Literary Chinese - Bridging the East Asian nations?

[Mark Yong]

I was browsing in a bookstore recently, and came across this book:

Spahn & Hadamitsky "The Kanji Dictionary"

ISBN: 0804820589

Going through the book, I was pleasantly surprised to find such a large number of characters and character combinations where, despite a vast difference in pronunciation, the meanings are virtually identical to those of Chinese. They could either be:

1. Chinese-origin words adopted by Japanese, or

2. Japanese-coined terminology that were adopted by the Chinese (e.g. 政府, 圖書館).

The commonalities were not just a matter of a few disparate entries peppered here-and-there; I estimate that about 99% of the entries I read were common to Chinese, or at least contextually-comprehensible to a Chinese-educated reader.

This reinforces the power of universality that Chinese characters held over the East Asian nations (China, Japan, Korea and Vietnam), which I have written at lengths about in a previous forum thread regarding Literary Chinese.

However, my emphasis for this thread is not so much about Literary Chinese in history, but rather its relevance today as a bridge between the Oriental nations, where Chinese characters have had such a strong historical significance in the development of the respective modern languages today. Over the passage of time, the languages of the East Asian nations have diverged - in much the same way the the Chinese dialects themselves diverged from Old Chinese.

The interesting question that crops up in my mind is, could it be conceivable that if - in theory - all the East Asian nations returned to the older style of writing in Chinese characters (i.e. Literary Chinese), while at the same time retaining modern terms that somehow have become common - could the universality of the Chinese written language be restored, such that the East Asian nations can, once again, understand each other perfectly through the written word?

Of course, I am aware that what I am proposing here flies in the face of a century of language reform in China, the development of the Japanese language, the ascension of Hangeul as a replacement for Hanja in Korea, and the Romanisation of the Vietnamese language to replace Chu-Nom. And with such diverse and isolated modernisations, the prospect of having all East Asian nations return to Literary Chinese as a common written language is highly remote (at least in the foreseeable future).

But at the same time, I do not think it is something totally impossible. Signs in airports written in Kanji can be perfectly understood by people educated in the Chinese language, and vice versa (to a certain extent). Koreans still use Hanja for personal names, and you can still see some commercial signs in Seoul written using Chinese characters. Japanese and Korean schools still teach a minimum of 2,000 to 3,000 Chinese characters. Many Vietnamese words have Chinese origin, and their pronunciations are not so far off from Chinese. And it is well-known that up until the turn of the 20th century, Literary Chinese was still generally understood in pre-modern China, Japan, and to a lesser extent, Korea.

In a lingusitically-Uthopian context, I would like to imagine being able to write a letter in Literary Chinese to, say, a Japanese friend who speaks no Chinese or English, and he will be able to fully understand me through the written word. That was possible a century ago, and it is my (somewhat idealistic) dream that it can, once again, be so today.

To be politically-correct, I would not venture so far as to say that the Chinese language will be a universal language of the Far East, which I think is too anachronistic an assertion. I would limit my suggestion to say that the classical written language be a universal written language for the Far East (perhaps a neutral name like 漢文 would be suitable?).

Instead of foreign students being taught hanzi, kanji and hanja as three separate linguistic entities, would not be so much better if they were introduced and taught as one and the same 漢字?

Of course, to put things in the proper context, I am not suggesting that all the East Asian countries abandon their current national vernaculars to adopt one common spoken language. That would sacrifice the unique linguistic cultures of the various countries. Perhaps what I am suggesting as a start is some form of standardised written 漢文 grammar learnt only at high school level (my bias towards the Literary Chinese model is only as a matter of convenience, since it is already a historically-proven written language vehicle), coupled with the adoption of standard modern terminologies that have been universally accepted (e.g. 飛機場, 消防車).

One trade-off is that this 'standard 漢文' would entail the written Chinese language having to retreat from modern 普通話 terms to older words, e.g. 食 for 'eat' instead of 吃, 飲 for 'drink' instead of 喝, 所在 for 'place' instead of 地方, etc., and the same with standard Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese - in order to achieve true universality.

What I am suggesting here is not just a linguistic proposal, but also a political one. A universal East Asian language will certainly help to strengthen the ties and understandings between the East Asian nations which, over the centuries, have culturally diverged for so long. Chinese characters have endured three millennia of history with little change - something that no other written language can claim. And it is the non-dependence on pronunciation that allows it to truly bridge linguistic gaps in the way that the Roman alphabet cannot.

Postscript:

After writing the above, I found this interesting article on the Web:

http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=chinese_letters

The author appears to assert that cultural pull factors and the emergence of China may serve to re-vitalise the need for literacy in Chinese characters in Japan, Korea and even Vietnam.

[Mark Yong]

As a follow-on to my previous entry...

Attached herein is the Hunmin Jeongeum 訓民正音 (the document written by Korea's King Sejong in the 14th century, when he invented Hangeul). I have also attached an audio clip of the text, as read in Korean.

Could anyone who knows Korean language, tell me if it makes sense when read out loud in Korean, as in the audio clip?

Hunmin.mp3

[seesaw]

回复一点不成熟的看法，仅供参考。

在我看来，汉字被日本和韩国等国家的借用并没有使得这些语言本身和汉语有了更多的相似之处。你同样可以借用汉字来表示大多数英语词语。但重要的是，日语或者韩语语言本身——它们的语法——汉语没有太多相似之处。

韩语我不甚了解。但据说，日语的句子是以"主语(subject)+宾语(object)+动词(verb)"的结构构造的。换言之，他们不说“我爱你”，而是说“我你爱”。从这一点上讲，英语和汉语似乎更为相近一些。

所以，路标这样的简单语言表达固然可以通用汉字标示，但复杂的句子恐怕没办法用相同的方式来表达吧？

[wushijiao]

I think this is certainly an interesting idea, Mark Yong. However, I think the main problem is that classical Chinese is very hard to learn, and thus probably won’t be a convenient medium for the masses.

Similarly to your idea, I’ve often wondered if modern Mandarin might serve as an Asian lingua franca sometime in the distant future. If China continues its strong economic growth, it would not be inconceivable to think that China could become the biggest trading partner of Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. Then, it might be possible that Chinese might overtake English as the most popular foreign language of study.

The biggest problems of creating a lingua franca based on Chinese (whether modern Mandarin or classical) are:

1) The lack of communication between Asia people. Due to geography, very few Chinese people communicate with Japanese or Korean people on a regular basis, unlike European countries in which going from one country to the next is like going from one American state to the next, or Chinese province to the next. In other words, the lack of massive amounts of people traveling prohibits the widespread use of a lingua franca.

2) The lack of teaching a communicative method in classrooms throughout Asia. As far as I know, emphasis is still placed on reading, and analyzing passive grammatical structures.

3) The already popular use of English. Let’s face it: the type of people who will most likely travel from one country to the another are likely to have high paying jobs, which would most likely presuppose that they have received high levels of education, including years of English instruction.

But then again, who knows. Maybe a massive pen-pal system involving students across Asia could help bring about more communication in Chinese.

[Mark Yong]

汉字被日本和韩国等国家的借用并没有使得这些语言本身和汉语有了更多的相似之处。你同样可以借用汉字来表示大多数英语词语。但重要的是，日语或者韩语语言本身——它们的语法——汉语没有太多相似之处。

I agree with you that having a large percentage of 'loan-words' does not mean that the languages can be considered to be genetically-related. The differences in grammatical structures (your 我愛你 example is very good!) is already a major stumbling block to my proposal.

I think the main problem is that classical Chinese is very hard to learn, and thus probably won’t be a convenient medium for the masses.

Agreed. The only reason I suggested that 文言文 be the grammatical model was because I figure it is the most neutral, therefore serving as a mean between the extreme differences in the modern Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese vernaculars. Of course, it may not necessarily be 文言文, but that would mean the development of another 漢文 standard, and that would be even more unlikely.

The already popular use of English. Let’s face it: the type of people who will most likely travel from one country to the another are likely to have high paying jobs, which would most likely presuppose that they have received high levels of education, including years of English instruction.

Actually, the event that led me to come up with this idea was when I met a Japanese tourist while travelling in Europe. This friendly gentleman spoke virtually no English, and eventually we ended up communicating with each other by writing 漢字 in his pocket notebook. Of course, we could not write full sentences, just a few short phrases here-and-there. For example, he asked me if I was a "ka-kyo" - I had no idea what he was saying, until he wrote it down - 華僑.

[Language Guy]

Actually, the event that led me to come up with this idea was when I met a Japanese tourist while travelling in Europe. This friendly gentleman spoke virtually no English, and eventually we ended up communicating with each other by writing 漢字 in his pocket notebook. Of course, we could not write full sentences, just a few short phrases here-and-there. For example, he asked me if I was a "ka-kyo" - I had no idea what he was saying, until he wrote it down - 華僑.

Wow, that sounds really cool. It's small experiences like that which really make studying language a truly rewarding endeavor. A little event like that would energize me for the next five years!

[wushijiao]

Actually, the event that led me to come up with this idea was when I met a Japanese tourist while travelling in Europe. This friendly gentleman spoke virtually no English, and eventually we ended up communicating with each other by writing 漢字 in his pocket notebook. Of course, we could not write full sentences, just a few short phrases here-and-there. For example, he asked me if I was a "ka-kyo" - I had no idea what he was saying, until he wrote it down - 華僑.

That's pretty cool. I have another story. Once I was in a bar in Kunming, and I couldn't help but overhear two Chinese guys successfully pick up two Japanese girls using English as their medium.

I see what you mean about communicating using characters. But, I think if massive amounts of Korean and Vietnamese start learning characters, which is a damn good possibility, then it will probably be in order to study today's Putonghua. Maybe in the long run this might facilitate a renewed interest in the people of said country's doing historical research using source documents from their own countries that are written in characters, which might spur on a 文言文 min-revolution.

[Mark Yong]

I'm just curious: What is the current 漢字 literacy level for the average Japanese and Korean high-school leaver or university graduate?

I have heard conflicting feedback about the actual number of 漢字 than the average Japanese adult knows, with figures ranging anywhere between less than 1,500 to as high as 4,000 (which, in this case, would virtually match the average educated Chinese!).

Of course, I am told that the figure is much lower for Koreans, somewhere around 2,000 for a university graduate.

My next question is this: If the average Japanese today can read 3,000-odd characters, and did not study Mandarin at all, would he/she be able to decipher a modern Chinese text, by just relying on his/her existing knowledge of Kanji? (Note that in order to make the scenario more realistic, I said 'decipher', not 'read') For simplicity, we shall ignore the differences between Traditional and Simplified Characters.

Ditto that question for the average Korean.

[gato]

If the average Japanese today can read 3,000-odd characters,

Since there are only about 1800 Kanjis used in modern Japanese, I doubt the average Japanese would be able to read that many characters.

I tried a Chinese text on a Japanese colleague who doesn't know any Chinese a few weeks ago. He said he could he make out the general topic, but couldn't read it.

[HashiriKata]

Since there are only about 1800 Kanjis used in modern Japanese, I doubt the average Japanese would be able to read that many characters.

There's an official list of around 2000 common Chinese characters an average Japanese is taught, but most are likely to know (mainly through reading) a much larger number.

I tried a Chinese text on a Japanese colleague who doesn't know any Chinese a few weeks ago. He said he could he make out the general topic, but couldn't read it.

The main difficulty there is the grammar. Simplified characters also make Chinese difficult for Japanese to decipher.

[Mark Yong]

Okay, let us put this topic to a practical test:

A native Japanese speaker just wrote this sentence to me:

"我思莫如併記英文与漢文"

(In order to prevent bias, I shall not provide any insights regarding the context of the sentence, except to say that we were discussing languages - which, I think, is obvious from the sentence itself! )

I presume the writer is only formally-educated in the Japanese language, with some high school education in 文言問 wenyanwen (as, according to him, is normal in Japanese curriculum).

Can anyone understand the sentence above? For native Chinese speakers, it might be a good idea to try to read it as if it is a 文言文 wenyanwen sentence, not a 白話文 baihuawen one. And for native Japanese speakers, please comment whether the sentence, if read using Japanese pronunciation (whether onyomi or kunyomi) and syntax, makes sense.

[Mark Yong]

I read this article on the Web:

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ek20081007a1.html

It serves to illustrate the point that even in modern times (i.e. without my initial recourse to Literary Chinese), common written vocabulary between the East Asian nations, grounded in 漢字 Chinese characters (whether they may be called Hanzi, Kanji or Hanja) would certainly aid in bridging communication.

[Hofmann]

You're missing the nationalism part. Do you think J, K, V would readily write in Chinese, even if they could?

[xiaocai]

My Japanese friend said most of the time she can get a gist of the articles on Chinese newspapers by just reading the titles and the first few paragraphs. And she also knows some very hard chinese Characters which even I have to think twice before writing. But for Korean it would be much harder I think, because two of my Korean friends can barely write their names in Chinese characters, and they also told me that they don't really use 汉字 on a daily basis.

[renzhe]

I think that learning Hanzi is no longer mandatory in Korea, and their use has been in freefall for the last few decades. So it's hit-and-miss, some people will know thousands, others won't know any.

[Mark Yong]

Hofmann wrote:

You're missing the nationalism part. Do you think J, K, V would readily write in Chinese, even if they could?

You are right. I would not expect the Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese to write in the Chinese language per se (and by that, I refer specifically to Modern Standard Chinese), given that the three countries already have their own established national languages.

What I mean is, wherever common vocabulary exists (be they inherited from Classical Chinese inherited from China, or recently-coined modern terminology that has been imported from Japan into China), it would certainly serve as a means to bridge understanding.

There was a previous entry in this thread that correctly points out the vast difference between the grammatical structure of the Chinese language (S-V-O) versus Japanese (S-O-V). To be clear, the scope of common vocabulary applicability that I am alluding to does not include full sentences.

For instance, if I were to see a signboard in Japan that says 圖書館, I would know that it is a library. Or to stretch it, if I wanted to tell a Japanese speaker than I do not understand him, I could write a simple phrase like "吾不懂日本語, 以漢字筆談會話", and hopefully he can understand what I wrote.

[Mark Yong]

xiaocai wrote:

My Japanese friend said most of the time she can get a gist of the articles on Chinese newspapers by just reading the titles and the first few paragraphs. And she also knows some very hard chinese Characters which even I have to think twice before writing.

Yes, that is precisely my point. Most of the time, newspaper headlines are 'bare-bones', i.e. few or no grammatical particles, only the words required to outline the topic at hand. It is the grammatical particles that differ between Chinese and Japanese, where Japanese makes use of hiragana.

And often-times, the terms used in the headlines are congruent between Chinese and Japanese, e.g. 經濟, 下降, 平均, 挑戰, 會議., so likewise, a Chinese reader may be able to decipher the headlines in a Japanese newspaper (I sometimes do it as an exercise using the Asahi Shinbun).

[Hofmann]

Of course, Vernacular Chinese is out of the question.

I wouldn't be surprised if most Japanese beyond high school level could understand something like "以漢字書汝言." It's harder for a Chinese to read Japanese, as many common terms aren't written in Kanji, e.g. 此處 --> ここ.