.
I do agree that the example given is not good, though.
I find Japanese extremely good for visual text scanning. You can look for a particular character and find it at ease. Semantically unimportant text (grammar) is usually hiragana (visually very different) and loan words are usually katakana (also visually very different). There is usually a space after the main subject (in the form of the punctuation mark 、 - not really a comma and doesn't work the same way either）.
I can scan through text in Japanese considerably faster now that I can in my own mother tongue. From my point of view that's pretty definitive. My Chinese is still lower intermediate but I can see how my Chinese and Taiwanese friends read and they aren't any slower than Japanese.
I wish people would stop citing their own anecdotal experiences as data. The article clearly states that studies have not supported your assertion that native Chinese speakers read faster than native English speakers or vice versa. If you have a contradictory study then cite that, but stop making anecdotal claims.
It's funny that I got more downvotes when I'm posting about basically my day job.
It's actually self-evident for anyone who knows both languages that Chinese is semantically more dense than English and by that effect alone it's much faster to read (it takes fewer words to express the same thing, generally speaking).
I could point you to many studies to this effect but I think it's beside the point. I think the point the author is trying to make is that Chinese is faster to "scan" than English. This is harder to prove, but from my own experience I think so. As a matter of fact I do scan Chinese characters in text faster than words in my own mother tongue, and I've been reading Japanese for about just 13 years and Chinese for about 4 years (I'm in my 30s).
"It's actually self-evident for anyone who knows both languages that Chinese is semantically more dense than English and by that effect alone it's much faster to read"
By the same token, it is self-evident that English text, gzipped, then base-64 encoded, being denser, will be much faster to read than bare English. Because of that, I do not think that argument has much value.
It's not flawed in its context. It would be flawed if your point was valid. For your point to be valid, the obfuscation you imply should either be true, or unknown. It's not unknown to whoever knows the language. It's simply false.
In other words, you cannot assume a variable to be unknown when one of the parties does know it.
I wouldn't consider the jump from 382 to 386 words per minute to be "way faster". That said, in a periphrastic language like English, those 382 words convey less meaning.
Typically the same article originally written in Japanese is read in about 60% of the time than the translated version is read by a native speaker.
It's probably not so much when the original is not Japanese written by a native-level speaker, because the semantic density is usually lower.
Measuring word count would give you a completely different idea. It must also be noted that you don't usually read every single word in Asian languages since often whole sentences are short enough to recognise their whole shape. This happens in all languages but in ideograph based ones sentences take a lot less space in readable form (although they may take about as much if not more pen strokes).
Not sure if serious, but consider English "to", "too", and "two".
Disclaimer/explanation: I actually studied Japanese, but I'm assuming the same principle applies. If so, the symbols would be different because of the differing meanings, and the pronunciation is coincidental.
Your example is not very good either, because 可口可樂 is an intentional translation aimed to invoke positive association by using existing words, it could totally go by sound and be 考卡考樂.
Similar effect can be achieved translating Chinese to English too, there are plenty spelling confusions for Chinese family names such as Wang, Dang etc.
The example he gave is not a good one. I instantly recognized both words because the Chinese word for dragon is a single character and in English, words are separated by spaces.
Often times, words in Chinese are made up of 2 or 3 characters, or even 4.
Take for example this word [set?]
可口可樂
This means Coca-Cola in Chinese. In an English sentence, Coca-Cola is unmistakable as it's a word surrounded by spaces. In Chinese, we don't use spaces, we must decide for ourselves when words start and words end.
Furthermore, 可口 means thirsty. So it wouldn't be until I got to the third character that I would know I'm not reading thirsty (though more realistically context should have defined it for me already).
I find Chinese sentences involve much fewer syllables than English though, so perhaps there is some merit to that.