Chinese Studies - DeFrancis article on Chinese writing reform - Page 2 -

> Learning Chinese > Reading and Writing
DeFrancis article on Chinese writing reform
Home New Posts

Login: Pass: Log in or register for standard view and full access.





Page 2 of 8 < 1 2 34 > »






gato -



Quote:

The only thing that surprises me, is that the difference in numbers is that big so early on.

Yes, Chinese teachers and parents are slavedrivers. We had to memorize the multiplication table in
first grade, too.



Pleco Software Learn Chinese with our Dictionaries for Palm and Pocket PC.
Learn Chinese in China Learn to speak Chinese 1MonthChinese.com -Mandarin School in China.
Chinese Textbooks Wide range, cheap, varied languages. Also Chinese cartoons, toys, gifts.
Study Chinese in Beijing Affordable Mandarin language courses at BLCU with ChinaUnipath.com.
HNHSoft Dictionary Learn Chinese on Smartphone and PDA with real person's voice.
XueXueXue IQChinese Get beyond the plateau.Take your Mandarin to a new level.
Chinese in Lijiang Short term Chinese study in a beautiful town with a focus on daily life.
MandarinTube Chinese Access to current everyday Chinese language and culture, 24/7.
Learn Chinese Homestay Chinese course, cultural activities & volunteer events in China.
Learn Chinese Online 1-on-1 instant tutoring, diverse courses, native teachers. FREE trial now!
Nihao Chinese Progam Free one-on-one Chinese lesson. Win 5-years of free lessons now!


About Ads (and how to hide them) -- Your message here









yingguoguy -



Quote:

So the Chinese learn more characters the first two years than Japanese children learn during their
first six years.

As a corollary it's worth noting how much more hanzi intensive the standard Chinese exam (HSK) is
compared with the Japanese (JLPT) one.

JLPT
Level 4: 100
Level 3: 300
Level 2: 1000
Level 1: 2000

HSK
Beginner: 1600
Elementary/Intermediate: 2200
Advanced: 2900

(This is right isn't it? Lists A+B for Beginner, +C from Elem/Int and +D for advanced)

Of course it's apples and oranges, but in terms of listening and grammar the HSK Beginner is
nowhere near being between Levels 2 and 1 of the JLPT.

(Actually looked at a JLPT paper yesterday, and was seriously hindered by them writing common
kanji words using Hirigana. Make's my brain hurt trying to read it after studing Chinese all year.)

If I've understood it correctly the Z.T. system Moser describes would be pretty much the
Kanji/Kana mix that Japan has; once children have mastered hiragana they can write anything they
can think, and can add kanji as they learn them to add extra sophistication.
While most Japanese would be against abolishing kanji, as much as Chinese, it also gives them the
choice of writing particularly rare or difficult characters in kana.

It's a pity that hanzi and pinyin don't fit together on the page very nicely, as I've often
thought it would be easier, at least on the foreign learner, to mix new words in an alphabet, with
the more common hanzi, allowing them to focus more on pronounication during the early stages of
learning.










malinuo -

In defence of the Japanese student, one should perhaps point out that a Japanese kanji contains
more "noise" than a Chinese hanzi. A Chinese reader doesn't have to learn several onyomi and
kunyomi for every character. The phonetic elements obviously don't work in Japanese kunyomi. In
addition the phonetic elements are less obvious for the student even with the onyomi. This is
because there usually are several onyomi, and there may be difficulties associating for example a
go-on pronunciation with a kan-on pronunciation for a different kanji with the same phonetic
element.










charlescpp -



Quote:

An 11 year old is already in the 5th grade... I think a 5th grader can read and understand all
non-technical non-classical texts. The intense character learning period is really between 1st and
3rd grades.

an 11 years old student usually knows 1000+ characters, so he can read most novells.










Josh-J -

His conclusions are why I really wish pinyin would die. Sure I am not chinese, so no matter how
much I try and learn chinese I do not have some inate connection with the language - and sure,
pinyin makes learning chinese easier for pretty much everyone.
However my opinion is biased very heavily in favour of retaining characters; not for any
especially logical reasons I suppose, but the idea of pinyin supplanting characters altogether is
something I really don't like thinking about (but of course that means that I do think about it )

I will say that I've only so far read his conclusions, and not the rest of the article; but those
conclusions do seem to make sense, and personally I do think its likely that characters will be
displaced by pinyin or similar actually fairly soon (as in, a generation or something). Not that
I'm an expert of course.
One thing that especially annoys me is that there are other systems (stroke based) that do not use
pinyin and are obviously far more character-oriented. Not only that, but they are pretty efficient
from what I've heard. And yet the vast majority of people use pinyin (since hong kong and taiwan
are not exactly comparable in population to the mainland).
It would be interesting actually to see how much more efficient pinyin input would be if one did
not have to choose from a list of options to get the right characters; obviously if characters
were abandoned altogether this would be unnecessary. But I suppose if I don't want characters
abolished I shouldn't be pointing out benefits

But it seems to me that if the IME most used in the mainland was stroke-based, the potential for
replacing characters would be much smaller. Its such a shame

As a non-chinese outsider I do feel like it should be none of my business, but still I am annoyed
by pinyin's growing use as an actual alternative to characters.










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. But any script reform which depends, not just on changing the
script, but on enforcing a change in writing styles as well is going too far, is it not? It is
straying into an area that does not really belong to the subject of script reform per se.










djwebb2004 -

Another point, can anyone here read the Chinese written in the Soviet Dungan script at
http://www.pinyin.info/readings/texts/dungan.html? This is the template for the Victor Mair/De
Francis thesis, but I would argue that it is not a good advert for their cause. In the case of the
word for tobacco mentioned half way down, the Dungan word "khanyan", which is 旱烟 in Chinese
characters. But the Dungan dictionary has to explain the word to the Dungan readers, but saying
"this khan means dry". In other words, in the end, understanding a pinyinized script in Chinese,
you are still linked to characters and their meanings. The dictionary has to tell you, "this khan
is 旱 and not some other han".

By the way, an article written all in pinyin in honour of John De Francis is at
http://www.sino-platonic.org/pinyin_text/hanzi.pdf. This article violates the Mair/De Francis idea
that Chinese could be written in pinyin **without tonemarks** just as Soviet Dungan is. If that's
true, why does this PDF have tonemarks?










self-taught-mba -



Quote:

This article violates the Mair/De Francis idea that Chinese could be written in pinyin **without
tonemarks** just as Soviet Dungan is. If that's true, why does this PDF have tonemarks?

look at your words again:


Quote:

This article violates the Mair/De Francis idea that Chinese could be written in pinyin **without
tonemarks** just as Soviet Dungan is. If that's true, why does this PDF have tonemarks?"

Just b/c it could be doesn't mean that it should be. There is no "violation". And even if the
article is written with tone marks does not violate a position that pinyin could be written
without. Want proof?

1. When's the last time a Chinese person sends you directions or the name of a place written in
pinyin in a text message. They never indicate the tones, it drives me ape ! I always have to
message back and ask them what are the tones.

2. Similarly if you ask a Chinese person to write down the name for something or a random
sentence, invariably the majority of them will leave out the tones. To them it is so natural. (and
I fear for far too many of them, they get the tones wrong if they try. I see it all the time. Then
they turn to their colleague and ask "2nd or 3rd tone?" Then a shrug and they say well I just know
how to say it. And of course, b/c they had natural aquisition, where it doesn't matter what tone
it is they know if it "sounds right".)

3. Finally, look at the maps and the road signs-- again no tone markers.

I personally think it should be written with the tones, but for the Chinese they really don't need
it. But for poor me: I really do need it and it drives me crazy. Tones benefit us more than them
and I think people look past that. And DeFrancis, Mair, and Moser for all the blame that falls
them for "meddling in the Chinese peoples' language" deserve some credit for that. I think they
realize the Chinese don't really need the tones, so why add that burden for them just because it
benefits the foreigners.? So I think that refutes what many believe that they just want it
tailored for us outsiders (who really need pinyin tone marks)

On to your second point:

Can you actually read the article? Maybe not it is Soviet Dungan not Chinese after all. It is
merely presented as an example to draw "implications" from But anyone who knows Chinese can
obviously read the article with the pinyin tone marks that you linked to.



Quote:

but saying "this khan means dry". In other words, in the end, understanding a pinyinized script in
Chinese, you are still linked to characters and their meanings.

Yes what's the problem with this? Is this no different than if you are to learn the word in
Chinese orally? If you didn't know which gan1 it is you would have to ask and they would simply
link it to another word that you know like da4 bian4 gan1 zao4 (constipated).

In fact listening to Chinese oral conversation you constantly have them linking to something else
whenever a new word is introduced or to remove ambiguity.

And actually the same is true for some people that learn English by learning the roots of words.
(Or for native speakers expanding their vocabulary) "Is the sub in submarine the same as that in
subversion or substandard etc..." (very basic example but you get the point)

In fact, when I expand vocabulary for people I have taught I often use the root of words and link
them in English. Really no different. The root of an English word is a piece, just like a
character is a piece of a multi-character word. Having to explain the pieces by linking it to
other words in which they are used is not necessarily a bad thing (either way understanding is
reached) and one that I would proffer helps to reinforce previously learned words and expand
vocabulary at the same time.










atitarev -

Apart from difference between Chinese and Japanese usage of kanji/hanzi, I think learning Chinese
in China is more disciplined and focused on actually learning to read them as quickly as possible,
there's little distraction. There is some inconsistency too, as a lot of words are often spelled
both in kanji and hiragana, the latter is easier to read and write, of course but then you don't
remember when it's written in kanji.

In Japan it's easy to fall back to hiragana and there is a lot of material available with a
phonetical guide in hiragana - eg. comics. In China pinyin is not as popular as pure hiragana
texts (or kanji and hiragana next to them) in Japan, so it's more difficult for kids and foreign
learners to find such readers but as I said before, you have no choice but learn characters and
you'll feel the benefit immediately.

I already took part in the language reform possibilities, I don't think it takes you anywhere. I
just think it's possible but for many reasons it's very unlikely to happen. Besides, this topic
seems to irritate native Chinese speakers, so I'd give it a break.










self-taught-mba -



Quote:

I already took part in the language reform possibilities, I don't think it takes you anywhere.

Oh but I think it can. Once you realize that Chinese can be done without the characters it has
vast implications for the 30 million people trying to learn the language worldwide. It dispels the
myth that you must know characters (I knew about 2000 words before I first learned a single
character). Not only does this make the language more accessible to current learners, it opens the
door of possibility and strengthens the appeal to the rest of the people that are interested but
are unwilling because they're intimidated by the characters. Thus it can possibly help to
perpetuate and spread the appeal and popularity of learning Chinese by removing barriers to
learning.



Quote:

I just think it's possible but for many reasons it's very unlikely to happen.

I agree with this. There's too much Chinese pride attached to it. I think the important part is
demonstrating what can be done and how we can take from that as learners of the language.



Quote:

this topic seems to irritate native Chinese speakers, so I'd give it a break.

Yes it does irritate them. As I mentioned before just remind them that Mao wanted to eliminate the
characters altogether

Furthermore, why stymie academic discussion and engage in self-censorship just because they don't
like it? Especially here?

I read of a professor from another country (I don't remember which but I want to say India)
advocating for English reform particularly in regards to spelling. After seeing the perfection of
pinyin I tend to agree. The fact of this professor was from another country does not invalidate
his theory that the rules of spelling in English need to be simplified less "random" and with
fewer exceptions.

If someone has made it their life's work to study a particular topic and has the qualifications,
where they come from should not matter.
Have you ever met foreign professor of American history or Western culture or English for example?
I guarantee they know more about it than the average American or us will ever know. Should we tell
that person that they have no right to comment on Western culture or English language issues?
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"???

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












All times are GMT +8. The time now is 04:32 PM.














Learn Chinese, Learning Mandarin, Learning Materials, Mandarin audio lessons, Chinese writing lessons, Chinese vocabulary lists, About chinese characters, News in Chinese, Go to China, Travel to China, Study in China, Teach in China, Dictionaries, Learn Chinese Painting, Your name in Chinese, Chinese calligraphy, Chinese songs, Chinese proverbs, Chinese poetry, Chinese tattoo, Beijing 2008 Olympics, Mandarin Phrasebook, Chinese editor, Pinyin editor, China Travel, Travel to Beijing, Travel to Tibet