Syllables, tones and graphs: Megamix!

[chrix]

So what precisely are beginners to do with your list? Why would beginners need a 400 character list? What's wrong with the traditional approach of teaching initials, rimes and tones separately? Doesn't that reduce the cognitive burden quite a bit?

[Gharial]

Chrix, I would ask what you mean by 'teach tones seperately' - give students a rather random and limited sampling (e.g. "the five ma's")? When they could be assigning a representative tone to every one of (certainly, the more useful of the) 400 odd syllables? Either way, I do actually teach the initials, the Pinyin spelling conventions of the finals when used independently, before coming to all the possible combinations of initials and finals in the form of a table of the sounds of Mandarin (the rough designs of which I'm sure we're all familiar with). It just seems a logical and useful step to me to indicate what tone/character is most common for any given/possible syllable - all facts which can then be built upon and exploited in subsequent materials (dialogues, wordlists, phrase building etc).

As for having 'a sneaking suspicion this is all going to boil down into the equivalent of five minutes work with Unihan, some text-handling functions, and perhaps a frequency list', I appreciate that you may be trying to save me some time, Roddy, and I certainly wouldn't want you to be wasting even five minutes of your own time effortlessly compiling your own character set and comparing it with my A-C section, but the fact remains that it is surely useful for learners (by which I mean beginners) to be given as much information as possible (not that would have to digest it all at once). I mean, the easiest thing for me to do would be to simply in turn direct students to investigate frequency data etc for themselves, rather than mining it and preparing any sort of useful distillation for them.

All that being said, perhaps Chrix is right and the cognitive burden, affective filter etc should be lessened as much as possible (and frequency considerations will eventually take care of themselves, in the course of learning). But in terms of general detail (necessary or unnecessary etc), I'd like to allude again if I may to that radical guide jpeg of mine (yup, moving away a bit from pronunciation now). It may look a bit dense, perhaps even a bit of a cluttered mess, but it's not something I would just slap down in front of unprepared beginners - it is a supplement to a whole wider and progressively building set of instructions, that will hopefully have prepared students to discern at least the graphetic (stroke) composition of each radical they're seeing, and there are instructions at the top of the guide itself that indicate relative frequency, and that learning the English names/possible mnemonics for the radicals should be the main focus; then, there are accompanying exercises that can be read alongside the guide, in conjunction with it, or completed after spending a day or so browsing the guide beforehand (the exercises then would be a sort of recall or final test). Anyway, the point is that there can be more detail in materials than is perhaps strictly necessary to make point A or B, and there is no harm IMHO therefore in incidentally supplying C-Z for the student to come back to when they have questions later (and I think I have anticipated quite a few of the questions that students might have with regards to the OCD radicals, for example).

Anyway, I should probably stop bothering you guys with my used car sales pitch! And thanks for your time.

Edited November 26, 2011 at 04:50 PM by Gharial

[chrix]

Before I'd look at that jpeg again, I'd would like a detailed explanation of what I'm looking at.

Come on, how did you learn Chinese? Did they not go over the different initials and rimes, and the four tones? The idea is to modularise things so students can apply it by differentiating between 20 initials, 20 finals (I don't recall the exact number right now) and four tones. That's less burdensome than asking them to go through 400 different syllables (also if you take into account the tones, the number of syllables should be more like 1,600, I'm sure in the course of your project you established the precise number). This approach is implicit in any textbook I'm aware of.

[renzhe]

The number of unique syllables (initial + final + tone) is around 1200 in Mandarin and 1800 in Cantonese (source: John DeFrancis).

It will probably rise a bit if you add erhua, which can affect most finals.

[Gharial]

WYSIWG with that jpeg, Chrix, and I think I've explained in my last post at least how it fits into the bigger orthographic picture. But to answer your question of how I learned the rudiments of Chinese pronunciation specifically, yes, it was in various materials (PCR I & II, original Colloquial Chinese, etc) the initials plus finals (generally all toneless) plus a few tones applied to an apparently random syllable or two (e.g. those "five ma's"). Plus of course a few examples of tone sandhi especially as it applies to combinations with yi1 and bu4 or third tones in series, and a bit on toneless syllables, and the retroflex suffix -(e)r. And like I say, I see the value in all that and will definitely teach/recommend/present that sort of thing first myself. But I would still like to add some icing to that lovely standard-tin cake we're baking, sickly though that might make some who don't have quite the same sweet tooth.

I recall the figure of about 1200 (it would theoretically be 1600 odd, but "not all syllables occur in all four tones") in Li & Thompson's grammar, for one. Thanks for that, Renzhe.

Anyway, I want to make it very clear that I'm not here to teach anyone on these forums anything - I am in no doubt that a lot of users on here (including you Chrix) know far more about Chinese than I do. But I am nevertheless considering eventually teaching Chinese at some point, and although there may be quality materials out there already, cohesive individual approaches to and specific materials for teaching/learning do not write or even suggest themselves that often, so it is obviously desirable to consider at some point exactly how one personally would or would not do certain things (perhaps in spite of what authority A or B appears to say or recommend). Hence my putting some ideas up here, so that the details at least can be perused and if need be challenged (and I do appreciate the feedback, believe me! Thanks once again everyone for engaging with me, despite my at times convoluted and always pretty long-winded posts!).

Edited November 26, 2011 at 04:51 PM by Gharial

[chrix]

oh for me it's not a matter of who knows more or what, but rather I'm still trying to understand what you're trying to achieve. You asked for comments after all.. Is there a concise way of summing up what exactly your approach would help beginners with?

I'm not being dismissive here, just trying to first understand what it is you're doing..

[Gharial]

Heh, thanks Chrix. OK then, concise, I think I can do that (I'll try anyway!).

I've written what is ostensibly a two-part introduction to Mandarin Chinese. Part 1 deals with pronunciation and the Pinyin alphabet, and is generally pretty standard fare actually (the status of Mandarin; the notion of syllable/morphosyllable; that 1200 figure; initials, and particular aspects thereof e.g. aspiration versus voicing; perhaps some "minimal pairs" practice; independent finals; combining initials and finals; adding tones and where to write the mark; tone sandhi; suffix -er etc). The table of sounds I might now make all toneless, considering your advice about what is essential, and therefore leave the specific tones/characters I'm selecting as a supplement, with supplementary audio. (Those specific tones/characters' full exploitation phraseologically would only come in an actual language course, which I'm not presently considering writing, and probably never will. There are enough of those on the market already, and I'm nowhere near native-speaker level!). That is, I agree that more limited tone practice is sufficient for most students. I'd want to provide sufficient audio though that students get enough practise with at least the toneless syllables generally, both across the table (e.g. a ba pa ma etc; ai bai pai mai etc) and down ((a ai an ang etc;) ba bai ban bang etc) so that vowel/final and consonontal/initial values respectively become well established.

One thing I think I will definitely spare the student is my dodgy terminology - heteromonic graphoginandtonic and all that. Or I'll at least develop a simple set of symbols to convey whatever information somehow, if I do persist with this aspect of my materials development.

Anyway, Part 1 would provide a more thorough grounding than some courses do, and thus be a good springboard into any Pinyin-based course.

Part 2 meanwhile moves beyond Pinyin and considers the orthography that native Chinese use - hanzi. There isn't too much discussion about the exact nature and evolution of characters (readers are referred to DeFrancis), just hopefully revealing little asides and comments amidst a flow of practical details regarding form, dictionary ordering and look-up tips (Part 2 could actually be viewed partly as a sort of Chinese dictionary skills workbook). The discussion moves from defining strokes to looking at the strokes that are radicals in the OCD (i.e. CASS radicals 1-5) in terms of name, and relatedly how they are drawn, though the remaining basic and derived strokes are also mentioned, in the form of a table that should hopefully reveal their interrelations, especially in terms of being able to function as radicals, and all counting as one stroke in stroke counts. From this basis the student can then appreciate how 2-stroke radicals are formed/written/counted, and then 3-stroke etc, whilst being introduced to the concept of radical and residue and how to find things in dictionaries (but the emphasis is on the radicals, as residues can be quite a variety of shapes and come second to establishing and finding the radical). Simplified radicals are then compared to traditional, revealing the differences in the CASS and Kangxi systems at least (with a mention of the unified 201-radical system). Then examples of stroke order the whole way through more complex characters are given, to consolidate and move beyond the earlier stuff on mainly initial strokes/ordering. Finally, the student is invited to peruse the OCD's 188 radicals in depth, and provided with guidance and/or consolidation exercises to help them through the supplementary radical guide (jpeg) previously mentioned; a two-way conversion chart between CASS and Kangxi systems is also provided, with Kangxi-unique radicals indicated and defined. A list of References and Further Reading and Study suggestions completes Part 2.

Part 2 would therefore be just the sort of thing to read after completing a Pinyin-based course and prior to starting a hanzi-based one (or indeed, looking at authentic native materials).

Parts 1 and 2 combined would thus make quite good (relatively detailed) bookends to any Pinyin-based (or predominantly Pinyin-based) UK-published coursebook (e.g. Teach Yerself Chinese; Hugo's Chinese in 3 Minutes; Kan Qian's version of Colloquial Chinese). I know that e.g. Teach Yerself/Liz Scurfield has written a few other books (e.g. one dealing with the script), but I wonder if they are quite as detailed or useful in the longer term. And believe it or not, I can write quite clearly and succinctly when I really put my mind to it (but I should probably prove that by posting something from the start of this fantastic Part 2 I've written - but feel free to dissuade me, if only so I protect the copyright of those potential millions in royalties:lol:. But seriously, I've written this stuff mainly for my own pleasure and possible teaching/learning [the radical chart is proving handy at least!], and am under no illusions that any publishers would be swooning over it!(sh)).

Darn, not a concise post at all! Sorry, Chrix!

Anyway, haven't you guys got any halfway interesting (or rather, equally half-crazed) projects of your own to tell us all about?

Edited February 11, 2010 at 04:50 AM by Gharial
Typos! Aargh!

[renzhe]

There are enough of those on the market already, and I'm nowhere near native-speaker level!

...

One thing I think I will definitely spare the student is my dodgy terminology

Do I understand correctly that you're trying to write a textbook for teaching people Chinese? Or some aspects of Chinese?

No offense, but why on Earth would you write a textbook for teaching people if you're nowhere near native-speaker level?

[HashiriKata]

No offense, but why on Earth would you write a textbook for teaching people if you're nowhere near native-speaker level?

I'm inclined to agree with renzhe. It's easy to teach even if you're not there yet but to write a textbook with such knowledge is a different matter. The lack of knowledge will be shown (demonstrated? ) clearly on every page...

[chrix]

Now we finally begin to understand what it is you're trying to do.

As others have said, it certainly looks like an ambitious undertaking: OK, let me ask you this way: what's the main difference to "traditional" textbooks and why do you do it differently, what theory of learning/framework of applied linguistics is this based on, what are the theoretical underpinnings of your approach? I mean all this character stuff surely serves some didactic purpose...

Anyway, haven't you guys got any halfway interesting (or rather, equally half-crazed) projects of your own to tell us all about?

Just have a look around the forums here and you'll quickly see what projects we're doing around here...

[Gharial]

Hi Renzhe. Yup, I'm "writing a book", but about mainly those two aspects mentioned: Mandarin pronunciation, and the native script's general graphetic composition.

I don't think that one actually has to be at a super-dooper high level to have something to say about these two things at least, but it would sure help if some of those people who are (or claim to be) at a high level could write better materials.*(sh)

That is, raw knowledge is one thing, but organizing it is another, and then there are degrees/levels of both knowledge and its organization. At the moment I'm simply drawing a line under the more formal things I know and feel I could probably teach, no more and no less. Of course I will need to study the wider language quite a bit more still, and take at least the HSK in order to really prove myself as a potential teacher (but then, in the UK, it is probably easier for the government, especially now, to hire native speakers than assess and "train" non-natives...but maybe that's the best thing as far as the integrity of the Chinese language is concerned? Not that the integrity of the English language is always seen to matter as much, in schools in China, Japan and doubtless in quite a few other countries too. But hey, the native versus non-native debate has been done to death, and I am certainly on the side of the non-native ideally having to have a pretty good level in order to do a language justice).

Anyway, like I say, what I'm working on is more for my own pleasure, and I wouldn't be worrying about it and/or me being unleashed on an unsuspecting public or education system (even the UK's!) anytime soon!

*Me, I still wouldn't claim to be at native level, but I might've been being a bit hard on myself just now by saying 'nowhere near' (as that might make one think I attained no degree of fluency at all...but "what can I say"? I wasn't exactly a slouch - I could get out and about in China no problem, get things done myself, make friends, have light conversations, read signs, menus, bills, leaflets, get the gist of printed materials etc, and lived there for almost two years whilst mixing outside of work (TEFLing) with mainly Chinese, non-English speaking friends. But then, I'd completed a postgrad diploma before going to China, so I guess getting out and about etc was the least I should have been able to do! (By saying that last thing, I'm just trying to introduce some ambiguity back into things, by implying I could've studied a bit harder, rather than "blow my trumpet"!).

Edited February 12, 2010 at 03:54 AM by Gharial
Improving previously wooly expression

[Gharial]

OK, let me ask you this way: what's the main difference to "traditional" textbooks and why do you do it differently, what theory of learning/framework of applied linguistics is this based on, what are the theoretical underpinnings of your approach? I mean all this character stuff surely serves some didactic purpose...

Hi again Chrix. The problem with quite a few books is that they give certain things short shrift, or bodge things (at least, how they express things), or plain don't include the information you could be after. For example, many courses don't really make it clear where a tone mark should be written (sure, you can write a number after the syllable, or type 'em up electronically, but still)*; or they provide few or no examples and exercises relating to the constant (and recursive) application of the "CASS third sort" rule to not only character residues in the radical index but the items in the radical chart etc too (one is usually fobbed off with the good old '3-stroke water radical + 5-stroke residue' sort of example, and that's it), with the result that people don't really come to fully appreciate the ordering of forms in their dictionary and thus remain pretty slow at using at least paper ones; or they don't mention what a silly jumble the Kangxi radicals are compared to the CASS (there, I've said it); or they don't spell out little things like exactly why the dot disappeared off of the top of the simplified character for chang3 (factory), or why some simplified forms look so different (e.g. that dou4, gu 3 etc). You can of course find all these things out, if you own a whole stack of books all somewhat differing from each other/with differing emphases, or are pretty clued up and resourceful in internet searching, but wouldn't it be nice if as much as possible were collated into or written especially as a fully-integrated, cohesive one-stop resource! That made students more au fait with essential principles. (And guess who's making notes at least on just such a thing...LOL).

So just imagine...years (decades?) later I am top level in HSK and jabbering away in umpteen dialects of Chinese. I then add a couple of language courses to my pronunciation and hanzi introduction (making them effectively opening chapters in a much bigger, deskcrunching work), then create a mnemonic character guide to rival Heisig/Matthews/Hoenig/Ann etc, etc etc, and then before you know it....BAM old age gets me and I am six feet under and the richest guy in the graveyard of dead wannabe Sinologists.

But seriously, my Chinese studies, such as they were, were rather "interrupted" by a decade-long hiatus of TEFLing, during which I read around in all sorts of stuff (mainstream/"traditional" English grammar, Systemic-Functional, a tiny bit of Generative, and linguistics and applied linguistics generally, believe it or not) and tried to be an informed, halfway decent English teacher at the very least. I guess my watchwords would be empiricism, functionalism, lexis, obviously communication, and finally bourbon creams.

I'm inclined to agree with renzhe. It's easy to teach even if you're not there yet but to write a textbook with such knowledge is a different matter. The lack of knowledge will be shown (demonstrated? ) clearly on every page...

Tell me about it, HashiriKata! But strangely, this doesn't stop English speakers at least making fools of themselves in relation to TEFLy stuff. Which leads me to my final point ("~"): I think it is in some ways "easier" to teach (or certainly imagine teaching) a foreign language than your native. That is, the knowledge of the foreign language, while never absolute, is often quite hard won, to the extent that one might feel, almost has "no choice" really but to feel, so very sure about it (even dogmatic - ever had a conversation with a non-native English learner hung up on some supposed rule/prescription, despite the easily observable and patently obvious facts?), whereas one knows one's native language so well that one can be assailed with choices, alternatives, "doubts" almost...or simply take a lot of things for granted. (But then, non-native learners can take just as much if not more for granted, though intermediates like me try not to take anything for granted:mrgreen:).

*The Wiki and Pinyinfo pages on this are good, but here's my condensation of the rules down to something very short, easily remembered, and not at all technical: "The tone mark goes over the first vowel present, unless it is an i or u, in which case the mark simply moves one letter to the right i.e. to the very next vowel along. (Note that this next vowel can then be an i or u)." Try it, and tell me it doesn't work!

Edited November 26, 2011 at 05:05 PM by Gharial
Yet more typos...R key esp. wasn't working...grrr - oh it is now

[Daan]

What you are trying to do in part 1 reminds me of the textbook used for the pronunciation classes at my university, De uitspraak van het Mandarijn in 101 oefeningen. You probably don't read Dutch, but if you do, have a look.

[Gharial]

Thanks for the book suggestion, Daan! I'm now checking out the author's site, sample pages, the other thread where it's mentioned (by you, and seconded by somebody else) etc. Even though I don't know Dutch.