DeFrancis article on Chinese writing reform

[djwebb2004]

To ignore one's theory and research (despite having specialized knowledge from unique qualifications) simply because of their race is the essence of racism.

?? Put the argument round the other way. Tell your Chinese friends that an American professor who is a great Sinologist has built his career on a campaign to abolish Chinese characters. (His ABC dictionary is brilliant, but the **worse** part of the Wenlin software is the examples in pinyin without characters, which are often ambiguous.) You're gonna say, if the Chinese object to it, they're racist. They could say, a foreigner building his career on a desire to eliminate the key pillar of Chinese culture is more than a little prejudiced. Let me put it another way: show me a single native speaker who does not think DeFrancis' thesis is prejudiced....

In all this debate: the question of "why" is not addressed. Why abolish the characters? Apparently one of DeFrancis' books is dedicated to "Old Wang", an illiterate peasant. But: the spread of urbanisation and 9 years education will eliminate literacy in China (the 2005 1% population survey showed literacy and semiliteracy together amounted to 11%, 6% among men, 16% among women). And no one has yet shown me that someone who graduates from the Chinese middle school is illiterate - and so the whole subject is dancing round on nothingness.

You could read the article in pinyin with tonemarks - yes, I concede it is readable - because of the style of the language. I could quote passages from Professor Yi Zhongtian in pinyin that would not be so legible, because he uses about 30 chengyu on a page and uses many classical and historical allusions. Suggestions for script reform should be independent on an suggestion of a change in written style. People have the right to write in whatever style they choose, and a script change should not make writing in a chengyu-laden style difficult.

The Soviet Dungan script: well yes you could explain to an Englishman that "sub" is a Latin prefix meaning below. But there are 50 or more shi's and yi's etc, and understand Chinese without the characters becomes more complex. Even in Korean academic work, while Korean is normally written in all-Hangul, at the higher level there are so many homophones that academic papers have to put the Hanja in brackets so that everyone knows what word is intended.

[HashiriKata]

Imagine this: "I'm sorry Professor Lee you're not American and not white, you have no place to comment or research about English language issues. I don't care if you have a Phd in English or whatever"???

self-taught-mba, if you were such a professor and not white, you'd know that this happens. Now, if you're white, whatever nonsense you spit out, there's a chance that some people will find you reasonable.

[self-taught-mba]

You could read the article in pinyin with tonemarks - yes, I concede it is readable - because of the style of the language.

"because of the style of the language" interesting choice of words especially considering your next sentence:

I could quote passages from Professor Yi Zhongtian in pinyin that would not be so legible, because he uses about 30 chengyu on a page and uses many classical and historical allusions.

If this is the case, this would indicate if he were to read the page out loud he would not be discernible orally. Because of the "style of the language" is Chinese more difficult to understand orally? Is written work easier to be understood? If the professor you name were to want to express his points orally how would he do that? Are you saying he would not be able to use the same chengyu? So yes if you want to name obscure words or cheng yu that wouldn't be understood orally, I'm sure you do need characters. Just as if I were to spout out new words, very complicated words in English that you had no clue about and with spelling that was not intuitive.

I think the real question is: because Chinese characters do remove the ambiguity (there's no doubt about that--or is there: you ever try to see someone look up a Chinese character? even the native Chinese? So it only removes the ambiguity if you are actually already familiar with the character. And worse yet if you aren't familiar with the character there is no possibility of removing the ambiguity through such an easy process as a pinyin lookup) have they been used to such an extent such that the writing style has been fundamentally changed from that of the speaking style?

Moser has speculated about this as well. In other words, because they found a workaround in the characters to remove ambiguity they started using it as a crutch and thus creating a vicious cycle of further reliance on the characters to "remove ambiguity" only after the characters allowed them to use it in such an ambiguous state to begin with.

Suggestions for script reform should be independent on an suggestion of a change in written style.

This is obviously your opinion. I'm not necessarily knocking it, but could you explain it a little more? Most mainstream languages have writing that matches or closely matches the spoken language.

and a script change should not make writing in a chengyu-laden style difficult.

Actually if, as I mentioned above, you absolutely need the characters to help explain the cheng yu, this would indicate that the chengyu aren't able to be understood orally. If this is the case, what makes you think having the characters will necessarily allow understanding to the uninformed? Especially in the case when the character is not known, thus necessitating an extensive search. (As opposed to the ease of pinyin look up-- and don't forget it was this crowd that first pushed the idea of an alphabetically arranged pinyin dictionary to begin with-- which of course was later heavily adopted and can be seen used frequently by the Chinese) (I know electronic means are slowly solving this problem for unknown characters or at least easing the burden)

[self-taught-mba]

if you were such a professor and not white, you'd know that this happens.

Yes it does happen I know (or at least it is thought or implied). And it is just as wrong. In fact it is so obviously wrong and not politically correct that I hoped to bring up as a way of illustrating how ridiculous it would sound. (But somehow it is okay to say it to the white sinologists openly)

Now, if you're white, whatever nonsense you spit out, there's a chance that some people will find you reasonable.

True again at least to some extent. Whites often are favored. This is not right either.

[djwebb2004]

Most mainstream languages have writing that matches or closely matches the spoken language.

Actually, this is not true. It may be so in American English (or may not be, as I don't want to get off-topic), but in most languages there is distinction in the register of language between colloquial speech and literary writings. In most languages, to write down colloquial speech and think that appropriate for academic or formal usage, would be the mark of an uneducated person.

When a Chinese professor writes, he writes for people who are going to see the characters of what he has written. To read out a page of literary Chinese would often require a brief explanation, a verbal gloss here and there, as to which character was being employed. And Victor Mair and the others on the pinyin.info page have admitted in various articles that script reform would require **changing the style of written Chinese, and moving to a more colloquial register**. So a dumbing down of the Chinese language is included in the package.

Script reform was very much on the agenda of the early Communists in China - De Francis' historical explanation of that is quite interesting - and during the "Gang of Four" period, when they smashing the Four Olds - old culture - they did want to get rid of the characters. They produced a very radical list of simplified characters that had to be withdrawn within a couple of years owing to the outcry. Jiang Qing is dead - but the spirit of the Gang of Four lives on in the University of Hawaii. Language is not just a tool of communication - it is a fundamental part of culture. There is no particular reason why the Chinese can't be "told" by foreign experts to use knives and forks, but chopsticks are their culture. That is what independence is all about: a nation exercising its right to govern itself and make its own decisions about which parts of its culture are important to them enough to preserve. John DeFrancis just doesn't get it. His claim in his June 2006 article that the Communist Party will change its mind and promote a script reform seems baseless, by the way.

[atitarev]

Djwebb2004:

I know lots of Chinese people who are greatly offended by this sort of thing - foreign professors who specialize in arguing that the Chinese should abandon their writing system! As Victor someone or other argues on the pinyin.info site, the Chinese could abandon characters, but would have to change their writing style. Chengyu that depend for intelligibility on seeing which characters are used, would be out of the door...

No need to change, see below.

self-taught-mba:

I think the real question is: because Chinese characters do remove the ambiguity (there's no doubt about that--or is there: you ever try to see someone look up a Chinese character? even the native Chinese? So it only removes the ambiguity if you are actually already familiar with the character. And worse yet if you aren't familiar with the character there is no possibility of removing the ambiguity through such an easy process as a pinyin lookup) have they been used to such an extent such that the writing style has been

fundamentally changed from that of the speaking style?

Moser has speculated about this as well. In other words, because they found a workaround in the characters to remove ambiguity they started using it as a crutch and thus creating a vicious cycle of further reliance on the characters to "remove ambiguity" only after the characters allowed them to use it in such an ambiguous state to begin with.

If Korean borrowed ambiguity from Chinese by borrowing a huge number of homophones and Koreans use Chinese characters to disambiguate the words, why don't you suggest to borrow the Korean method - use Chinese characters (in brackets) whenever there is such an ambiguity? That way characters and letters could coexist for a long time?

[xichg]

Chinese people abandoning Chinese Characters? No way. We just won't dumb us down to accomodate you, got it? If you are really motivated to learn Chinese, the Hanzi won't be a problem. Otherwise, just shut up. We don't care if Chinese is easy and appealing to foreigners and 30 millions or even 300 million people are learning it as a second langauge. I don't give it a damn how many foreigners are learning Chinese. Chinese characters are primarily to serve Chiense people and they are doing a good job. We just won't be like a retarded to painfully read pinyin at a speed of a snail. YOu enjoy doing that, good for you. But don't ask us to do the same thing.

[self-taught-mba]

Chinese people abandoning Chinese Characters? No way. We just won't dumb us down to accomodate you, got it? If you are really motivated to learn Chinese, the Hanzi won't be a problem. Otherwise, just shut up. We don't care if Chinese is easy and appealing to foreigners and 30 millions or even 300 million people are learning it as a second langauge. I don't give it a damn how many foreigners are learning Chinese. Chinese characters are primarily to serve Chiense people and they are doing a good job. We just won't be like a retarded to painfully read pinyin at a speed of a snail. YOu enjoy doing that, good for you. But don't ask us to do the same thing.

1. Your tone is really nasty. No, I won't "shut up". Be polite or go elsewhere. There's no reason to be so nasty on the board.

2. With all the Chinese people that I have helped teach English to, a majority of them have complained about the difficulty of English spelling and grammar. Do I get offended? No. They are right our grammar and spelling rules are horribly inconsistent, and even if they weren't right they still have the right to feel that way.

3. On to the only point you mention that was not an emotional diatribe:

Chinese characters are primarily to serve Chiense people and they are doing a good job

Let's evaluate how well they have served Chinese people in the past and presently:

1. A system that educated an elite class was established and steadfastly maintained, perpetuating subsequent generations of an educated elite resting incongruously on a base of mass illiteracy.

2. "Before 1949, the illiteracy rate in China was 80 percent"

3. Historical illiteracy rates as high as 95%, as only the richest people would have the amount of time required to learn the characters (others had to work)

4. Thousands of hours and years spent learning to memorize the characters, when that time could be utilized to study other subjects which would make the Chinese people as a whole more competitive in the world such as math, science, technology. This is an opportunity cost that hurts the aggregate productivity of the Chinese people and economy immensely.

5. Daily communications unable to be carried out or carried out with much difficulty resulting in loss of productivity and in some cases information. A great example from native Chinese Ph.D.'s at Peking University:

I have seen highly literate Chinese people forget how to write certain characters in common words like "tin can", "knee", "screwdriver", "snap" (as in "to snap one's fingers"), "elbow", "ginger", "cushion", "firecracker", and so on. And when I say "forget", I mean that they often cannot even put the first stroke down on the paper. Can you imagine a well-educated native English speaker totally forgetting how to write a word like "knee" or "tin can"? Or even a rarely-seen word like "scabbard" or "ragamuffin"? I was once at a luncheon with three Ph.D. students in the Chinese Department at Peking University, all native Chinese (one from Hong Kong). I happened to have a cold that day, and was trying to write a brief note to a friend canceling an appointment that day. I found that I couldn't remember how to write the character 嚔, as in da penti 打喷嚔 "to sneeze". I asked my three friends how to write the character, and to my surprise, all three of them simply shrugged in sheepish embarrassment. Not one of them could correctly produce the character. Now, Peking University is usually considered the "Harvard of China". Can you imagine three Ph.D. students in English at Harvard forgetting how to write the English word "sneeze"?? Yet this state of affairs is by no means uncommon in China.

From David Moser's article here and here:

6. Loss of productivity. The difficulty in recalling the characters quite frequently in daily life multiplied by 1.3 billion people equals a huge amount of productive work time that has been lost. Add to that the billions of hours spent in the educational system that could be applied elsewhere to further improve the China's competitiveness. Is that serving the Chinese people?

So are the Chinese characters really serving the Chinese people? Or have they historically led to mass illiteracy and slowed productivity thus hurting your people.

[gato]

4. Thousands of hours and years spent learning to memorize the characters, when that time could be utilized to study other subjects which would make the Chinese people as a whole more competitive in the world such as math, science, technology. This is an opportunity cost that hurts the aggregate productivity of the Chinese people and economy immensely.

5. Daily communications unable to be carried out or carried out with much difficulty resulting in loss of productivity and in some cases information. A great example from native Chinese Ph.D.'s at Peking University:

That's why most Chinese people didn't write until the advent of cell phones and the internet. Technology has allowed many more Chinese to express themselves in writing (and has allowed many more foreigners to write Chinese).

[roddy]

(His ABC dictionary is brilliant, but the **worse** part of the Wenlin software is the examples in pinyin without characters, which are often ambiguous.)

That's an interesting point, do you have any examples. To be honest I'd be surprised if there were very many - the ABC's examples tend I think to be in a quite colloquial form and therefore less likely to be ambiguous in pinyin. I stand (as always) ready to be corrected.

Be polite or go elsewhere. There's no reason to be so nasty on the board.

Agreed. If you can't support your point, don't attempt to make it.

[self-taught-mba]

That's why most Chinese people didn't write until the advent of cell phones and the internet. Technology has allowed many more Chinese to express themselves in writing (and has allowed many more foreigners to write Chinese).

Most of them however did write or at least tried to.

I agree technology is making things easier. (That's why at our study in China course we only teach people how to type/text message.)

However, again it is only the elite that have access to this technology. (Many people in China still don't have the money to do so)

Also, unfortunately the educational system has been slow to take this up. This is also true most of the courses that teach Chinese to foreigners.

Technology has be potential to eliminate all of these problems and make characters more viable than ever before. However, until everyone can afford the technology and can be used in everyday life, it will be hard. In the current system will continue to amass billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of hours of lost productivity for the Chinese people.

[djwebb2004]

Agreed. If you can't support your point, don't attempt to make it.

Roddy, he was only sticking up for his culture against foreigners arguing it should be changed. We do need some Chinese input in the debate. He is the first Chinese to take part!! To condemn him for being "emotional" misses the point: characters are part of culture, not just a utilitarian way of communicating. Most people in most nations would get emotional in the face of foreigners arguing for the redundancy of their culture!

My Chinese friend put it this way: "Westerners seem to think characters a hindrance; other Asians, including SE Asians who don't use characters, look on characters as an ingenious Chinese invention, very appropriate for the Chinese language".

[djwebb2004]

1. I agree that no Chinese person I know knows how to write the 嚔 character.They do recognize, but cannot write it. The character is part of the 7000 tongyongzi published by the government, but not part of the 3500 changyongzi.

2. Arguing that in "old China" 95% were illiterate is irrelevant. There was not a comprehensive education system. Are you arguing that now that there is a full education system, people leave middle school still illiterate? Unless you are saying that, you don't have a point.

3. I would like to ask people, including the Chinese man who tried to intervene on this board, how understandable the following passage is. Please don't just say it is not understandable to prove your point, but try to read it. It is a randomly chosen passage, and I think it is largely readable, but I think 2 or 3 characters may be unclear in pinyin. Is that because a foreigner may not know those words? Would all Chinese be able to understand the following passage?

"Zhè yě shì yǒu lì de. Bǐrú Zhàoguó de lǎojiàng Lián Pō, wèile biǎoshì zìjǐ bǎodāobùlǎo, xióngfēngyóuzài, biàn céngjīng zài Zhào Wáng de shǐzhě miànqián, yīkǒuqì chīle yīdǒu mǐ, shíjīn ròu. Yīncǐ Xīn Qìjí cái yǒu "píng shuí wèn: Lián Pō lǎo yǐ, shàng néng fàn fǒu" de shījù. Kěxī Zhào Wáng de shǐzhě shòule Lián Pō zhèngdí de huìlù, huíqù hòu huìbào shuō: Lián lǎo jiāngjun de fànliàng mánhǎo de, zhǐshì xiāohuà xìtǒng bútài língguāng. Yīdùn fàn de gōngfu, shàngle sāncì cèsuǒ. Zhào Wáng yītīng, biàn fànle dígu. Dígu de jiéguǒ, zéshi Lián Pō báichīle nàme duō mǐfàn hé jiǔròu. Fán Kuài de yùnqi jiù hǎo duōle. Yīnwèi Fán Kuài shì dāngzhe Xiàng Yǔ de miàn chī hē de. Hóngményàn shang, Xiàng Yǔ yuánběn yào shā Liú Bāng, jiéguǒ bèi Fán Kuài jiǎohuáng le. Fán Kuài chōngjìn yànhuìtīng, dàwǎn hējiǔ, dàkuài chīròu, érqiě chì de shì shēng zhūtuǐ, jiǎnzhí jiùshi shuàidāikùbì, nòngde Xiàng Yǔ quánrán wàngjìle zìjǐ yào gàn shénme, Liú Bāng yě jiù chènjī liūzhīdàjí. Liú Bāng kāiliū qián, wèn Fán Kuài yàobuyào qù gàocí. Fán Kuài shuō: "Jīnrén fāng wéi dāozǔ, wǒ wéi yúròu, hé cí wéi?" Zhuàngzāi Fán Kuài, búkuì shì néngchī shànyǐn de hànzi, zhè jiàndì shì héděng liǎode!"

[roddy]

Fair enough. If you can't support your point calmly and politely, don't attempt to make it.

[gato]

t is a randomly chosen passage,

"Zhè yě shì yǒu lì de. Bǐrú Zhàoguó de lǎojiàng Lián Pō, wèile biǎoshì zìjǐ bǎodāobùlǎo, xióngfēngyóuzài, biàn céngjīng zài Zhào Wáng de shǐzhě miànqián, yīkǒuqì chīle yīdǒu mǐ, shíjīn ròu. Yīncǐ Xīn Qìjí cái yǒu "píng shuí wèn: Lián Pō lǎo yǐ, shàng néng fàn fǒu" de shījù. Kěxī Zhào Wáng de shǐzhě shòule Lián Pō zhèngdí de huìlù, huíqù hòu huìbào shuō: Lián lǎo jiāngjun de fànliàng mánhǎo de, zhǐshì xiāohuà xìtǒng bútài língguāng. Yīdùn fàn de gōngfu, shàngle sāncì cèsuǒ. Zhào Wáng yītīng, biàn fànle dígu. Dígu de jiéguǒ, zéshi Lián Pō báichīle nàme duō mǐfàn hé jiǔròu. Fán Kuài de yùnqi jiù hǎo duōle. Yīnwèi Fán Kuài shì dāngzhe Xiàng Yǔ de miàn chī hē de. Hóngményàn shang, Xiàng Yǔ yuánběn yào shā Liú Bāng, jiéguǒ bèi Fán Kuài jiǎohuáng le. Fán Kuài chōngjìn yànhuìtīng, dàwǎn hējiǔ, dàkuài chīròu, érqiě chì de shì shēng zhūtuǐ, jiǎnzhí jiùshi shuàidāikùbì, nòngde Xiàng Yǔ quánrán wàngjìle zìjǐ yào gàn shénme, Liú Bāng yě jiù chènjī liūzhīdàjí. Liú Bāng kāiliū qián, wèn Fán Kuài yàobuyào qù gàocí. Fán Kuài shuō: "Jīnrén fāng wéi dāozǔ, wǒ wéi yúròu, hé cí wéi?" Zhuàngzāi Fán Kuài, búkuì shì néngchī shànyǐn de hànzi, zhè jiàndì shì héděng liǎode!"

Come on. There are 文言文 in that passage:

"Jīnrén fāng wéi dāozǔ, wǒ wéi yúròu, hé cí wéi?"

You can't expect people to understand 成语 and 文言文 written in pinyin. Try a dialog from a soap opera and see if people can understand it.

[djwebb2004]

Come on. There are 文言文 in that passage:

"Jīnrén fāng wéi dāozǔ, wǒ wéi yúròu, hé cí wéi?"

You can't expect people to understand 成语 and 文言文 written in pinyin. Try a dialog from a soap opera and see if people can understand it.

Why can't you expect people to understand chengyu and wenyanwen? It comes back to my point that a script reform would mandate a change in style - something that is not strictly within the purview of script reform per se. People should be able to write everything they currently write, just as they currently write it, in any proposed new script.

[heifeng]

Hmm, as a westerner studying Chinese I can see both side of this argument. However as much as productivity is a big deal, I think that tradition and culture are also important to a country's language.

Otherwise language was purely based on efficiency and productivity then English (especially as an international language) should have also undergone a revolution as well to simplify spelling and also boost literacy and facilitate the learning of it as a second language. (Again, due to technology, it will be easier than ever here[/url][ "]and here. ) But no, language has many human aspects to it and take away or mess with it too much and you are removing a part of people's identity...etc..I would be against reform to English spelling and also just consider it "dumbing down" of the language, so I think it is pretty natural for people to resist change to their own language, even if those changes made it more "logical" and "efficient" or not...

Yeah, and I can't handle looking at the above pinyin, it just makes my head hurt. I'd rather just vote for characters. I'm sure my learning all these characters in the very least will keep my mind active enough to ward of alzheimers or something...Also I may not have even chosen to study Chinese if it wasn't for it having characters...

[trien27]

The character "khan" in khan yan in the Dungan language, means dry in that language, but the character doesn't mean dry in Chinese, so no Chinese would be able to read or understand Dungan, unless it's been learnt.

So learning pinyin can limit you knowledge of Chinese characters.

[self-taught-mba]

The character "khan" in khan yan in the Dungan language, means dry in that language, but the character doesn't mean dry in Chinese, so no Chinese would be able to read or understand Dungan, unless it's been learnt.

So learning pinyin can limit you knowledge of Chinese characters.

HUH? Please explain

[djwebb2004]

The passage in Chinese is as follows. it comes from a book by Professor Yi Zhongtian, but is by no means the most chengyu laden part. It contains a few chengyu and relatively easy wenyanwen. I am wondering if an educated Chinese could understand it in pinyin.

这也是有例的。比如赵国的老将廉颇，为了表示自己宝刀不老，雄风犹在，便曾经在赵王的使者面前，一口气吃了一斗米、十斤肉。因此辛弃疾才有“凭谁问：廉颇老矣，尚能饭否”的诗句。可惜赵王的使者受了廉颇政敌的贿赂，回去后汇报说：廉老将军的饭量蛮好的，只是消化系统不太灵光。一顿饭的功夫，上了三次厕所。赵王一听，便犯了嘀咕。嘀咕的结果，则是廉颇白吃了那么多米饭和酒肉。樊哙的运气就好多了。因为樊哙是当着项羽的面吃喝的。鸿门宴上，项羽原本要杀刘邦，结果被樊哙搅黄了。樊哙冲进宴会厅，打碗喝酒，大块吃肉，而且吃的是生猪腿，简直就是帅呆酷毙，弄得项羽全然忘记了自己要干什么，刘邦也就趁机溜之大吉。刘邦开溜前，问樊哙要不要去告辞。樊哙说：“今人方为刀俎，我为鱼肉，何辞为？”壮哉樊哙,不愧是能吃善饮的汉子,这见地是何等了得!